Certification process in the coffee value chain. Achievements and limits to foster provision of environmental services

Full text

15
Certification Process in the
Coffee Value Chain
Achievements and Limits to Foster
Provision of Environmental Services
Gabriela Soto and Jean-François Le Coq
Introduction
Various mechanisms have been promoted to foster the provision of ecosystem
services. Product certification is one of the most promising and developed
instruments to reward the socially and environmentally friendly practices of
market producers.
This strategy started with organic production and Fair Trade, but in recent
years has grown to a wide variety of certification labels, with the coffee sector
experiencing the largest development. Before and during the coffee crisis of
2000 to 2003, different labels emerged, such as Smithsonian Bird Friendly
coffee, Rainforest Alliance, Starbucks CAFE practices (Coffee and Farmer
Equity practices), Utz Kapeh (now Utz Certified), the Common Code for
Coffee Community (4C) and recently Nestlé’s Nespresso AAA label. This trend
is not unique to the coffee sector; similar certifications are being developed for
sustainable cocoa, pineapple, cattle and palm oil. This strategy is growing and
proving an important potential in changing how our food is produced.
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 319

With more years of implementation, the coffee sector offers a wide
perspective to analyse the achievements and limits of this strategy in fostering
environmental services. This chapter describes the development of the certified
coffee market and the characteristics of the different certification strategies
within Central America. We then review their achievements and limitations in
promoting ecosystem services, particularly related to biodiversity conservation,
and their reported socio-economic impacts. Finally, we propose areas of
improvement to increase their potential as a tool to foster the provision of
ecosystem services in the region.
Origin and Development of
Sustainable Coffee Labels
There are three stages in the creation of sustainable coffee labels that explain
the differences in objectives, methods and impacts. The first phase is linked to
the global development of organic and Fair Trade (Fairtrade Labelling
Organizations, or FLO, certified) production. This phase experienced
exponential market growth during the 1980s, but did not enter into the Latin
American coffee sector until the early 1990s, and it gained strength during the
coffee crisis of 2000 to 2003 (Ponte, 2004). The second phase incorporates the
development of labels with a biodiversity protection focus, during the late
1990s, such as the Smithsonian Institute Migratory Bird Centre’s Bird Friendly
certification and Rainforest Alliance’s Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN)
(see Chapter 3 in this volume). The Rainforest Alliance label was first well
known in the forestry and banana sectors, and later in the coffee sector. During
and after the coffee crisis, the third group of sustainable coffee labels was
developed, incorporating socially responsible coffee trading companies, such as
Starbucks CAFE practices, Nespresso AAA, Utz Kapeh (now Utz Certified),
promoted by Ahold (a collaboration between a supermarket in The
Netherlands and coffee farmers in Guatemala), and 4C (a joint effort between
coffee trading and producer organizations) (see Figure 15.1).
Organic production and Fair Trade initiated the awareness process of a
consumer willing to fund the required changes at the farm level, in order to
ensure a greater supply of ecosystem services and to improve producers’ quality
of life (Raynolds, 2002; Loureiroa and Lotade, 2005). Through these two
labels the basis for third-party certification was also developed (Ponte, 2004).
Organic certification was launched in Europe and the US under the leader-
ship of organic farmers and alternative consumers groups and associations,
such as the Soil Association (England), Naturland and Bioland (Germany) and,
in the US, the California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF), the Organic
Growers and Buyers Association (OGBA), the Organic Crop Improvement
Association (OCIA), Oregon Tilth Certified Organic (OTCO) and Florida
Organic Growers (FOG). In 1991, both Europe and the US enacted laws
controlling the marketing of organic products (EU Regulation 2092/91 and US
Organic Foods – Farm Bill Act 1990) because of the increase in public interest
320 FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE: TALES OF SUCCESS AND LESSONS LEARNED
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 320

in organic products. In 1999, the United Nations published the Codex
Alimentarius for organic production. Among the sustainable coffee labels, only
organic production has standards with legal status.
By 2000, the organic and Fair Trade coffee market was widely developed in
large part due to the development of consumer consciousness and a legally
established guarantee system. According to a Coffee Sustainable Survey of the
US Coffee Specialty Industry, by the year 2001, 66 per cent of the coffee roast-
ers sold at least one brand of organic or Fair Trade coffee and 77 per cent
thought that the overprice of US$0.59 to $0.69 per pound of coffee was
suitable (Giovannucci, 2001). But it was the coffee crisis that was the impetus
of all coffee certifications (see Figure 15.2). The production of organic, Fair
Trade, CAFE practices, Rainforest Alliance and Utz Certified coffee grew
among farmers due to the better prices and the lower perceived risk (Ponte,
2004; Giovannucci and Potts, 2008). A survey conducted in 2010 showed that
16 per cent of all coffee entering the US market is certified, with an important
primacy of Starbucks coffee, with around 2280,000 bags of 46kg in 2009.
Rainforest Alliance and Nespresso AAA, although with a smaller volume, are
showing the greatest average growth in the last four years (74 and 70 per cent,
respectively) (Giovannucci, 2010).
Growth and development of coffee labels in Central America
In Central America, as in the rest of the world, organic and Fair Trade lead the
way in coffee-sector certifications. Organic coffee was promoted by non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) with a history of supporting agroecology
CERTIFICATION PROCESS IN THE COFFEE VALUE CHAIN 321
Figure 15.1 World coffee prices and development of sustainable
coffee labels over time
Source: chapter authors, using information from ICO (2009)
* New York Board of Trade
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 321

in co-operatives or small farmers’ associations, as well as by foreign producers
based in the region with strong ties to the US and European Union (EU)
markets (Britt Coffee in Costa Rica in 1994, OCIA Chapter in Guatemala in
1996, etc.). Organic and Fair Trade production grew exponentially in the
region during the coffee crisis and was an important strategy to support
farmers in overcoming the coffee crisis (Lyngbaek et al, 2001; Ponte, 2004;
Philpott et al, 2007; Cárdenas, 2008).
Fair Trade certification development was linked to the European market
and funding agencies, such as Ebert Foundation and the Consortium of
Cooperatives of Coffee Growers (COOCAFE) from Guanacaste and Montes
de Oro, one of the pioneers who started marketing Fair Trade coffee in 1989
(Ronchi, 2002). The impact of Fair Trade certification in overcoming the coffee
crisis was also crucial. Farmers with organic and Fair Trade labels were able to
sell coffee at much better prices than conventional coffee (see Table 15.1).
Other labels, such as Rainforest Alliance, Starbucks CAFE practices and
Utz Certified label, also grew rapidly during and post-crisis in Central America
(see Table 15.1). Not all countries in Central America were able to differentiate
between the amounts of exported speciality coffee as the Instituto Hondureño
del Café (IHCAFE) could for Honduras.
322 FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE: TALES OF SUCCESS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Figure 15.2 Coffee certification growth in the world market,
1997–2007
Source: chapter authors, using information from ICO (2009)
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 322

