There are several "sustainable" certification labels that appear on coffee. I love coffee, but what do all those environmental coffee labels mean? Is one certification better than the other? When choosing coffee that is reported to be more sustainable than conventional coffee, what should we pay attention to? Thanks to a graduate student of mine (Gloria Lentijo), who worked on biodiversity projects with coffee farmers in Columbia , we have some descriptions of different certification programs.
USADA Organic Certification
Aims to promote and enhance natural soil activity and cycling of resources, which helps to create a rich and fertile substrate for the crop and maintain ecological balance by prohibiting use of artificially produced (synthetic) agrochemicals. Growers must develop procedures to ensure only coffee from certified plantations is harvested, and because most coffee is harvested by hand, containers or bags used during harvest must be clean: they cannot previously have contained or been treated with prohibited substances. Certification agencies not only monitor organic standards during production but also during processing and handling to avoid contaminants coming from sanitizers or chemical products. Although it is not a certification criterion, organic coffee is usually grown with some sort of shade because farmers need the organic matter from fallen leaves from shade trees to fertilize the coffee plots. Organic sun coffee (where coffee bushes are exposed to direct sunlight and no shade trees are used) can be grown, but it is very expensive for farmers to buy the organic matter needed when it cannot be produced on the farm.
Fairtrade Certification
Fairtrade is defined as "an alternative approach to conventional trade that aims to improve the livelihoods and well-being of small producers by improving their market access, strengthening their organizations, paying them a fair price with a fixed minimum, and providing continuity in trading relationships." Fairtrade certification is granted to farmers' cooperatives or associations and not to individual farmers, and premiums are usually invested in projects that benefit the entire community, such as improved schools, clinics, and roads, as well as environmental projects. This certification does not require a specific farming production type, and coffee can be certified Fairtrade whether it is organic or not, whether it is sun coffee or grown under the shade of trees. This certification program does encourage shade and sun coffee farmers to use more environmentally friendly integrated pest management and other sustainable practices like growing tree fences and herbaceous plants to prevent soil erosion or reduce water contamination from coffee processes. For both sun- and shade-grown coffee, the use of harmful agrochemicals is prohibited.
Rainforest Alliance Certification
With this program, coffee is grown on farms where forests, rivers, soils, and wildlife are conserved and workers are treated with respect, paid decent wages, have proper and safe equipment, and are given access to education and medical care. This certification requires that coffee is grown under the shade of trees, but it does not require organic certification. However, it does promote an integrated pest management approach of using smaller amounts of less-toxic synthetic agrochemicals. The criterion for shade is fairly strict in this certification program: it requires at least 12 different native species of shade trees per hectare (or 2.47 acres), and the foliage cover must be at least 40 percent and form two layers to better mimic the differing canopy layers formed by natural forest trees.
Bird-Friendly Certification
The Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center (SMBC) gives this certification to farmers in order to promote shade-grown organic coffee plantations that can play a key role in the conservation of our global environment and of migratory birds that find sanctuary in these forest-like plantations. Bird-friendly certification was one of the early environmentally oriented certification schemes for coffee and helped to establish the environmental standards now used by other certifications. It emerged as a response to the studies showing dramatic declines in North American migratory bird species, which were correlated to the shrinking wintering habitats for these species in the tropics. These studies showed that shade-grown coffee plantations in Central and South America were important refuges for migratory birds. The criteria for shade in this certification program are more detailed than those of the Rainforest Alliance program. Bird-friendly certification requires at least 11 species of canopy trees per hectare and the main canopy must be at least 40 feet tall. Additionally, the production area must have at least a 40 percent foliage cover that forms three forest layers, and the coffee must be organic certified (check detailed certification criteria here).
Starbucks C.A.F.E. Practices
C.A.F.E. (which stands for Coffee and Farmer Equity) evaluates the economic, social, and environmental aspects of coffee production in order to ensure that Starbucks's sources of coffee are sustainably grown. Starbucks collaborated with Scientific Certification Systems (SCS), a third-party evaluation and certification firm, to develop the guidelines for the program. C.A.F.E. guidelines focus on four areas: (1) high quality; (2) economic accountability, which means that Starbucks suppliers must submit evidence of how much of the final price paid by Starbucks gets to the farmer; (3) social responsibility that guarantees safe, fair, and humane working conditions; and (4) environmental stewardship, which means that farmers manage waste, protect water quality, conserve water and energy, preserve biodiversity, and reduce agrochemical use. C.A.F.E. insists on extremely high quality standards, both for beans and for the finished, brewed coffee. Although this certification prefers shade-grown coffee farms, sun coffee farms are allowed when environmental conditions are not appropriate for shade-grown coffee. Standards for shade in this certification are not as strict as the Rainforest and Bird-friendly programs. For example, for farms that have shade trees, this certification requires that at least 40% of the coffee production area of the farm have shade trees, and that at least 75% of these trees must be native.
Follow Mark Hostetler on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Mark_Hostetler
The biggest issue in fair trade these days is that Fairtrade USA (formerly Transfair) split from the international alliance of fair trade organizations to go it alone and allow fair trade certification for plantations and unorganized associations of farmers working through market access partners (the former totally opposed by fair trade cooperatives and the latter taking us back to potential abuses by exporters and middlemen-the very "market access partners" that were the reason for fair trade in the first place!). CAFE should just stop pretending - period. That program is about getting high quality coffee for Starbucks, not about the environment, not about workers rights and certainly not about paying high prices to farmers.
