Fairtrade vs Rainforest alliance?

blackbird

Hi,

In your opinion which is the best system to use and why? and do you feel they are having the desired impact on coffee / cocoa other industries etc? or do you think that they systems are making the money and just adding another step in the middle?

Is fairtrade or rainforest alliance products more marketable and which one has more cred with the consumer?

Thoughts

Brett H

Wow, what a can of worms you've opened here.  I have an Uncle in-law whose job it is to source beans for his Church. I pointed him to the sponsors here but his church's committee's first priority was fair-trade above all else!  I can't offer any opinion on either other than my first priority is taste.  I feel that my fund-raising at work and donations probably add up to more per annum than a levy on my green beans anyhow.  I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.  My only caveat is that if I know or find out a product is hurting someone somehow to produce it, I'll try to side-step it... naturally.

blackbird

Id like to know what people think?

mycuppa

Firstly, and please don't be offended, but does it really matter what people think ? Humans support causes for individual reasons and beliefs - some programs are social, other are ethical or sustainable, so they are intended to build support for these initiatives by tapping into a conscious. Our company has been certified and licensed in both the RAINFOREST ALLIANCE and the FAIRTRADE systems for many years and we actively participate in both programs via the sourcing, roasting and sale of certified, traceable RA and FT coffee products. In the next month we will have completed our first Direct Trade sourcing. This is a growing practice by roasters building relationships with farms (there are a variety of different terms used). It may also assist in the farmer receiving a better price for his crop as the roaster is prepared to pay a decent premium for quality coffee. Some may think it's just roasters trying to bypass brokers. In our case it's not - we love that bean and we can't get good access to it without dealing direct. Remarkably, we are paying the same price ! The general population is more aware of the FT objectives compared to RA due to active marketing by FLANZ (FT Licensing Org for AU and NZ). Another reason being FLANZ is located here in Melbourne and they have an office with 6 or so staff (I might also add they rely a lot on volunteer labour/assistance). In comparison, RA is run primarily from New York and their local country presence is lower profile, relying more on the end-retailer to "beat the drum" on the benefits of RA and generally run about 1 or 2 industry events a year. Through our mycuppa store, I see the sales of FT compared to RA being about 50:1, perhaps higher. People are specifically setting out to select and purchase the FT products whereas I believe that RA products are more often than not selected on impulse based on the descriptors, etc. In some cases we have companies and religious organizations purchasing FT products as they are complying with an internal mandate (as per Brett's post). I would say we have around 70+ church organisations around Australia buying our FT coffee for their events. Now, what do I think ? FT and RA are programs I support equally with an open mind. As Jeff the person I prefer the RA program as it promotes sustainable agricultural practices designed to ensure the farmer is managing their land effectively. I also like the aspect that some (many) RA certified farms also have diverse crops that are complimentary to coffee growing and introduce initiatives such as shade-grown, bird-friendly, etc. My OH (The Little One) prefers the FT program as she is more socially focused. As mycuppa the roaster, I prefer the RA program due to the consistency of supply. In fact I buy tons of RA beans each month to use in my mainline blends that I don't place RA stickers on - because I really, really like those beans a lot. This creates a situation where my purchases of RA to FT are the inverse of actual sales. FT crop availability is at best a 3-4 month proposition - there are a few exceptions (Sumatran Gayo Supreme as an example, because it's used as the inflight coffee on an airline !). To understand why sourcing of FT green bean is haphazard , you have to realize that FT is a selection program whereby the farmer attempts or offers up his crop in the hope of being selected for the FT channel and subsequently will receive a guarantee minimum price per kilo. The farmer may be unsuccessful in the FT channel and then resorts to the traditional co-op clearance. This creates situations where small lots are sourced and for a roaster when we like a bean and want more of it in a few month time, it's not available. It's been the same for many years. I have some private thoughts on the FT commercial levy that I will not share on a forum. I encourage people to research both programs more thoroughly before making up their mind on what each program offers and please don't rely on a 5-second glimpse or a few ill-informed statements that tend to circulate within internet forums about how these programs are just money making marketing schemes.