Strategies of Sustainable Coffee Certification
This section presents the characteristics of the various existing certification
systems and analyses their limits and opportunities to foster ecosystem services
(ES) provision.
The success of certification as a strategy to increase the supply of ecosystem
services on farm depends on the different components of the certification struc-
ture:
• the objective and content of the standards that determine the level of inten-
tionality towards ES provision;
• the certification structure which affects the liability of the requisite compli-
ance control, its costs and the degree of access for farmers; and
• the market recognition that determines the economic incentive for the
farmers’ effort (investment) to comply with the normative and provide ES.
Certification must not only ensure service provision, but promote the
profitability of the certified activity, such as coffee production. Thus, each
component has the challenge of achieving a balance between these two main
objectives: guarantee the ES provision for consumers’ trust, and guarantee
farmers’ access and profitability. For example, the standards should be strict
enough to guarantee the ES provision, but not so strict that farmers would not
comply. Inspectors’ farm visits should be sufficient to guarantee standards
compliance, while maintaining affordability for the farmer (see Table 15.2).
The objectives and content of the standard
We analysed the standards in terms of objectives and contents, and discussed
the implications in terms of potential effects on ES provision.
Objectives
It is important to understand that ecosystem services provision is not always
the priority for all sustainable coffee standards (see Table 15.3). Specific labels
CERTIFICATION PROCESS IN THE COFFEE VALUE CHAIN 323
Table 15.1 Honduras speciality coffee exported (volumes and sale prices)
from the 2005–2006 harvest
Coffee seal Volume Average price
(bags of 46kg) (US$/bag)
Organic 40,479 132.7
Utz Kapeh 17,578 105.8
Fair Trade/organic 10,395 138.2
Rainforest Alliance 9052 112.3
Fair Trade 8185 129.3
Organic/Fair Trade/Rainforest Alliance 2317 150.0
Source: IHCAFE (2006)
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 323

focus on social priorities rather than environmental, such as Fair Trade, while
other certifications put more emphasis on ensuring that coffee quality meets
their niche market requirements, such as CAFE practices and Nespresso AAA,
who only certify coffee produced 800m above sea level. Seals are sometimes
developed to promote the use of a baseline for sustainable coffee production
(such as 4C).
Nevertheless, consumers do not perceive differences among labels, but
maintain the perception that every sustainable coffee label guarantees environ-
mental protection, appropriate social conditions and a fair price for farmers.
324 FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE: TALES OF SUCCESS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Table 15.2 Challenges of the certification structure to guarantee the
ES provision, farmer access and profitability
Standard Ecosystem services (ES) Producer: Facilitate access and
component provision increase revenues
Standards objectives Guarantee the provision of ES. Enable cost-effective productivity.
and contents Promote a farmer strategy of
continuous improvement.
Standards compliance Guarantee equal compliance to Adapt to local conditions.
control structure: the standards in all regions and Be respectful of farmers’ traditions
accreditation body, among all farmers and farmers’ and practices.
certification body organizations. Ensure that costs are accessible for
and inspectors Maintain a reliable guarantee farmers.
system that is transparent for Keep costs accessible to national
consumers, buyers and and international agencies (these
governments. costs will eventually be transferred
to the farmer).
Market recognition Establish prices according to the Provide market prices (premiums)
ES provided. that compensate for the required
Give preference to products investments and the decrease in
providing more ES. productivity.
Ensure stable prices, which will give
confidence to the producer for
long-term investments.
Table 15.3 Main objectives of the different sustainable coffee labels
Label Environment Social Cup quality1
Organic + + + + + –
Smithsonian Bird Friendly2+ + + + + –
Fair Trade3+ + + + + –
Rainforest Alliance + + + + + + –
Utz Certified + + + + –
Starbucks CAFE practices + + + + + + + +
4C + + + + –
Nespresso AAA + + + + + + +
Notes: 1 Organoleptic characteristics. 2 Organic certification required. 3 In 2008, Fairtrade Labelling
Organizations (FLO) added a detailed section on environmental standards.
Source: authors, based on interviews with auditors and certified co-operatives
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 324

Many labels have widened their scope of action to face this challenge, such as
Fair Trade’s environmental standards improvement or Rainforest Alliance’s
inclusion of climate change standards.
Content and design process of certification standards
Certification criteria vary among the different labels based on their objectives
and the scope of standards. Some certifications are generic for all crops, while
others are specific to coffee, allowing a greater degree of precision in aspects
such as shade (see Table 15.5). Thus, organic, Fair Trade, Rainforest Alliance
and Utz Certified are not coffee specific, whereas Smithsonian Bird Friendly,
Starbucks CAFE practices and 4C are coffee specific (see Table 15.4).
The technical support behind each of the standards is also variable and
depends on when the standards were developed and what methods were used
to develop them. The first versions of the organic standards were written
during the 1960s and 1970s by farmers and consumer associations in Europe
or the US. These standards were later voted into the International Federation
of Organic Agricultural Movements’ (IFOAM’s) General Assembly, with
participants from around the world. While these methods were very democra-
tic and participative, ecosystem services technical data was limited. In contrast
to this strategy, the Smithsonian Bird Friendly seal developed its standards
based on scientific data of the impact of coffee intensification (Rice, 1999)
upon migratory bird behaviour in the Mesoamerican coffee landscape
(Greenberg et al, 1997a, 1997b). As a result, these coffee-specific standards
have a clear objective for a defined region. Bird Friendly seal research has since
become the template for defining new criteria for other standards.
Variability of contents and possible practices regarding
ES provision
Since shade structure and management are directly linked to biodiversity
within the coffee system (Perfecto et al, 1997; Moguel and Toledo, 1999; Mas
CERTIFICATION PROCESS IN THE COFFEE VALUE CHAIN 325
Table 15.4 Basic requirements of sustainable coffee certification standards and
compliance control system
Criteria/ Organic Smithsonian Fair Rainforest Starbucks Utz 4C
requirements Bird Trade Alliance CAFE Certified
Friendly practices
Criteria specific No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes
for coffee
Allow synthetic No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
pesticides use
Transition period 3 years Must be No No No No No
required before organic
certification
Compliance Full compliance Scoring
assessment system system
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 325

and Dietsch, 2004), they provide a good example of understanding standards’
variability regarding impacts upon ES provision. Standards that are not coffee
specific, such as organic, do not mention shade structure in their requirements;
but shade must be implemented to control weeds, promote biodiversity and
manage coffee nutrition within the farm system. On the other hand, standards
such as Smithsonian Bird Friendly clearly define the number of trees per
hectare, the height of the trees and a minimum shade percentage (see Table
15.5).
The lack of shade criteria or the fact that shade is optional within the
scoring system has made it possible to have Utz Certified, 4C, Starbucks CAFE
practices, Fair Trade, organic and Rainforest Alliance certified farms with few
or no shade trees. The implications of this for ecosystem services provision will
be discussed further in this chapter (see also Chapter 3 in this volume).
The scoring system used in Rainforest Alliance, Starbucks CAFE practices
or Utz Certified offers the farmer the possibility of being certified and receiving
consumer recognition (potential premium) at the initial stages of implementing
criteria while improving farm management. Full compliance with the standards
is a requirement to be a certified farm for organic and Smithsonian Bird
Friendly programmes. The scoring system strategy risk comes from the
consumer’s perception of certified farms. Most consumers are not aware of the
326 FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE: TALES OF SUCCESS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Table 15.5 Coffee shade requirements in sustainable coffee labels
Requirement Organic Smithsonian Rainforest Utz Starbucks 4C
Bird Friendly Alliance Certified CAFE practices
Regulation NOP-USDA, April 2002 February Version 1.1 November May 2009;
version 834/2007 2009 January 2009 generic
889/2008 2010 indicators
February
2010
Must have No mention Yes Only for crops If compatible Shade No mention
shade in of shade usually managed with local required of shade
the coffee in agroforestry production where the
plantation systems or in a practices and natural
natural forest considering vegetation
region productivity was forest
Diversity 10 12 – ‘Several species’ –
(number of
species ha⫺1)
Minimum 12 – – – –
height of
main species (m)
Strata 3 2 – – –
Percentage 40 40 – Additional points
minimum shade for 10%, 40%
year round or 75% shade
Native species ‘Top strata’ ‘Preferable’ – Additional points
if only native
species are used
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 326