It is really sad how well intentioned efforts to protect the environment and support working families have been captured by branders, large corporations and middlemen to put a happy face on business as usual and fool consumers into complacency.
However, I believe the Fairtrade certification mentioned in the article specifically refers to the Fairtrade (FLO) system (the one FTUSA left), which for coffee is still exclusive to democratic associations of small scale farmers driving real social and environmental progress in their communities.
Products certified under the (FLO) Fairtrade system are available in the US, and it remains a viable option for people wanting to support democratic coffee coops through their purchases.
A simple example. RA states that workers are treated with respect and paid decent wages. That sounds good, but doesn't have a lot of meaning. "Decent wages" for agricultural workers in Guatemala, for example, are around fifty cents a day, the national minimum wage (the standard used by RA). I have never met a farm worker in Guatemala who would agree that these are decent wages. In fact, seasonal farm workers in Guatemala and many other coffee countries are exempt from social security and other programs (great incentive for the farm owners to hire and fire seasonally so that they don't have to pay in to the national funds). Further, several workers have reported to me that they get paid for eight hours but are forced to work a lot longer.
I don't mean to pick on RA, which has done a lot for environmental standards in the coffee world. I think the biggest issue these days with all of these certifications is "turf". RA should stick to what it knows, environmental standards, and not pretend to be doing anything wonderful for workers.
See next comment for the remainder of my thoughts.
Thanks Dean for your objective comment. As you could see in my previous post, I work as a researcher in the Colombia Coffee Research Centre. We have done some work comparing economic and environmental (e.g benefits for biodiversity) effects of RA certification. Although not published, some of these studies have shown that RA certification is brings some benefits for farmers and biodiversity. However, as you said, "devil is on the details", and when you start looking closer, you start finding several things. As the premium for being certified depends on the demand, sometimes certified coffee is sold as conventional (as certified coffee supply is still higher than demand). Also, when international coffee prices are high, differential between certified and conventional coffee is reduced, implying that premiums diminish or disappear. So, certified-farmers' efforts (which are a lot) are sometimes not recognized. We agree in that we would need a book to document what is going on with certifications across the coffee countries as each one is different and with unique conditions. But I think this needs rigorous research. Several researchers have done evaluations on certifications, especially on FLO (just search on google scholar).
I found the following references very interesting:
* Lyon, S. 2006.Migratory imaginations: The commodification and contradictions of shade grown coffee. Social Anthropology. Volume 14, Issue 3, pages 377–390.
* Lyngbæk et al. 2001. Productivity and profitability of multistrata organic versus conventional coffee farms in Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems 53: 205–213.
* Bitzer, V. et al., 2008. Intersectoral partnerships for a sustainable coffee chain: Really addressing sustainability or just picking (coffee) cherries?. Volume 18, Issue 2, May 2008, Pages 271–284.
And you can check also http://www.dgiovannucci.net/publications.htm to get some ideas on international coffee trade and sustainability.
In conclusion, I believe coffee certifications, sustainability and trade is a very wide issue, and as I said earlier, is not a white and black one.
The only shade grown certification is that of the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center. If shade is important to the consumer, the only seal that validates shade is SMBC's bird friendly.
The following is a link to the RFA standards for anyone who wants to see them -
http://sanstandards.org/userfiles/file/SAN%20Sustainable%20Agriculture%20Standard%20July%202010.pdf
There is an “important error” in the comment above. Rainforest Alliance (RA) does require coffee to be grown under shade, but not everywhere in the world. This is not a black or white issue.
RA certified coffee is required to be grown as an agroforestry system with shade trees in areas of the world where the original cover was forest (e.g. the Andes). In other areas, like the Cerrado region of Brazil, where the original natural vegetation was not forest but savannas, sun coffee farms can be certified, but (and there is a big “but”) farms must have a “compensation area” dedicated for conservation (check criteria 2.8 of the Standard). In countries like Colombia, sun coffee farms can be certified, but farmers need to commit to a plan to plant trees within 5 to 6 years, to establish the agroforestry system.
The Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center (SMBC) does require coffee to be grown under shade, and its requirements are very strict in terms of tree density, diversity, and cover. That of course, has positive potential effects on biodiversity conservation, especially in areas where the original tree cover has been greatly reduced. However, since the shade reduces the amount of incoming solar radiation, it is not an economically viable agricultural option everywhere in the world. Especially in areas where the cloud cover is high.
Two other comments can be made about RA certification criteria and its potential effects on conservation. First, having the possibility to be adapted to natural conditions, instead of being inflexible, can make the RA certification more attractive to many more farmers. Second, although RA certification does not give as much weight to shade as the SMBC does, it does include many other criteria that have positive effects on the environment and biodiversity, as well as farmers and workers.
According to the July 2010 issue of the Sustainable Agriculture Standard (RA standards), it is stated that certified farmers need to have:
“General Compliance:
In order to obtain and maintain certification, farms must comply with at least 50% of the applicable criteria of each principle and at least 80% of the total applicable criteria of the Sustainable Agriculture Standard (page 8)”.
“completely comply with a critical criterion in order for the farm to be certified or to maintain certification” (page 8).