Koffee_Kosmo

There is another program that helps farming communities as a whole & To work with coffee-farming families to improve their lives and livelihoods. Its called Coffee Kids I support this organisation through my participation in another forum http://www.coffeekids.org/aboutus/ KK

askthecoffeeguy

I used to be a FT man trough and through and I've experienced first hand the benefits to the growing community that FT coffee can bring by speaking to farmers from Peru and PNG who are FT certified and I think FT deserves to be commended for drawing our attention to the plight of the farmer but consistency is a problem as some commentators have suggested that FT does not necessarily promote good agricultural practiseor enshrined quality control - and good FT coffee is hard to find - however I applaud the efforts of Jasper coffee in melbourne for their dedication to stocking and promoting FT coffee and they're coffees (at least the ones that I have tried and I used to rub with their PNG Okapa SO as my house 'blend' while I was at Melbourne Uni and I believe I was the first one to both stock FT AND to run with a SO as my main coffee in that environment)  but many speciality coffees are produced organically and harvested sustainably - which is something that I go to great lengths to tell my customers )should they ask - I'm not interested in bible bashing) but again I'm interested in the complete picture which means its how the individual coffee performs in the cup, combined with a sustainable ethos - which also rewards the farmer for their efforts - and in many instances speciality coffee not only ticks all the right boxes but also rewards the farmer with far more than what FT alone pays P

beanflying

This is worth a read http://www.justcoffee.coop/blog/[user]/2012/01/13/fair_trade_is_dead Both are western marketing feelgood entities and are NOT charitable organisations. Very top heavy with costs with limited direct benefits on the ground in source countries for the money going in. There is absolutely no guarantee of quality of the beans. So the question is why would we bother promoting or using them?

Lacehim

It's not my first priority when ordering beans or buying beans. In my opinion they appear as feel good trademarks to make me want to spend more for a product knowing that my dollars are helping those in need in thirdworld countries. My only issue with these type of approaches are that I don't know how the money is spent, or distributed.  I donate to charities etc on my own terms with a donation after research, ie so that all the donation isn't taken up with admin fees.  When I buy beans for my coffee I buy because I want to dry different regions/flavours etc. Just more marketing hype that we don't need, but keeps some muppet in a job pushing paper and earning money for doing sweet F.A.!  Next thing you know maltersers will be fairtrade!  Oh, silly me that's already happened!  :rofl:  http://www.just-food.com/interview/sustainability-watch-mercedes-tallo-rainforest-alliance_id116845.aspx

FreshCoffee2

Yes Jeff we have the same feelings on this and have been down similar paths. I personally prefer to use RFA as it is a much simpler system to use, and they dont try to shove their politik down my throat and of course, there is continuity of supply of some very very good coffees. That said we deal with both, and we sometimes get Utz coffee as well depending on what we require. If you left it to the consumers there really wouldnt be all that much coffee turned over (resulting in less advantage to the coffee farmers), and we have subsituted a great deal of RFA coffees into our blends over the years without even telling the clients, so it is more to do with roasters using the coffee in real terms (if it meets their requirements) than consumer driven demand....if the growers are to get any real advantage. Breaking it down to lowest common denominator, if the coffee is what we need for our blends and SO's, and it meets our strict quality requirements, and there is little to no BS involved in dealing with their organisations, and we can keep the price reasonable, then we can use it for all to benefit whether consumers even know or not.....the more BS a roaster has to go through, or the more fluctuation in continuity of quality and supply, the less likely they are to use in all their roasts, the less real advantage to the farmers. As an aside. A week ago I travelled and stayed in a fully serviced unit. In the freezer I found 2 open packets of ground fair trade brand coffee....OPEN...in the freezer...indefinite period....quality? This is the trouble with marketing hype.....you market how wonderfully ethical it is for consumers to demand, buy and use "ethical" products, the consumers feel good, even when they just dont have a clue..... And as to organisations decreeing that only Fair Trade brand will be purchased......what about the other organisations that werent lucky enough to jump on and register the "Fair Trade" brand name before anyone else did? RFA and Utz are just as FAIR TRADE as fair trade brand. Makes it hard to deal with people, they dont believe that coffees coming through the other orgs are also FAIR TRADE, but they wont give you the biz unless it can be called fair trade. So you register with FT...... Politics politics politics. Buy whatever coffee you enjoy and dont worry about what others think.