different standards, which potentially could result in lost confidence when they
see a full sun farm certified as a sustainable farm.
Adaptations of content and variability of certification
application and practices
Some labels have made an effort in adapting standards to regional conditions.
In 2009, Rainforest Alliance hosted workshops to discuss the coffee standard
of each Mesoamerican country, with participation from farmers, co-op techni-
cians, government extension agents and the academic sector, to guarantee that
the standards are adapted to local conditions and to define training issues for
local inspectors.
As a result of this consulting process, some standards were adapted to local
conditions. For example, Rainforest Alliance and Starbucks CAFE practices
define the shade requirement based on the natural growth of the area before
agriculture. Therefore, if the natural growth in an area was forest, shade is
required, but if it was prairie, shade is not necessary. One of the concerns with
this ‘optional and gradient’ standard system is that there is more room for
interpretation by inspectors. Adequate training for inspectors or auditors is
fundamental for the success of the programme. Farmers often complain about
the interpretation variability of the standards pending the inspector’s visit each
year.
The regional standards adaptation process has been analysed by develop-
ing standards committees worldwide for many years. On the one hand,
adaptation has the advantage of considering different biophysical and socio-
CERTIFICATION PROCESS IN THE COFFEE VALUE CHAIN 327
Table 15.6 Components and characteristics of the standards compliance
control structure of sustainable coffee certification
Standards compliance Functions
control structure
Accreditation body Controls the operation of the certification agencies based on ISO 65
and ISO 19011 requirements, as well as each specific standard. The
accreditation body can be a private company or a governmental
institution such as the National Organic Programme of the US
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Certification agency Certifies coffee production and processing based on:
• the farm management plan (FMP) provided by the producer;
• the inspection report, which establishes potential non-compliances.
Inspector verifier The inspector receives a copy of the FMP from the certification
agency. The inspector then visits the farm and/or the processing plant.
A detailed report is sent to the certification agency with the potential
non-compliances observed in the field.
Farmer or farmers’ • Develop a FMP and send it to the certification agency to apply for
organization certification.
• The inspector visits the farm or processing plant.
• A corrective plan of action is developed to comply with the non-
compliances found on the farm.
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 327

D
Table 15.7 Application structures for different labels in coffee certification in Costa Rica
Who? Organic Smithsonian Fair Trade Rainforest Utz 4C Starbucks Nespresso
Bird Friendly Alliance Certified CAFE practices AAA
Defines the National and Smithsonian International advisory committees coordinated by each of the Starbucks in Designed by
standards international Institute of headquarters of these labels collaboration Rainforest
legislation America with Alliance*
Conservation
International
Controls private Governments: Must be They certify Most of the ISO 65 Certify ISO 65 Rainforest
agencies’ activities NOP-USDA** ISO 65 themselves or certification is accredited themselves accredited Alliance
(accreditation) in the US; Plant accredited work in done by agencies; they agencies and
Health and collaboration themselves or also monitor Scientific
Quarantine with other in strategic the certification Certification
Service in certification alliances with agencies Systems†
Central agencies NGOs
American
countries
Controls standards Private Independent Fairtrade Control division Independent Internal Independent Rainforest
compliance agencies or private agencies Labelling of Rainforest private agencies personnel private agencies Alliance
(certification government Organizations Alliance auditors
function) offices (FLO) certified
Rule of Full compliance system Scoring system
compliance
assessment
Notes: †Private company contracted by Starbucks to develop its certification system.
* The Nespresso AAA are not public standards.
** National Organic Program of the United States Department of Agriculture.
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 328

economic conditions of each region; on the other, it could increase the variabil-
ity of implementation and, by doing so, risk losing consumers’ credibility. For
example, a coffee farmer in Central America who invests in shade management
and accepts a decrease in productivity may feel it is unfair to have the same
label as a full sun coffee from the Cerrado in Brazil.
Structures of the Control System
The compliance control system structure of sustainable coffee certification is
critical to the certification strategy because it is the mechanism that gives credi-
bility to the eco-label strategy. Thus, it should be transparent, fair and strict
enough to be trustworthy. Nevertheless, it should be cost effective and adapt-
able in order to ensure farmer adoption. In this section, the different control
structures and their implications in terms of system liability and efficiency are
presented.
The basic structures of the certification control system
Certification’s compliance control system is essentially composed of three main
actors who assume three specific functions (see Table 15.6).
Each label has developed different certification structures from the field
visits selection criteria (see Table 15.7). The fact that organic standards are
enforced by public regulation makes the standards definition a very structured,
open process, relying on government official implementation. However, in
most cases, modifications are difficult and time consuming for all stakeholders,
while private standards are easier to modify.
Differences are also observed in the accreditation system. While organic
certification is mainly government controlled (private accreditations are also
available, such as the Organic Accreditation System (OAS) from IFOAM),
there are standard-setting bodies that conduct the certification themselves,
where accreditation by a third party is not required (e.g. Rainforest Alliance
certification). The advantage of having an accreditation system is that the
division of roles between the standard-setting and standard-controlling bodies
increases the transparency of the process. However, it also increases the certifi-
cation cost. Nonetheless, Utz Certified and Starbucks CAFE practices have
implemented accreditation systems through their regional offices with no
additional cost for the certification agency or the farmers.
Cost control, monitoring and farmers’ accessibility
One of the highest costs in the promotion of ecosystem services through certifi-
cation is compliance inspection and monitoring. The certification process
moves about US$200 million worldwide, from field inspectors and agency
coordination and certification decisions, to agencies in accreditation processes
with governments as well as private agencies (e.g. ISO 65). Sooner or later
these costs are transferred to the producer or the consumer, and have become a
CERTIFICATION PROCESS IN THE COFFEE VALUE CHAIN 329
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 329

