Certifications / Rainforest Alliance

More on the purity of certified coffees

My post, “When is 100% not 100%“? — regarding the amount of non-certified beans allowed in 100% Rainforest Alliance certified coffee — generated a lot of interest. Rainforest Alliance posted a comment, to which I replied. RA responded to my questions, and a Fair Trade representative (from TransFair USA) also chimed in, clarifying their position.

Now I’d like to post the comments of Robert Rice from the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center (SMBC), the developer and guardian of Bird-Friendly certified coffee:

There seem to be two issues here regarding product purity: one with purity at origin and in manufacturing; the other with reduced percentages for marketing purposes that are stated on the package or end product.

I can certainly appreciate Abby’s statement about wanting to be honest with respect to the consumers. And I agree that there are situations or organizations with which the 100% stipulation could be difficult to meet. But this, to me, instead of accepting and allowing a more relaxed standard for product purity, is all the more reason to insist upon 100% purity along with a strictly controlled audit trail.

No one I know necessarily expects fraud along the chain, but history is a stern teacher. We know from recent years that cooperatives (and estate farms, too, most likely) have sent off quantities of “certified” organic coffee that far exceeded the production capabilities of the organization. The rule for organic was 100% purity–at least at the farm gate–and there are cases in which a coop lost its organic certification and the director lost all credibility with the coffee industry. A more notorious and egregious case occurred at the consumption end with “Kona” coffee in California, where Panamanian beans were re-packed as Hawaiian. Someone went to jail on that. Where money is concerned, it’s a challenge that we all confront with certified coffees. But there are also ways to address such behavior, such as sanctions, suspensions or expulsion.

Like organic and fair trade, SMBC has a audit trail and rules about separation of BF product that get addressed via inspection. While no one would claim such systems are fool-proof, a stated purity of 100% works to encourage the best efforts at keeping the “all or nothing” standard intact for all concerned, and realizing it as best as possible at the consumption end.

Stating up front that you’re going to allow 90% purity to leave the farm and allow that to be considered 100% can only work against you in the long run. If you’re expecting 10% “leakage”, then you may well get that much leakage on your 90% rule–and perhaps even more, given that those at origin know you’re not expecting 100%. It simply puts you in a difficult position from the start.

RA’s allowance for different percentages of the final product (i.e., Holiday Inn’s coffee carafes with the 30% RA certified labeling) is altogether another matter and is understandable from the marketing and getting-the-word-out perspective. SMBC doesn’t allow it, but we understand the reasoning behind it. But such statements on end-consumer packaging–where assumptions by consumers are made about what a certification mark implies–are distinct from the leakage allowance at origin/manufacturing/packaging.

As Julie stated in her blog, if only 90% is the purity level at origin and then again at manufacturing, a consumer could well be drinking a “certified” product that is only 81% pure. And if that is then used to create an acknowledged 30% certified coffee, you’re down to less than a quarter of the product being certified.

Our feeling is that if a certification mark is going to represent whatever it is that it states it represents, then strict standards and enforcement need to in place. In discussing this issue with many people, I’ve found that those who are concerned about environmental and/or social issues and look for such seals expect nothing short of 100% purity. We would all do well to work toward that high-water mark. By holding everyone along the commodity chain to the highest standards possible can we create reliable, credible coffee products that we can truly say link conservation to the market place.

Birds and other biodiversity / Know Your Coffee Birds series

Know your coffee birds: Baltimore Oriole

The beautiful Baltimore Oriole (Icterus galbula) is a familiar summertime sight across eastern North America (as is its western counterpart, the Bullock’s Oriole, I. bullockii; the two were once considered the same species). Their cheerful whistled notes and distinctive bag-like hanging nests are characteristic of woodland edges, open areas with scattered tall trees, and mature suburban neighborhoods. The brilliant orange and black plumage of adult males (young males, females, and juveniles are all duller) make the Baltimore Oriole one of the most colorful and arresting species of songbird in North America.

One reason these orioles are so beloved is that they are easily attracted to feeding stations which offer grape jelly or oranges sliced in half. Baltimore Orioles are also conspicuous in spring and early summer as they feed on the nectar and pollen of the blossoms of flowering trees. Although during most of the nesting season they feed on insects, as do most songbirds, it is this affection for fruit and nectar that hint at the habits of orioles on their Latin American wintering grounds.