MoffeeCoff

Some would argue that the fair-trade model itself is flawed, and that Rainforest Alliance offers a better solution to help coffee farmers escape the poverty trap. The root of the problem is that coffee prices have plummeted, due to a glut of coffee coming on to the market over the past 10 years.

mycuppa

on 1329733125:

Some would argue that the fair-trade model itself is flawed, and that Rainforest Alliance offers a better solution to help coffee farmers escape the poverty trap. The root of the problem is that coffee prices have plummeted, due to a glut of coffee coming on to the market over the past 10 years.

I'm not sure if the stats you are using are entirely correct. We have just experienced a rise in coffee prices over the last 18 months that saw the C-index peak at levels untouched in the last 20 years. This was caused by a few factors, chiefly among them global shortages in washed arabicas. There are still many origins where demand outstrips supply. Despite Brazil having a good crop, the price for quality Brazils at the moment is through the roof and way above the 10-year mark. Colombian coffee is still trading at a very high premium and has for almost 2 years since the onset of extraordinary wet weather and fungus attacking crops. In the case of Colombia, you are talking about the world #3 (about to be eclipsed by Ethiopia). There are a number of origins where sourcing remains difficult - just look at Sumatrans, they are ridiculously high priced at the moment because there is a 15% shortfall and I can name other origins where there are some issues affecting supply. Another key factor in coffee pricing is the cat-and-mouse game played between buyers and sellers. Seller sit on stock seeking higher prices and buyer sit on their hands looking for lower prices. These sort of plays cause unnecessary poverty traps for farmers more than any social or sustainable programs. I don't agree there is a glut of coffee on the market - particularly quality stock. Demand for quality coffee has driven the change in farming practices and the focus of farmers who are becoming better informed about how to achieve higher prices in return for improved quality. Market regulation 10 years ago was perhaps more volatile than today - there are additional trading controls that attempt to balance the wild swings in pricing. Farmers get caught in poverty traps by large global buyers coming in paying cheap prices for 2-3 years worth of crops. They also get caught because there has been a distinct lack of available capital since the GFC for farmers to borrow against their cash crops.

plantation_coffee

Im probably going to create a little controversy here and friction too by saying that I really think FT & RFA are both a bunch of crooks , the term organic is being exploited to the hilt. I was born and raised in South Africa , 90% of farmers couldn't afford and still cant afford pesticides , plant growth stimulator's like giberellic acid all they basically rely on is nature to provide for their living. So if we were to say one origin is organic but the farm next door isn't hasn't that simply got to do with paperwork and $ ? If 90% of all coffee coming from 3rd world nations is produced using nature and labour then is it not all well and truly organic? These organisations are fooling us all with their marketing just to grab a bigger slice of market share , causing false demand and restricting supply inevitably to monopolise on commodity trade and reap rewards of raised profits both at the front door and the back door. I visited my homeland two years ago and things are still the same I invite you to correct me if am wrong Cheers Shaf

plantation_coffee

Hit the nail on the head there AM in terms of? are these farmers actually getting their cut and their subsequent justification of how much that 5% or 10% is worth to them. In terms of taste I have tasted both RFA and FT , of which I have tasted some magnificent blends and so too have I tasted rubbish, compare that to 'non organic beans and the results are comparable. As a roaster, I have found greens that are organic no different except that sometimes you get dud beans affected from insects having damaged the bean , id have to say they would be throwing away a lot of those if there sticking to such protocols on farm. ? If that would affect supply/demand. IMO RFA or FT there about the same