growth constraint. Case studies in Costa Rica show high variability in certifica-
tion costs (Moreno et al, 2009) (see Table 15.8), depending on certification
type (individual or group), agency, size of and access to farms, number of
inspection days, etc. The size of the organization (number of certified produ-
cers) is a factor that strongly affects the certification cost per hectare (fixed
costs versus variable costs). In the study sample, we worked with organizations
of different sizes (Coopetarrazú with 2600 producers; CoopeAgri – Fair Trade
certified with 16,000 producers; and associations of organic producers with 15
to 20 producers), which justified the variation in costs per hectare. Surveys
with cocoa producer organizations in Central America reported similar certifi-
cation costs for organic and Fair Trade certification (PCC, 2010).
Currently, many efforts have been made to reduce these costs at the
producer level, including collective certification of small producer groups;
funding agencies supporting small producers to cover certification costs; train-
ing of local inspectors instead of working with international inspectors; local
certification agencies; reducing the frequency of visits; etc. The reduction of
these costs should be a constant quest of the certification programmes
themselves. For example, the Smithsonian Bird Friendly label achieved cost
reduction through its union with organic certification, which enables it to
reduce the number of inspection visits to one for both certifications, to reduce
the frequency of audits from one per year to one every three years, and to avoid
accreditation cost for agencies. Other labels such as Starbucks CAFE practices
and Rainforest Alliance have developed similar efforts. Farmers’ organizations
that adopt multi-certification and a common system of internal control systems
are able to reduce the costs of investment in training, record-keeping, etc. at the
farm level.
330 FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE: TALES OF SUCCESS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Table 15.8 Organic, Fair Trade and Rainforest Alliance certification costs of
eight case studies in coffee production in Costa Rica, 2007
Label Zone Form of certification Coffee area Certification
(ha) cost (US$ ha⫺1)
Organic Los Santos (Tarrazú) Individual 3.5 43.8
Central Valley Individual 56.4 33.4
Pérez Zeledón Association 6.6 12.6
Fair Trade Los Santos Co-operative 4.2 0.7
Pérez Zeledón Co-operative 2.1 0.5
Rainforest Alliance Los Santos (Tarrazú) Co-operative 2.8 11.8
Central Valley Individual 49.7 40.1
Turrialba Individual 675 9.6
Conventional Los Santos Individual 7.1 0
Pérez Zeledón Individual 8.5 0
Source: adapted from Moreno et al (2009)
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 330

Multiplicity of standards and access to farmers
Another difficulty that farmers encounter in the organic sector is to have differ-
ent standards for different markets. The current structure of the organic
market states that no matter where the products are produced in the world,
they must be produced following the standards of the regions where the
products are sold. Producers selling to the US market must meet the NOP
standards (Part 205 of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations USDA), while
producers exporting to Europe must comply with European Union Regulations
834/2007 and 889/2008, and exports to Switzerland or Japan must comply
with Biosuisse or Japanese Agricultural Standard (JAS) regulations, respec-
tively. As a result, producers from exporting countries who want to maintain
their access to diversified markets have more constraints than producers from
developed countries, such as Europe and the US, in selling to their local
markets.
This additive effect of requirements has made farmers feel that the regula-
tions are constantly changing and becoming stricter with time. This was
mentioned as one of the reasons why farmers are stepping out of organic coffee
in Central America (Haggar and Soto, 2010).
Variability of rules of compliance and access to farmers
Another aspect relevant to farmers’ access is the method of evaluation of
compliance. Different labels are currently using two systems: the full criteria
compliance method used by organic, Smithsonian Bird Friendly and Fair
Trade, and the scoring system. In the full compliance system, the producer
must ensure that all requisites are certified. In the scoring scheme, most of the
requisites have a score and a minimum score certifies a producer (e.g. 60 per
cent of the total score for CAFE practices). However, a balance between the
three main topics (environmental, social and transparency factors) is required.
Farmers, for example, cannot have high scores in social issues that will balance
low performances in environmental issues. In addition, there are compulsory
‘critical criteria’. Among these criteria are aspects such as minimum salaries,
child labour, anti-discrimination, etc. This scoring assessment system is used by
Rainforest Alliance, Starbucks CAFE practices, Utz Certified and 4C.
There are two consequences regarding the differences in the assessment
system. First, full compliance systems are stricter than scoring systems and tend
to be more clearly understood by consumers; but the scoring system offers a
more inclusive pattern from the producers’ point of view. It enables facilitation
of a continuous improvement process within the framework of the certifica-
tion, whereas in a full compliance system, farmers have to develop the
compliance by themselves. Second, the existence of various assessment systems
tends to complicate the comparison between certifications regarding their
impact upon provision of ecosystem services; certified farmers with a scoring
system may have a variety of farmers’ practices.
CERTIFICATION PROCESS IN THE COFFEE VALUE CHAIN 331
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 331

Incentives for Certification and Farmers’ Interests
Producers adopt certification for a variety of reasons: an interest in protecting
the environment and family health, access to niche markets, better prices or
price stability, or (as a certified producer said in Nicaragua) ‘I would do
anything not to go through the same anxiety that I suffered during the coffee
crisis.’ But the reason why they decided to become certified does not matter;
they will not remain unless they are recognized for their efforts. We describe
here the modalities of economic rewards to producers and analyse their results
and limitations.
Characteristics of economic incentives
Economic rewards to compensate the certified producers’ efforts take various
forms according to various labels. The common perception is that certification
will lead to a premium over the conventional market price. Yet, the reality is
more complex.
The only certification which establishes a premium as part of the standard
is Fair Trade, which explicitly regulates commodity prices, and obligates
traders to pay a minimum price as well as a premium for development of US$5
to $10 kg⫺1of coffee. No other certification has control over the certified
coffee price. However, some of the labels developed by coffee businesses have
established a reward system. For example, Starbucks gives a one-time premium
to CAFE practices producers who make improvements during the initial years.
Producers of Utz Certified coffee or Nespresso AAA are offered a fixed
332 FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE: TALES OF SUCCESS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Figure 15.3 Price premium for organic certified coffee in Latin America
harvest 2002/2003
Source: adapted from CIMS (2004)
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 332

premium (from US$2 per 46kg for the former, to US$5 per 46kg for the latter,
according to producers interviewed by the authors in Costa Rica in 2007). For
organic and Rainforest Alliance, the premium is an element of price negotia-
tion between producers and traders and, thus, depends on market rules.
Whereas Rainforest Alliance association is constantly and actively promoting
its label with traders and roasters, there is no specific promotion for organic
products. Organic certification agencies are specifically forbidden to do so by
ISO 65 accreditation requirements. Nevertheless, since it is the better-known
label in the market, the premium for organic is usually the largest one (see
Table 15.1 and Figure 15.5). Other labels, such as 4C, do not promote a
premium system. Therefore, the premium linked to certification, with the
exception of organic, is generally very limited in comparison to conventional
price. According to our estimation, in 2007 in Costa Rica, the average
premium level, except for organic, represented between 1.5 and 7.5 per cent of
the conventional price.
A second characteristic of the economic reward is that there is no guaran-
teed reward level. The reward level is variable and depends on offer and
market demand in this market segment and on the price level in the conven-
tional market. For example, the premium for organic/Fair Trade production
was around US$70 to $100 per 46kg compared to conventional production
during the coffee crisis during early 2000; however, it was only US$5 to $10
per 46 kg in 2009 during a high price conjuncture in international markets
(Haggar and Soto, 2010).
CERTIFICATION PROCESS IN THE COFFEE VALUE CHAIN 333
Figure 15.4 Coffee price distribution in the coffee value chain
Source: CIMS (2004) and ICO (2004)
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 333