Trees in the large genus Inga are popular shade trees in Latin American coffee farms. They are fast-growing, evergreen, easy to prune, and fix nitrogen in the soil. While their overuse generally does not benefit biodiversity if they are planted at the expense of a variety of other trees, Ingas do have wildlife value. They produce an abundance of flowers in the dry season (our winter) to which many birds are attracted. Nectar and pollen are important food sources for birds during the dry season, when fewer insects are available.

The nearly ubiquitous presence of Inga on coffee farms almost always assures the presence of Baltimore Orioles on these farms in their wintering range as well. In fact, surveys in Chiapas, Mexico found more Baltimore Orioles in coffee farms containing Inga than in farms with more extensive tree cover or in mature forest.

In areas where coffee farms have been converted to sun coffee, Inga-shaded farms have become important refuges for orioles as well as other species. Small flocks of Baltimore Orioles, working their way through coffee farms in the mid-canopy of Inga are a frequent sight from Mexico through Central America. Other flowering trees that are often grown as shade trees in coffee farms, such as Erythrina and Gliricidia, are also visited by orioles and other birds. Many of these trees are pollinated only by birds and provide farmers with fuelwood and fruit in addition to shading their coffee. A fine example of the interconnectedness of coffee, shade trees, birds, and people in Latin America.

Top oriole photo from Wikimedia Commons, bottom by JimGuy, used with permission; map by Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Birds and other biodiversity / Research on coffee growing

Research: Andean shade coffee quality habitat for birds

Bakermans, M. H., A. C. Vitz, A. D. Rodewald, and C. G. Rengifo. 2009. Migratory songbird use of shade coffee in the Venezuelan Andes with implications for the conservation of the cerulean warbler. Biological Conservation 142:2476-2483. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.05.018

Most studies of birds in shade coffee have concentrated on numbers, species composition, and foraging dynamics, but none has looked at whether birds using shade coffee improve in body condition during the winter months. Body condition is strongly correlated with annual survival, and thus a crucial metric.

This study took place in Venezuela’s northern Andes near La Azulita in the state of Merida. This region is not very well represented in the literature (either coffee-growing or bird ecology research), yet it is an important wintering site for many North American bird species. These include various flycatchers and thrushes (Contopus and Catharus sp.), and a number of warblers including Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea). This species, which I have written about before, has declined an estimated 83% in the last four decades. The shade coffee farms examined ranged from 3 to 5 ha with 38 to 63% canopy cover. Nearby primary forest was also included in the study.

The four most common North American migrant species found, all warblers, were American Redstart, Blackburnian Warbler, Cerulean Warbler, and Tennessee Warbler. These species were three to fourteen times more common in shade coffee than in primary forest, even when detectability was factored in (because coffee farms are more open, birds can often be easier to detect, which would introduce bias if not accounted for).

Body condition was measured using various parameters in the five most common species of birds captured for banding in the shade coffee farms. Body condition improved over the winter for three species, including Cerulean Warblers, and was maintained in the other species. Nearly 30% of the individuals of the 15 species of migrants banded were recaptured, meaning they stayed in the coffee farms for prolonged periods of time throughout the season. These are all indications that the shade coffee provided quality habitat for these species.

In addition, 65% of Cerulean Warblers banded the first winter were recaptured or resighted the next winter, a remarkable return rate. Faithfulness to wintering sites is advantageous in that birds are familiar with resources such as food and cover, which can improve survivorship. However, it is also quite risky for birds wintering in areas experiencing high rates of habitat loss. Venezuela has seen nearly 40% of its shade coffee converted other types of agriculture — the authors state that they witnessed several shade coffee farms turned into cattle pasture during the two year duration of this study.

Just noting the sheer numbers, or even diversity of birds, in a particular habitat doesn’t tell the whole story. They may be present, sometimes only briefly, depending on the availability of resources in the larger landscape. This study not only showed that migrant birds were very common in shade coffee even in a region with primary forest, but also demonstrated site fidelity and improvement in body condition — adding  a critical component to the story of the value of shade coffee.