mycuppa

Whilst everyone is entitled to their own opinions, there is already way to much "PROGRAM BASHING" plastered all over the internet by people who only have a limited or basic understanding of the definitions and purpose of the various ethical, sustainable or social coffee programs. Whilst this is not a shot at you Plant. C., there continues to be this trashing behavior by individuals that have never, ever, ventured outside of their comfortable life to visit a coffee farm, or who don't understand the entire system or see both sides of the fence - people take supreme joy taking cheap pot-shots at what their negative views suspect "might" be going on with no facts or verified information. Organic, RFA, FT and Direct Trade are all different initiatives that should not be confused or bundled up as attempts to extract marketing $$ from roasters and end-consumers. I have been to 4 coffee plantations at origin. Only 1 of them was Organic and I was literally blown away by the practices and processes used by the farm and the compliance requirements imposed upon them by the USDA. It is naive to expect an Organic, FT, RFA or DT bean to be in any way superior to a program-labelled bean - the premium you pay for the program bean does not mean it translates to cup quality. People should also be aware that in some of the programs, e.g. FT.....some staff are volunteers who work unpaid because they have a very solid belief of the benefits of their program.

FreshCoffee2

on 1331310538:

.........the term organic is being exploited to the hilt......90% of (S A) farmers couldn't afford and still cant afford pesticides , plant growth stimulator's like giberellic acid all they basically rely on is nature to provide for their living. So if we were to say one origin is organic but the farm next door isn't hasn't that simply got to do with paperwork and $ ? If 90% of all coffee coming from 3rd world nations is produced using nature and labour then is it not all well and truly organic?....

Coffee produced on "small holdings" rather than coming from plantations is generally referred to as being "native coffee" and it is generally understood by the buyers (ultimately us) that these coffees have been subject to more "organic" methods of fertilisatrion and pest control rather than having been subject to mass chemical intervention. That however doesnt mean that any of it can be called "Organic" by definition, which requires stringent application of usually, USDA regulations and testing by the relevant approved bodies. Consider this as a very simplistic example. Native grower X has a small holding of coffee trees and uses only "organic" agricultural methods. His ground water could however be in a direct line down the hill from where his big neighbour Plantation grower Y is situated. Therefore his ground water is already "contaminated" with residue from any pesticides and fertilizers his neighbour may be using......and therefore will not pass any organic certification testing.... As stated very simplistic, but clear enough. We do from time to time buy "native coffees", usually from New Guinea, and it depends on the quality of the beans not whether they are Organic by definition or whether they comply with anyone's particular brand of fair trade koffee politik  Hope that helps.   

plantation_coffee

Totally agree with you Fresh Coffee , I reckon this is the kind of info we need out there yes- very straight forward process for certification at the farm level. there is that misconception of FTA / RFA /USDA organic beans are better than non organic and of course you are going to have those religiously attached to them I also think that there is a lot of good that comes out of the purchase of Organic certified coffee being advantageous to both farmer and in terms of crop quality for the buyers (us) I agree 95% of our industry professionals don't know anything about what goes on in the farms of the third world nations- personally I have visited a couple of plantations in the north of Malawi and also had the privilege to have visited a couple of tea plantations at the Mozambique/Zimbabwe border in the east. And of course the countless other farms on the journey to and from. Some of which are owned and run by British settlers whom established themselves decades ago and whom employ the native Africans for labour. A lot of the farms are owned and run by Africans that altogether take their crops to their local commodity marketing board for sale and subsequent export to the first world consumer nations. I quite like the idea of "small holdings" supply , I wonder if we have such an organisation that's a govt organisation in charge of controlling money being paid to exporting nations for their crop of coffee and to basically ensure that they are receiving most of the money that is actually due to them. I also wonder if it is possible to set up a "small holdings" commodity board in every country. either way I hope that with every kilo of greens I buy that the farmers got a fair go on their end because essentially they are really the ones whom we all rely on in our multi million dollar coffee industry. I think id love to do some kind of direct trade in some years to come with farmers from my homeland Malawi