As the economic reward is linked to the coffee commodity market, the
price of coffee depends not only on certification, but also on other factors such
as quality, technology and organoleptic characteristics, as well as marketing of
the product or how well the region is known (Tarrazú in Costa Rica; Antigua
or Huehuetenango in Guatemala). Thus, the premium reflects not only the ES
provision, but also commercial attributes. Organic producers in countries such
as Costa Rica and Guatemala benefited from better organic production premi-
ums than other countries in the region for their quality and origin of fame. For
example, during the 2002 to 2003 harvest, they received an average premium
of US$70 per 46kg of green coffee, while countries such as Nicaragua and
Honduras received a premium of US$20 to $30 (see Figure 15.3) (Kilian et al,
2004).
334 FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE: TALES OF SUCCESS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Figure 15.5 Organic coffee production (46kg bags) in Costa Rica from 1989
to 2009–2010 harvest
Source: authors based on ICAFE data from 2010
Table 15.9 Evolution of the number of organic producers in Central America
Number of Number of organic Percentage change in
organizations producers in these the total number of
participating in organizations* organic producers
workshops 2004–2005 2009 Between 2004–2005
and 2009
Guatemala 5 1277 738 –42%
Nicaragua 7 2718 2485 –8%
Costa Rica 7 897** 388** –57%
Notes: * Information based on workshops held in 2010 in Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Guatemala. Data provided
by producers participating in the workshops. These are not country averages but averages of the organizations
that they represent.
** Data collected by students from CATIE (Quispe, 2007; Ramirez, 2010). This is a country average.
Source: adapted from Haggar and Soto (2010)
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 334

Another characteristic of economic rewards is no premium guarantee since
certification does not give a guarantee to effectively sell the coffee as certified
coffee. For most eco-labels, it is common that producers have to sell a part or
sometimes all of their certified production as conventional production because
they cannot find a trader interested in the product. This has been particularly the
case for Fair Trade, Utz Certified and Rainforest Alliance during the last few
years since certified production exceeded demand. Indeed the volume effectively
sold as Fair Trade, Utz Certified and Rainforest Alliance at the Central American
level was only 14, 32 and 32 per cent of the certified production, respectively
(authors, based on Kilian and Pratt, 2009).
Finally, the rewards distribution along the commodity chain is not
regulated by the certification standard. Thus, the producers have no guarantee
of receiving the entire premium that the consumers paid for the product.
Indeed, the price premium paid by the consumer is distributed among all of the
actors of the commodity chains. In many cases, the additional price paid by the
consumer is higher than the additional price received by the producers (see
Figure 15.4) (CIMS, 2004).
Economic rewards and benefits for producers:
The importance of productivity
In spite of economic rewards, the number of organic coffee producers in
Central America has suffered a decrease during the last few years (see Table
15.9). Moreover, according to personal communications with leaders of co-
operatives and producers in the region, the producers’ interest in other coffee
labels is also declining. The common reason to explain this tendency is that
economic rewards do not cover the producers’ efforts to comply with certifica-
tion standards. The benefits for producers are a critical factor in the
sustainability of the certification strategy.
Organic certification shows that because recognition for the provision of
ES is paid by quintal of coffee, what is important is not just the premium
received per quintal, but also the number of quintals sold. During periods
when the difference between organic/Fair Trade production compared to
CERTIFICATION PROCESS IN THE COFFEE VALUE CHAIN 335
Table 15.10 Comparison of productivity in organic and conventional
farms in Central America, 2009
Average productivity Average productivity Reduction of productivity
in organic farms in conventional farms between organic and
(quintals ha⫺1)*(quintals ha⫺1)*conventional (%)
Guatemala 10 13 23
Nicaragua 10 14 29
Costa Rica 12 25 52
Notes: * Data provided by producers participating in the organic coffee crisis analysis workshops. There are no
country averages, but averages from the regions that they represent.
1 quintal = 46kg of green coffee.
Source: adapted from Haggar and Soto (2010)
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 335

conventional production was important (e.g. US$70 to $100 during the coffee
crisis years), the producer felt rewarded and the amount of organic coffee
production increased (see Figure 15.5); but during periods of high conventional
coffee prices, the organic or Fair Trade premiums do not pay for the differences
in productivity (as in 2009, where the differential was US$5 to $10). This
reduction of productivity results from the density and management of shade
trees, and the limited use of organic fertilizers.
The differential between organic and conventional productivity is not
equal in all Central American countries (see Table 15.10); countries with
higher productivity in conventional coffee, such as Tarrazú in Costa Rica or
Huehuetenango in Guatemala, are regions where most organic farmers have
already converted to conventional or some other sustainable certification.
Moreover, in areas with recognized quality coffee and high coffee price, such as
Tarrazú, there is no interest in organic production since organic coffee premi-
ums do not compete with the premium obtained for quality.
For other labels, the situation seems less stringent. Although the economic
rewards are lower than for organic coffee, the reduction of productivity when
complying with requisites seems to be less than for organic coffee. For
example, CIMS (2006) shows that in the region, Rainforest Alliance and Utz
Certified coffee productivities ranged from 38 quintals to 40 quintals ha⫺1,
which was comparable to conventional production levels.
Finally, producers’ perceptions are also an important element for the
sustainability of the eco-label mechanism. A survey showed that while produ-
cers’ satisfaction was initially high, it has decreased over time because the
economic reward is less than originally offered (Giovannucci and Potts, 2008).
Impact of Sustainable Coffee Certification upon the
Provision of Ecosystem Services and Farmers’ Welfare
Provision of ecosystem services
The provision of ecosystem services from agroforestry systems has been widely
documented (Schroth et al, 2004; Montagnini, 2006; Jose, 2009), and there is
clear evidence that the two main factors that will increase biodiversity and the
provision of ES are shade tree diversity and distance to forest patches (includ-
ing impact of riparian forest, live fences, etc.) (see also Chapter 3 in this
volume). However, farmers have little control over the organization of the
landscape outside of their farm, so shade management is the area where certifi-
cation could have an impact in improving the provision of ES. But after
reviewing the variability that exists in the shade criteria and in the implementa-
tion of these criteria in the field (see Table 15.5), one may wonder about the
real impact of certification upon the provision of ES. Unfortunately, there is
little scientific evidence which compares the impact of the different seals upon
the provision of ES, with the exception of organic and Smithsonian Bird
Friendly (see Table 15.11).
336 FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE: TALES OF SUCCESS AND LESSONS LEARNED
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 336