Cerulean Warbler photo by Petroglyph under a Creative Commons license.

Bakermans, M., Vitz, A., Rodewald, A., & Rengifo, C. 2009. Migratory songbird use of shade coffee in the Venezuelan Andes with implications for conservation of cerulean warbler Biological Conservation DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.05.018

Certifications / Rainforest Alliance

When is 100% not 100%?

[Note: as of 2020, Rainforest Alliance has updated its labeling requirements and now requires 90% certified beans in order to carry the seal.]

Non-certified beans allowed in coffee labeled as 100% Rainforest Alliance certified.

Product labels are a tricky thing. Marketers use all sorts of colorful language to entice consumers to buy their products. The extent of regulations governing the truthfulness of product labeling depend on the product and the country.

A fine example, the one I harp on here all the time, is the label “shade-grown coffee.” There is no legal definition of the term “shade-grown.” Therefore, this label can be slapped on any coffee, including coffee grown in the sun, or from farms with only a few shade trees This might be done out of either ignorance or a desire to capture the market (see more on this here), because these coffees usually carry a price premium.

Enter third-party certifications, which are designed to reassure buyers that the coffee they purchase is grown under particular standards and conditions, verified by an outside organization. The two “eco-certifications” for coffee which include shade criteria are Smithsonian Bird-Friendly and Rainforest Alliance. Smithsonian Bird-Friendly certification deals exclusively with shade growing methods (it also requires organic certification), while Rainforest Alliance certification includes less rigorous shade criteria (quick comparison here), as well as standards relating to other aspects of farm management.

Smithsonian Bird-Friendly: What’s in the bag
When you buy coffee with the Smithsonian Bird-Friendly (BF) seal on it, 100% of the beans in the bag came from a BF-certified farm, or certified portion of the farm. Period.

Rainforest Alliance: What’s in the bag
When you buy coffee that carries the Rainforest Alliance seal, it may contain as little as 30% certified beans. The amount should be specified on the bag; an example from Caribou’s house blend is shown here. The mere fact that this is allowed (especially for large roasters like Kraft) is disconcerting to many people, consumers and roasters alike. But at least the amount is disclosed on the packaging.

If there is no minimum content indicated on a package of coffee that carries the Rainforest Alliance seal, that is intended to mean that all the beans in the bag come from Rainforest Alliance certified farms. Sometimes the package or advertising even reiterates that the contents are 100% certified beans. However, there is a little problem with this.

Rainforest Alliance: When 100% might actually equal 81%
I learned at the Coffee Conference I attended last fall that packages labeled 100% Rainforest Alliance certified can actually contain much less than that without disclosure to the consumer. This is because players at both ends of the coffee supply chain are allowed to mix in up to 10% non-certified beans without penalty.

This information came directly from a Rainforest Alliance representative. It was in response to a question from a Rainforest Alliance certified coffee farmer who attended the conference. He asked if producers could mix in a percentage of beans from non-certified parts of their farms, and if so, how much. The Rainforest Alliance rep responded that she thought it would be up to 10%, the same amount of non-certified beans roasters and retailers are allowed to mix in their products.

Therefore, a package of Rainforest Alliance certified coffee, marketed as and believed by the consumer to contain 100% RA-certified beans could conceivably only contain 81% certified beans (if the roaster/retailer mixed in 10% non-certified beans into a shipment from a producer that only contained 90% certified beans, 90% * .90 = 81%).

I hate to rip on Rainforest Alliance, as I think they’ve done some great things for sustainable coffee. This, however, is not one of them. Many roasters I’ve talked to think that the “30% rule” tarnishes a great certification, confuses or misleads consumers, and indicates too much concession to corporate interests. Although most coffee people I’ve discussed this with don’t agree with them, Rainforest Alliance at least has their rationale for doing this. The additional 10% “slop” allowance, though, seems to defy explanation. It’s not permitted for coffee labeled 100% organic or 100% Bird-Friendly. If a coffee carries a 100% seal, it should contain 100% certified contents. That seems pretty simple to me.

(UPDATE: Please read the comment section — it includes a reply from Rainforest Alliance as well as my response and that of a TransFair representative — and my follow up-post which in there is a lengthy reply from the Smithsonian Bird-Friendly folks.)