August 2, 2023
July 31, 2023
July 24, 2023
July 21, 2023
July 26, 2023
July 13, 2023
July 12, 2023
July 11, 2023
July 27, 2023
July 27, 2023
July 26, 2023
July 25, 2023
August 2, 2023
August 2, 2023
August 2, 2023
August 1, 2023
June 19, 2023
July 1, 2022
September 29, 2021
June 8, 2021
July 28, 2023
July 26, 2023
July 21, 2023
July 18, 2023
Levi Rogers | July 15, 2019
Coffee in parchment. Daily Coffee News photo.
When I started a small roasting company six years ago in Salt Lake City, Utah, I was surprised by how often I had to field these questions:
“Is this coffee Fair Trade?” they’d ask. “Is it organic?”
It annoyed me a little bit. Did my customers really know the intricacies and differences between concepts like “direct trade” and certifications like Fair Trade, organic, Rainforest Alliance, Bird Friendly and UTZ? Or did they just want to see a label to make themselves feel good without having to do any of the mental labor?
I mean, are the kale or tomatoes you bought from the farmer’s market certified organic? Probably not, even though they may well be produced organically.
I came up with a couple stock responses to these questions. “Well,” I’d say, “We actually buy direct trade, which is better. Fair Trade offers just a minimum price, and we actually pay 30% above that price for most of our coffees — not to mention that most small companies, farmers and roasters alike, can’t always afford the costs associated with certification.”
There was some modicum of insight in that reply, but I blush now at my own arrogance and ignorance. In January, I decided to change things up a bit to learn more about the production and importing side of the business, joining the team at Sustainable Harvest Speciality Importers.
As of this writing, the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) price for coffee futures contracts — known as the “C” price — was USD $1.0565 per pound for September contracts. In early May, that price was down to $0.8665 per pound, representing the lowest “C price” for coffee since 2004. By most expert analyses, however, none of those prices come close to meeting the costs of production for the majority of the world’s coffee farmers. We’re talking millions and millions of families. Consider for a moment how bad things must be for families from Central America and Mexico if the best option is to risk life and limb on a harrowing journey north, away from all you know and love, towards an uncertain future and a horribly unwelcoming political climate in the U.S.
From the perspective of a scrappy independent roaster, it might be tempting to throw certifications like Fair Trade under the bus. I get it. Perhaps they feel like a solution from a different time; or less relevant because you think Fair Trade is just about price and not quality; or confusing, because in markets like the U.S. you have to distinguish between certifications by Fair Trade USA and Fair Trade America. [Note: for the sake of sanity in this story, I’ve just used the phrase “Fair Trade” to connote them all.]
As a conscientious buyer, it’s more convenient to think that by bypassing “bureaucracy” like Fair Trade certification, you’re somehow avoiding another corporate middleman, while also putting more money directly into the pockets of producers when possible. I wasn’t necessarily anti Fair Trade when I started buying coffee; I just thought Fair Trade provided only the bare minimum (a price floor, as it’s called), and that my roasting business was paying much better.
Today, you see this sort of sentiment on virtually every high-end specialty coffee bag: “We pay premium prices to ensure farmers get a fair wage,” etc. Yet, most roasters still know very little about the prices their importers or partners pay, what FOB is, and what price the farmers they buy from actually receive. This is not necessarily the fault of roasters. Many importers’ methods and pricing details are often kept under tight wrap. It’s hard to educate yourself on a topic when few people want to discuss it publicly.
Public domain photo.
Despite the prevalence of origin trips, and the depth and accessibility of information online, a lot of confusion remains among baristas, roasters, importers and producers about the actual costs of production and economic realities of coffee purchasing.
In the example of the roasting biz I started, yes, we may have been paying something like 30% above the Fairtrade or FTO (Fair Trade and Organic combined) price, but that did not necessarily translate to a 30% increase in income for producer organizations, individual farmers, farmworkers and others at the opposite end of the supply chain.
First of all, in regards to income, a 30% revenue increase is meaningless without also considering the cost of production.
Secondly, even if the entirety of that 30% premium makes it all the way through the chain to the pockets of producers, that purchase may just be a drop in the water of that producer’s total production. And, from the farmer’s risk-management perspective, predictability is key. Can they count on that 30% next year? Will the buyer even return (even if the quality is exquisite)?
Third, how much of that 30% even makes it to the farmer? I learned that there’s an important distinction between Freight on Board (FOB) and farmgate pricing. What I thought I was paying farmers back in the day might have been going to importers, exporters, and others — which is fine, so long as they are offering critical services that add value and are not just pocketing all the premiums themselves, with high-end specialty farmers getting stuck with local market pricing.
I would encourage every roaster, for the sake of transparency, to ask their importer, broker, etc. how much of the price you pay is actually reaching farmers. If you’re proudly paying $3, $4, $5 or more for your coffee with the goal of supporting a quality coffee supply, don’t you want to know where those premiums are going?
Finally, it would be naive to think that the only value of Fair Trade is price. Farmers who are part of the Fair Trade system are also members of farmer-owned producer organizations. Those organizations, when well run, provide critical business and social services. These are services that can lower default risk, increase quality, enhance equality and inclusion, and improve farmer livelihoods.