CERTIFICATION PROCESS IN THE COFFEE VALUE CHAIN 337
Table 15.11 Studies comparing the provision of ecosystem services in certified
coffee farms in Mesoamerica and Brazil
Ecosystem Indicator Region Certification Main results Source
service
Biodiversity Fruit- Chiapas, Organic, More variation with Mas and Dietsch
and pests consuming Mexico Rainforest Alliance, shade structure (2004)
and disease butterflies Bird Friendly and than with
and forest conventional certification label.
birds Farms with more
complex shade
structures were
more diverse.
Trees, Chiapas, Organic, The ideal for Philpott et al
epiphytes, Mexico Organic + Fair biodiversity is (2007)
birds, ants Trade, standards more
and yield conventional specific to tree
and ‘similar to’ requirements.
Rainforest
Alliance and
Bird Friendly
(no certified
farms in the
region)
Tree diversity Costa Rica Organic, CAFE practices, Quispe (2007)
conventional, Rainforest Alliance
Fair Trade, Rainforest and Utz Certified
Alliance, CAFE no difference in
practices and percentage shade
Utz Certified from conventional.
Rainforest Alliance,
organic and Fair
Trade were different
from conventional
in the biodiversity
of trees.
Ants Turrialba, Organic and Organic farms had Barbera et al
Costa Rica conventional higher species (2004)
(including a diversity richness.
gradient of high
diverse to low
diverse)
Cicadellidae Higher diversity of Ramos (2008)
Cicadellidae on
organic shaded
systems.
Less nests in Varon et al
organic shaded (2007)
systems.
Hydrological Native species Minas Rainforest Alliance Rainforest Alliance Palmieri (2008)
services number and Gerais, and conventional had higher numbers
conservation Brazil of native species
of water and better water
resources conservation.
Soil quality Soil carbon Cartago, Organic and More homogen- Payan et al
Costa Rica conventional eous distribution (2009)
of soil carbon in
organic farms.
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 337

338 FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE: TALES OF SUCCESS AND LESSONS LEARNED
Table 15.11 Studies comparing the provision of ecosystem services in certified
coffee farms in Mesoamerica and Brazil (Cont’d)
Ecosystem Indicator Region Certification Main results Source
service
Organic Guatemala Organic and Higher contents Alfaro (2004)
matter, and Brazil conventional of organic matter,
mycorrhizae mycorrhizae,
and bacteriophages
nematodes and nematodes in
organic production.
30 indicators Turrialba, Organic and Higher additive Porras (2006);
of soil quality Costa Rica conventional with Index of Soil Quality George (2006)
and without timber (ICSA) (combination
trees and bananas of different
variables of soil)
in organic farms.
Ground cover Costa Rica Organic, Significant Quispe (2007)
conventional, differences in the
Fair Trade, ground cover of
Rainforest Alliance, organic farms.
CAFE practices
and Utz Certified
Earthworms Turrialba, Organic and Similar yields and Sanchez de
and microbial Costa Rica conventional with microbial biomass León et al
biomass and different shade trees between organic (2006)
yield and conventional
farms. More
earthworms in
organic.
Soil fertility Turrialba, Organic and Higher P, Ca and Soto et al
Costa Rica conventional with K, and lower (2007)
different shade trees acidity after four
years of organic
management.
Provision Other Turrialba Organic and Organic farms Cárdenas
products Costa Rica conventional were more (2008)
extracted profitable when
from the considering the
organic farm other food products
produced on-farm;
but coffee
productivity was
lower on organic
farms.
Profit and Costa Rica Organic and 22% less yield in Lyngbaek et al
coffee yield conventional organic, 5% more (2001)
profitable.
Carbon Carbon Turrialba, Organic and Higher CO2Noponen et al
sequestration footprint Costa Rica, conventional with kg⫺1ha⫺1on (2010)
and different shade trees conventional farms;
Masatepe, higher CO2kg⫺1
Nicaragua of coffee on
organic farms
due to lower yields.
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 338

Comparative studies of the impact of certification upon ES provision have
several constraints. The first and most common is the definition of the
categories of management systems to be compared (e.g. organic versus conven-
tional), when management practices within each of these categories can be
variable (trees or no trees, pruned trees or free growth, etc.). Other studies
compare before and after certification; but most farmers did not keep records
before certification, so the study must rely on the farmers’ memories, which are
subject to error. Another strategy is to compare certified and uncertified farms
in a specific time, matching and comparing socio-economic and biophysical
characteristics. The drawback of this methodology is limited access to
databases to identify certified and uncertified farms with the same characteris-
tics, or, alternatively, the high cost of a sampling effort. Facing these
difficulties, the ISEAL alliance developed a code of good practices to conduct
impact studies for this type of analysis (see http://community.isealalliance.org/
content/ Impacts-code).
Other aspects to be considered when interpreting the results are regional
differences, such as the existence of strong environmental national regulations,
which could alter the results (Alonso and Jiménez, 2009). Preliminary data on
the impact of organic, Fair Trade, Rainforest Alliance, Utz Certified and
Starbucks CAFE practices in Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Peru and
Kenya collected within the COSA project (a multi-criteria cost–benefit analysis
of sustainable practices in coffee) show a wide range of economic and biodiver-
sity impacts of the same labels in different countries (Giovannucci and Potts,
2008).
A review of ecosystem services provision in certified coffee farms in the
Mesoamerican region and Brazil (see Table 15.11) shows a trend towards
positive impacts of organic, Smithsonian Bird Friendly and Rainforest Alliance.
More research is required to determine the impact of the most recent labels,
such as Utz Certified, CAFE practices, Nespresso AAA or 4C.
The challenge that the standard-setting bodies are facing is how to develop
standards to improve the provision of ES, but to be understood and imple-
mented by farmers. Should the standards refer to the provision of ES (e.g. to
avoid erosion), or should the practice to avoid erosion be requested (e.g.
construct terraces in the field). It is clear that for the inspector visiting the farm
once a year for two or three hours (depending on the size of the farm and
access to all fields), it would be easier, for example, to verify the presence or
absence of the terraces than to measure laminar erosion.
The other question that remains is: are the standards strong enough to
make the necessary changes in farm practices to improve provision of ES?
Quispe (2007) compared changes in farming practices before and after certifi-
cation in Costa Rica, observing limited changes on the Utz Certified,
Rainforest Alliance and Starbucks CAFE practices certified farms (reduction of
one herbicide application, no changes in fungicides or fertilizers used), and
observing no change in the percentage of shade, even though Rainforest
Alliance producers increased tree plantings in the plantation (too small at the
CERTIFICATION PROCESS IN THE COFFEE VALUE CHAIN 339
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 339

time of the study to see their impacts reflected in shade percentage). The only
producers with radical changes in management practices were organic produ-
cers who modified most of their practices (e.g. removing herbicides, fungicides
and synthetic fertilizers).
On the other hand, auditors and verifiers monitor regulation compliance
for changes in plantation management practices. But they should also use
indicators to quantify the provision of ecosystem services without increasing
the costs of certification (two- to three-hour visits per farm depending on farm
size) (see Chapter 3 in this volume).
Social impacts of certification
Some coffee certifications have important social implications (De Lima et al,
2008; Rivera, 2008), especially Fair Trade certification (Ronchi, 2002; Bacon,
2005). Although social impacts are not covered in this chapter, they should not
be ignored as a fundamental component of the strategy’s success: they are an
important part of consumers’ preference criteria.
In Central American regions where education or health access was limited,
the impact of CAFE practices and Rainforest Alliance certification on large
farmers has made an important difference in farmers’ communication. In Costa
Rica, where social security and access to education is available in most coffee
areas, the major impact has been in workers’ housing, especially harvesters,
who often come from neighbouring countries. The strongest economic impact
of implementing these standards has been felt on medium-sized farms (5ha)
(Moreno, 2008).
Conclusions
The growth in recent years of the green label sector is a promising strategy to
promote the required changes to foster ecosystem services provision through
market mechanisms. One of the main achievements of sustainable certification
processes has been to improve the link between the producer (family and
production system) and the consumer. Consumer preference in the market is a
tool to obtain changes at the farm level. If this link is valuable and powerful, it
is also extremely fragile and subject to market rules. Certification development
experience in Central America highlights some limitations and lesson learned:
• As a result of consumers’ concern about reduced knowledge on certifica-
tion issues, the different certifications tended to converge and make more
room for environmental concerns.
• Continuous evolution of the standards has tended to fine-tune the criteria
of the norm. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement in the
mobilization of technical knowledge to improve ES provision guarantees in
the criteria of the norm.
• The compliance standard control structure of existing certifications offers
a good level of guarantee to consumers. However, this control system is
340 FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE: TALES OF SUCCESS AND LESSONS LEARNED
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 340

