All third-party coffee certifications are not equal. I’ve touched upon this idea before, most recently in How Many Labels are Too Many Labels. I think it’s a point that bears repeating, and some critical examination, too. To our good fortune Coffee & Conservation is doing both, by digging deeper into some of those certifications. They’ve recently offered a closer look at two labels that certify shade-grown coffee — Rainforest Alliance, and the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center’s “Bird Friendly” mark — and found that not all shade is equal, either.
[T]he criteria having to do with vertical stratification — the number of layers of vegetation and the leaf volume in each — are critical components for preserving a rich mix of species. Many ecological studies support the key role of structural diversity (sometimes referred to technically as floristic heterogeneity) in increased biodiversity — of many types in many ecosystems well beyond the realm of coffee growing.
— Coffee & Conservation
If that’s a little hard to follow, then the pictures and tables you’ll find at Coffee & Conservation will help. ;)
For more, Intelligentsia’s RoastMaster Gerneral, Geoff Watts, has written a thoroughly accessible piece on the subject. In particular he compares and contrasts shade-grown certifications with Intelligentsia’s own Direct Trade model.
Too many of the programs marketed as “solutions” are really just patchwork attempts to fix historical mistakes and seek immediate gratification without trying to rebuild the system from the ground up in a way that can be enduring and self-sustaining. At their worst they involve a lot of moral posturing without providing a great deal of benefit to anyone except a handful of consumers who can feel better about themselves without having to work very hard or think too much to do it. Transparency is the key…delivery of facts and details with clarity (and documentation).
— Geoff Watts
I think Geoff finds it difficult to set aside his disenchantment with third-party certifiers — a point of view that’s understandable, as Geoff himself visits Intelligentsia’s coffee origins far more than any certifier I know. But for every Intelligentsia there’s a hundred other roasters who don’t have the wherewithal to visit origin with the same frequency, if at all.
For those roasters, third-party certification is the standard-bearer. So it’s important that we all — roasters and customers alike — understand just what those standards are.
August 21, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Just to clarify, the criteria for Rainforest Alliance certification are more comprehensive than requiring shade. The certification focuses on sustainable farm management and has environmental, social and economic components, including ecosystem, soil and water conservation; wildlife protection; integrated crop management; dignified working and living conditions for workers; access to healthcare and education for farm children. Ecosystem conservation is one of the organization’s 10 principles of sustainable agriculture. Within that principle, to earn certification, farms must establish a conservation program that includes the restoration of natural ecosystems or the reforestation of areas within the farm that are unsuitable for agriculture. The program must include the establishment and maintenance of shade trees for coffee if the farm is located within a forest ecosystem.
August 21, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Hi, Gretchen!
And welcome to the conversation. ;)
I know that it’s easy to tend toward oversimplification in order to make the scope of various certification systems accessible to the consumer. At the same time, I think it’s critical to do just that — to make it accessible, and transparent — so that folks purchasing coffee in the corner coffee shop or in a retail store understand how certifications differ.
It’s my understanding the the Rainforest Alliance label combines environmental and social criteria. On the ecological side is isn’t quite so strident as the SMBC “Bird Friendly” label — which is only ever paired with Organic certfication — and on the social equity axis it’s not quite so ambitious as the Fair Trade label — which is only offered to democratically run grower cooperatives. On the other hand the Rainforest Alliance has the opportunity to certify a larger base of coffee growers, many of which would not otherwise qualify for *any* third-party certification, and so would not have any particularly compelling reason to set stretch goals for either ecological or social equity concerns.
There is one area, however, where I perceive — rightly or wrongly — a “gap,” if you will. It relates to how the Rainforest Alliance label is applied to finished goods packaging, and I hope that you might clear up any misconceptions I may have.
As I understand it, the Rainforest Alliance label is to be used only on coffees or coffee blends that have a minimum 30% certified coffee as part of that package. This is significantly different from other certification compositions. For example, Fair Trade labeling is to be used only on packages of 100% Fair Trade coffee, and I believe the SMBC’s Bird Friendly label has the same 100% requirements. Why would the Rainforest Alliance choose such a radically different labeling practice?
Further, I’ve recently noted at least one prominent coffee roaster — and a Rainforest Alliance partner — that uses the Rainforest Alliance seal on packaging that has no Rainforest Alliance certified coffee in it at all. To their credit, they don’t directly suggest that the coffee inside *is* certified, but instead use the seal as they might any cobranded partnership. I would think that such a use of the seal might be construed as misleading… that it implies that the coffee in that package is certified. At the very least, it’s certainly confusing for coffee consumers, and I’d imagine dilutive of the efforts of the Rainforest Alliance program.
Thanks again, Gretchen, for stopping by, and I’ll look forward to your reply!
Best,
-deCadmus
August 31, 2007 at 4:58 am
I was waiting to see if Gretchen (who works for Rainforest Alliance) would respond again. I have posed the same questions to them, Yuban coffee from Kraft. Gretchen replied that
the RA strategy is based on continuous improvement and scaling up over time. “We choose to work with big companies such as Kraft as well as the smaller specialty coffee and food companies because this is where we can make the greatest positive impact,” and “The fact that we have changed the way a large and influential coffee company does business is a big step in the right direction. And even more important is how Kraft’s commitment to buy that much certified coffee is making a difference on the ground.” I’d like to see some hard data on that, especially from a biological standpoint.
My question as to where the remaining 70% of the coffee in the 30% RA-certified Yuban comes from and how it is grown remained unanswered. I still don’t see that in the long run it makes a great deal of sense environmentally (or socially) to encourage consumers to buy from a company whose practices overall contribute to the problems RA is trying to solve.
August 31, 2007 at 9:39 am
Gretchen followed up with me via email, asking for more information about the coffee roaster I’d referred to, above. To be fair to her, I should note that I was delayed in replying to her email, so I’m not surprised that she hasn’t yet responded.
I’m optimistic she’ll be along presently.
September 4, 2007 at 10:16 am
Hi Doug,
All of the K-Cups you refer to contain certified content. The cups only have additional stickers if their content is less than 100 percent certified. The stickers serve to specify the percentage of content that is certified. The cups that do not have additional stickers contain 100 percent certified content and therefore don’t require a sticker specifying the percentage.