Evaluation of Sustainability

Introduction

2.4 billion pounds of coffee are sold per year in the United States of America, which accounts for 93% of the world's consumption [10]. 360 species of birds migrate to breed in the USA, many to the lower elevations of the Cascades mountain range in the North West [10]. As Seattle (where Starbucks was founded) is considered to be the 'coffee capital of the world' by many and, partly because of disappearing garden bird numbers - there is much concern over the environmental consequences of their 'passion' in that area - thus the springing up of organisations such as the Northwest Shade Coffee Campaign [5], the Song Bird Foundation [7] and Starbucks "preferred supplier programme", which was launched in 2001. All of these helped to bring the public's attention to shade-grown coffee and there are many coffee houses and/or coffee roasting companies in that area, around America and throughout the world, which claim to sell/use sustainable shade-grown coffee.

The website I have chosen to evaluate is:

http://www.goodcoffeeonline.com/

What is sustainability?

The Rainforest Alliance [2] states simply:

"Sustainable farms have minimal environmental footprints";

and the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center [6] suggests:

"Sustainable coffee is produced on a farm with high biological diversity and low chemical inputs. It conserves resources, protects the environment, produces efficiency, competes commercially and enhances the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole";

while Jungle Tech [9] answers the question of "what is sustainability in the coffee trade", as:

"We define sustainability as participating in coffee trade that meets and exceeds the costs of living for all parties involved, while responsibly using the environment so that future generations' natural resources and income sources are not destroyed."

Evaluation

There follows the 6 criteria, agreed by our tutor group, against which to evaluate the claims of sustainable coffee, made by my chosen website. The Good Coffee Company only sells coffee which is certified by the Rainforest Alliance [2]. The beans are grown on farms in Guatemala and El Salvador [3], which have been certified by the Rainforest Alliance, meeting the strict criteria set down. The certification program is managed by the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN). [1]

Have models been obtained for all key indicator species prior to commencement of exploitation to estimate sustainable yields?

Although this criterion is not fully answered by the Rainforest Alliance's "Sustainable Agricultural Network Generic Coffee Standards" document [1], section 9.1.2, under 'Planning', demands, "Prior to the implementation of new operations, processes, production systems or expansion into new areas, an evaluation of the social and environmental impact of these changes must be conducted". Many of the farms in Guatemala and El Salvador, which are certified by the Rainforest Alliance, have always produced shade-grown coffee and are now enlarging and improving their farms. As local, indigenous people are involved, who have been exploiting this way for many years, it would be surprising if the criterion were not fully implemented, but because of the unsurety, I give 3/5 for this criterion.

Is there ongoing monitoring to ensure that harvesting rates which are less than or equal to replacement rate, are being adhered to?

There is no specific mention, in the Rainforest Alliance's criteria [1], apart from a generalised standard on monitoring. 9.2.1 "The producer must implement a system to monitor social and environmental impacts. The complexity of the system is determined by the magnitude and intensity of the production systems and the on-farm and neighboring natural resources".. However, as coffee has generally traditionally been cultivated beneath shade trees on these farms, and that the prime objective is sustainability, it is highly probable that this criterion is covered. 4/5

Is there ongoing monitoring to ensure that the change in composition and flow rates within the ecosystem's geochemical cycles are within predefined sustainability limits?

Section 8.3 of the SAN standards under "Soil Conservation" [1], states "Soil Management: Farm management practices must promote the conservation and recuperation of the soil's fertility, quantity of organic material, biological activity and structure" (which will be monitored as per section 9.2.1). Although agrochemicals are permitted, they are strictly controlled and limited and farmers are required to continually reduce their use. They are also required to implement Integrated Pest Management with regards to pesticide use. The need to use both artifical fertilizers and chemical pesticides will decline as the shade cover is increased (thus providing mulch as a natural fertilizer) and birds return (thus keeping down harmful insects). It is unlikely, therefore, that geochemical cycles will be disturbed.3/5

Do assessments include adjacent ecosystems and the possibility of the effects on distant ecosystems, ie atmospheric pollution, including CO2, chemicals carried away by water courses etc?

I believe that this criterion is covered by section 9.2.1 (Monitoring) of the SAN standards [1], as above. Additionally, it is recognised that trees sequester carbon and, even on farms which have traditionally cultivated coffee under shade canopies, areas are being reforested. Additionally,

• vegetation along the banks of rivers, ravines etc are being reforested or conserved
• public roadsides are being reforested
• the use of fires to clear and/or control unwanted vegetation is prohibited
• all waterways are monitored regularly - pollution and contamination controlled
• all waterways must be protected by buffer zones.

See also section 7 of the SAN standards [1], "Conservation of water resources". I believe that this criterion is fully met. 5/5

Are there up to date records, preferably independently verified, that past variations from sustainability, as defined by the range of biotic and abiotic factors previously given, have been detected and effectively corrected?

It is the intention of the Rainforest Alliance and their certified farmers to increase shade-grown coffee production as a means to address past variations from sustainability due to deforestation, such as loss of migratory bird species, water pollution and soil degradation. It follows, therefore, that past variations from sustainability have been detected and are being effectively corrected. Also section 9.2.2 of the SAN standards [1], states, "The monitoring and evaluation system must be periodic and able to produce sufficient information for the revision of the farm management plan if needed." 3/5

Does the exploiting organisation operate in accordance with a regularly reviewed 'sustainability code', which includes the whole range of impacts of its operation, both environmental and social?

I believe that this criterion is fully met.

• ecosystems and wildlife are conserved
• farmers must adhere to waste management plans; reducing, reusing and recycling wherever possible (including water usage)
• water resources are conserved and protected
• soils are conserved
• there is fair treatment and good conditions for farmers, workers and their families
• good neighbourliness towards nearby communities is promoted.

See also, sections 3 (Fair treatment and good conditions for workers) and 4 (Community relations) of the SAN standards [1].

In addition, the company itself claims to use responsible methods of recycling and reusing materials in its manufacturing processes and administration procedures.

5/5

Conclusion

Rating System

The total score for the website evaluation is 23 and, using our tutor group rating system, this score "shows evidence of meeting several of the criteria".

Endpiece

Even although Good Coffee has been certified by the Rainforest Alliance, which uses strict criteria to establish sustainability, it has still not been easy to clearly evaluate the website against all of the tutor group criteria to establish true sustainability. Given that most of the other websites, claiming that the coffee they sell is sustainable shade-grown, do not hold a Rainforest Alliance certificate, it would be extremely difficult/impossible to judge sustainability in most cases - even although the majority of website companies are acting in good faith. Perhaps even worse, there is one Canadian site (www.beantrends.com) which has a glittering, all action website, claiming to be spearheading "North America's Sustainable Coffee Movement" and is certified by the Rainforest Alliance. On closer inspection, however, it is revealed that only one of the blends offered for sale from the site, is certified by the Alliance!

Summary

Introduction

References and links