costly for individual smallholder farmers; as a result, several efforts have
been made to reduce these costs.
• Certification has led to various forms of remuneration to compensate
farmers’ efforts. Nevertheless, the balance between remuneration and
effort is not sufficient to develop sustainable economic interests for
producers, especially in organic farming.
This strategy to motivate changes on farm through market incentives has great
potential but also great challenges ahead. Some improvements are necessary to
promote ES provision through the certification strategy (see Table 15.12).
Improvements may be difficult since the certification strategies have inherent
tensions and trade-offs, such as between the complexity of requisites and the
capacity to evaluate; between flexibility of requisites (adaptation) and
consumers’ credibility perception; between the accuracy of control and its
CERTIFICATION PROCESS IN THE COFFEE VALUE CHAIN 341
Table 15.12 Areas of improvement of certification to promote
the provision of ES
Areas of improvement Possible actions
Improve the guarantee Develop inspection methodologies that allow the use of more
for provision of indicators to quantify the provision of ecosystem services.
environmental services (ES) Evaluate changes to regulations that encourage greater provision of ES.
Adapt the rules to local biophysical and socio-economic conditions.
Harmonize criteria for interpretation of standards by auditors and
inspectors in the field.
Cost reduction Various actions are possible to reduce certification costs, such as
more government involvement in the certification process (a test is
being carried out in Costa Rica with a mixed private–state
certification; inspections will be done where government extension
agents working in different regions will conduct the inspection and
send the report to the private certification agencies; inspection costs
are covered by the government). Participatory certification for local
(and international) markets, as well as alliances between certification
programmes to reduce inspection costs, should also be encouraged.
Sell certified coffee in local markets.
Improve the recognition of In the case of organic production, harmonize regulations in the
producer investment in various export markets.
sustainable production Establish better distribution of the ‘premium’ among the commodity
chain. Various options at the institutional or standard level can be
used, including standard regulations (such as Fair Trade) and state
regulations. Modify the balance of power between producers and
their organizations and other actors of the commodity chain.
Develop information and promotion campaigns on certification to
ensure consumers’ preferences.
Improve productivity Promote intensification of production under certification
(especially for organic farms) commitment to maintain or upgrade profitability of certified
production.
Identify risk management practices under certification commitment
to secure the incomes of producers.
Promote technical assistance support.
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 341

costs; and between levels of effort asked of farmers and the compensation
provided by the market. In order to develop this strategy, further support from
governments is required, as well as further identification of robust and easily
tested criteria for standard requisites. Alternative propositions are therefore
needed for better market recognition and to improve farmers’ productivity
under different certification schemes.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the financial support provided by the European Union via
CAFNET (Connecting, Enhancing and Sustaining Environmental Services and
Market Values of Coffee Agroforestry in Central America, East Africa and
India) collaborative project and by the French Agence Nationale de la
Recherche (ANR) through the SERENA (Environmental Services and Rural
Land Uses) project. Support was also provided by Pôle de Compétences en
Partenariat (PCP): Agroforestry Systems with Perennial Crops, CIRAD–
CATIE–INCAE–Bioversity–CABI–Promecafé.
References
Alfaro, V. T. M. (2004) Matéria Orgânica e indicadores biológicos das qualidades do
solo na cultura do café sob manejo agroforestal e orgânico, PhD thesis,
Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Alonso, S. and Jiménez, G. (2009) ‘Impacto de las regulaciones ambientales en las
estrategias de comercialización de café costarricense’, Revista Iberoamericana de
Economía Ecológica, vol 10, pp29–43
Bacon, C. (2005) ‘Confronting the coffee crisis: Can fair trade, organic, and specialty
coffees reduce small-scale farmer vulnerability in northern Nicaragua?’, World
Development, vol 33, no 3, pp497–511
Barbera, N., Hilje, L., Hanson, P., Longino, J., Carballo, M. and de Melo, E. (2004)
‘Diversidad de especies de hormigas en un gradiente de cafetales orgánicos y
convencionales’, Manejo Integrado de Plagas y Agroecología, vol 72, pp60–71
Cárdenas, A. (2008) Incentivos económicos para la producción ecoamigable en fincas
cafetaleras en el Corredor Biológico Volcánica Central – Talamanca, Costa Rica,
MSc thesis, CATIE, Costa Rica
CIMS (2004) Prices of Sustainable Coffee from Latin America, CIMS, Costa Rica
CIMS (2006) Opciones de Mercado para el café sostenible: Resultados consultoría
realizada por CIMS para COOCAFE, Costa Rica, CIMS, Costa Rica
De Lima, A. C., Novaes Keppe, A. L., Palmieri, R., Correa Alvarez, M., Maule, R. F.
and Sparovek, G. (2008) Impact of Sustainable Network (SAN) Certification on
Coffee Farms: Case Study in the Southern Region and Cerrado Areas of the State of
Minas Gerais, Brazil, Instituto de Manejo e Certificacao Florestal e Agrícola
(IMAFLORA), Brazil
George, A. (2006) ‘Estudio comparativo de indicadores de calidad de suelos en fincas
de café orgánico y convencional en Turrialba, Costa Rica’, masters thesis, CATIE,
Costa Rica
342 FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE: TALES OF SUCCESS AND LESSONS LEARNED
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 342

Giovannucci, D. (2001) Sustainable Coffee Survey of the North American Specialty
Coffee Industry, Report for the Word Bank, Washington, DC
Giovannucci, D. (2010) ‘Take this personally’, Presentation, Speciality Coffee
Association, Anaheim, US
Giovannucci, D. and Potts, J. (2008) Seeking Sustainability: COSA Preliminary
Analysis of Sustainability Initiative in the Coffee Sector, IISD,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1338582
Greenberg, R., Bichier, P., Cruz, A. and Reitsma, R. (1997a) ‘Bird populations in shade
and sun coffee plantations in Central Guatemala’, Conservation Biology, vol 11, no
2, pp448–459
Greenberg, R., Bichier, P. and Sterling, J. (1997b) ‘Bird populations in rustic and
planted shade coffee plantations of Eastern Chiapas, Mexico’, Biotropica, vol 29,
no 4, pp501–514
Haggar, J. and Soto, G. (2010) Análisis del Estado de la Caficultura Orgánica,
Consultoría para la Coordinadora de Comercio Justo en América Latina, Turrialba,
Costa Rica
ICO (International Coffee Organization) (2009) ‘Coffee prices’, January, International
Coffee Organization, London, www.ico.org/frameset/priset.htm
IHCAFE (Instituto Hondureño del Café) (2006) Informe de actividades cosecha
2005–2006, Instituto Hondureño del Café, Honduras
Jose, S. (2009) ‘Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: An
overview’, Agroforestry Systems, vol 76, pp1–10
Kilian, B. and Pratt, L. (2009) ‘Challenges and perspectives of the Central American
coffee sector’, Presentation at SCAA, Atlanta, GA, 15–16 April
Kilian, B., Pratt, L., Jones, C. and Villalobos, A. (2004) ‘Can the private sector be
competitive and contribute to development through sustainable agricultural
business? A case study of coffee in Latin America’, International Food and
Agribusiness Management Review, vol 7, no 3, pp1–25
Loureiroa, M. L. and Lotade, J. (2005) ‘Do fair trade and eco-labels in coffee wake up
the consumer conscience?’, Ecological Economics, vol 53, no 1, pp129–138
Lyngbaek, A. E., Muschler, R. G. and Sinclair, F. L. (2001) ‘Productivity and profitabil-
ity of multistrata organic versus conventional coffee farms in Costa Rica’,
Agroforestry Systems, vol 53, pp205–213
Mas, A. H. and Dietsch, T. V. (2004) ‘Linking shade coffee certification to biodiversity
conservation: Butterflies and birds in Chiapas, Mexico’, Journal of Applied Ecology,
vol 14, pp642–654
Moguel, P. and Toledo, V. M. (1999) ‘Biodiversity conservation in traditional coffee
systems of Mexico’, Conservation Biology, vol 13, pp11–21
Montagnini, F. (2006) Environmental Services of Agroforestry Systems, Food Products
Press, US
Moreno, C. (2008) Aplicabilidad de la legislación y las normas de certificación en
sistemas agroforestales de café (SAFC) en Costa Rica y sus efectos en la rentabilidad
del productor, MSc thesis, CATIE, Costa Rica
Moreno, C., Navarro, G., Le Coq, J. F. and Soto, G. (2009) ‘Farmers’ perception and
economic constrains in the implementation of the legal framework and voluntary
certification systems influencing coffee AFS in Costa Rica’, Paper presented to the
2nd World Congress on Agroforestry, Nairobi, Kenya
Noponen, M., Healey, J., Edwards-Jones, G., Haggar, J. and Soto. G. (2010) ‘Coffee
agroforestry systems in Costa Rica: Carbon emissions vs. sequestration’, Poster
CERTIFICATION PROCESS IN THE COFFEE VALUE CHAIN 343
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 343

presentation, SENRGY, Bangor University, Wales, and CATIE, Costa Rica
Palmieri, R. (2008) Impactos socioambientais da certificação Rainforest Alliance em
fazendas produtoras de café no Brasil, MSc thesis, Universidade de São Paulo,
Piracicaba, Brazil
Payan, F., Jones, D. L., Beer, J. and Harmand, J. M. (2009) ‘Soil characteristics below
Erythrina poeppigiana in organic and conventional Costa Rican coffee plantations’,
Agroforestry, vol 76, no 1, pp81–93
PCC (Proyecto Cacao Centroamérica) (2010) Informe de taller no 2, Enero 2010,
CATIE, Costa Rica
Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J., Hanson, P. and Cartín, V. (1997) ‘Arthropod biodiversity
loss and the transformation of a tropical agroecosystem’, Biodiversity Conservation,
vol 6, pp935–945
Philpott, S., Bichier, P., Rice, R. and Greenberg, R. (2007) ‘Field testing ecological and
economical benefits of coffee certification programmes’, Conservation Biology, vol
21, no 4, pp975–985
Ponte, S. (2004) ‘Standards and sustainability in the coffee sector: A global value chain
approach’, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, International
Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Canada, p49
Porras, C. M. (2006) ‘Efecto de los sistemas agroforestales de café orgánico y conven-
cional sobre las características de suelos en el Corredor Biológico Turrialba –
Jiménez, Costa Rica’, masters thesis, CATIE, Costa Rica
Quispe, J. (2007) Caracterización del impacto ambiental y productivo de las diferentes
normas de certificación de café en Costa Rica, MSc thesis, CATIE, Costa Rica
Ramirez, A. (2010) ‘Impacto económico de las diferentes certificaciones de café
sostenible en Costa Rica’, masters thesis, CATIE, Costa Rica, in preparation
Ramos, M. (2008) ‘The effects of local and landscape context on leafhopper
(Hemiptera: Cicadellinae) communities in coffee agroforestry systems of Costa
Rica’, PhD dissertation, University of Idaho-CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica
Raynolds, L. (2002) ‘Consumer/producer links in fair trade coffee networks’,
Sociologia Ruralis, vol 42, no 4, pp404–424
Rice, R. (1999) ‘A place unbecoming: The coffee farm of Northern Latin America’,
Geographical Review, vol 89, no 4, pp554–579
Rivera, L. (2008) Una aproximación al análisis de provisión de capitales como
determinante de la adopción de sistemas agroforestales de café certificado en Costa
Rica, MSc thesis, CATIE, Costa Rica
Ronchi, L. (2002) The Impact of Fair Trade on Producers and Their Organisations: A
Case Study with COOCAFE in Costa Rica, Poverty Research Unit, Sussex, UK
Sanchez De León, Y., De Melo, E., Soto, G., Johnson-Maynard, J. and Lugo-Pérez, J.
(2006) ‘Earthworm population, microbial biomass and coffee production in differ-
ent experimental agroforestry managed systems in Costa Rica’, Caribbean Journal
of Science, vol 42, no 3, pp397–409
Schroth, G., da Fonseca, G. A. B, Harvey, C. A., Gascon, C., Vasconcelos, H. and Izac,
A. N. (2004) Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscapes,
Island Press, Washington, DC
Soto, G., García, L., Haggar, J., de Melo, E., Munguía, R. and Staver, C. (2007) Efecto
del sistema de manejo del café (Coffea arabica) orgánico y convencional, con difer-
entes árboles de sombra sobre las características de suelo en un andisol en
Nicaragua y un ultisol en Costa Rica, Congresos Nacional de Suelos, Costa Rica
344 FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE: TALES OF SUCCESS AND LESSONS LEARNED
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 344

Varon, E., Eigenbrode, S. D., Bosque-Perez, N. and Hilje, L. (2007) ‘Effect of farm
diversity on harvesting of coffee leaves by the leaf curring ant Atta cephalotes’,
Agricultural and Forest Entomology, vol 9, pp47–55
Zhang, W., Ricketts, T. H., Kremen, C., Carney, K. and Swinton, S. M. (2007)
‘Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture’, Ecological Economics, vol 64,
no 2, pp253–260
CERTIFICATION PROCESS IN THE COFFEE VALUE CHAIN 345
ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 345

ES_ESAA_1-4_ES_POL_25/7 01/04/2011 14:08 Page 346