The current price crisis has served as an important reminder that Fair Trade is a model built precisely to withstand the ups and downs of the C market by providing a minimum price to producers, along with the added bonus of resiliency through community reinvestments. That’s why I’ve become a believer in the model and its impact. By the way, these days over half the coffees bought by that roasting biz I founded are Fair Trade.
When I was younger, I often heard a line that went something like this: Traders were blocking access to really good coffees, and pioneers in the industry took it upon themselves to go directly to origin to hunt, search and forage for the best of the best and the rarest of the rare. Then they would work directly with the people growing the coffee to bypass all the middlemen and coffee exchanges to source the best coffees possible.
There was some truth to this narrative, but it turned out to be more like mythology.
On principle, direct trade is a brilliant concept. However, without any kind of voluntary certification behind it or third-party auditing, no two direct trade models look the same, and all of them essentially ask us to trust the organization running them. What happens when the market dips? Or management changes? We all might say we like to ensure fair or more-than-fair prices are being paid to everyone in the coffee supply chain, but in the end, low prices benefit roasters (at least in the short run).
Are we really supposed to buy into the idea that hordes of quality-focused roasters, especially those not engaging in transparent disclosure, are always voluntarily paying higher-than-market prices for coffee? In the coffee value chain, roasters and cafes and retail shops are the players with the best margins. It might not seem like it to the average small roaster or cafe owner who is barely getting by after payroll, rent, insurance, taxes, etc., but they might be the ones reaping the cost benefit of this economic and humanitarian crisis.
The 10-year price chart for ICE arabica futures.
In this globalized economy, is operating solely on the basis of trust really going to work? Most of us living in the U.S. or Europe will never have to experience food insecurity or other side effects of extreme poverty brought forth by global commodity prices. Subsequently, most buyers may not feel the same urgency to take extreme measures as many farmers have — such as abandoning their farms and migrating northward.
Furthermore, even if the “specialty” segment bands together to demand greater transparency and accountability throughout the supply chain, we still have giant multinational traders and conventional brands that dominate the coffee sector. What’s their motivation for change?
While increased consumer desire for more fair and sustainably sourced products has certainly impacted corporate sustainability reports, the real change continues to be precipitated by the smaller specialty players who gain traction, and size, in the market. In recent decades, this has been accomplished largely by some combination of Fair Trade and direct trade — both models that, while radical at the outset, have limitations.
Is there a third way — something that could build on the best of Fair Trade and direct trade, delivering a living income to farmers and a living wage for farm workers, while maintaining competitive prices for buyers and still incentivizing the pursuit of quality? What role could emerging verification systems, like Enveritas, play?
The International Coffee Agreement
Sometimes I like to think of the specialty world as one big farmer’s market. We’re all basically neighbors who are here for each other and trying to do the best we can to support one another — roasters, producers and coffee shops alike. But looking at coffee prices and the predicaments facing producers today, it seems not everyone is cooperating in a neighborly way, and perhaps a more global approach is in order.
For a large part of the late 20th century, the quota system established by the International Coffee Agreement (ICA) in 1962 helped stabilize prices globally by aligning with production and consumption levels, based on international cooperation from both producing and consuming countries. Through its heyday between 1963 and 1989, those decades generally saw reduced price volatility for both producers and sellers, compared to the deregulated period since. This is even despite two major price hikes that threatened the agreement as a result of weather-related production shortages.
The ICA was utilized by the Kennedy Administration as a Cold War tool to hold back the rise of communism in the “third world.” It wouldn’t be fair to say that things were great for everyone back then though. While pricing was predictable, the system was manipulated by those with more power and resources — partially undermining the agreement’s purpose since smallholders and indigenous producers were disproportionately marginalized. It’s not a coincidence that this iteration of the ICA came to its end in 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell.
The latest version of the agreement, signed by dozens of countries in 2007 and overseen by the International Coffee Organization, maintains the guiding principles of equity and sustainability, yet without the regulatory teeth established with the quota system. The latest blow to the agreement came when the U.S., the world’s biggest consuming country, withdrew its participation.
A groundbreaking 2001 academic paper by Stefano Ponte called “The ‘Latte Revolution’? Winners and Losers in the Restructuring of the Global Coffee Marketing Chain,” covers a lot of interesting ground related to market regulation in the coffee trade, finding that volatility for both buyers and sellers was dramatically increased in the free market system. Ponte’s forthcoming book, called “Business, Power and Sustainability in a World of Global Value Chains” is definitely on my reading list.
The establishment of quotas or other pricing regulation might sound like an outrageous proposition to some buyers, but they are not without historic precedent. Right now, producing countries are hinting at taking regulation into their own hands, with Colombian leaders calling for $2 FOB per pound international minimums.
For me, self education is step one. There are so many great resources, and lots of folks in our community are doing innovative things to push change. Caryn and Mike Nelson of Junior’s Roasted Coffee in Portland, Oregon, have been on a long campaign to educate baristas and consumers through their “Cost of Production” seminars and related zine. If you are looking to learn more about costs of production, that’s a great way to start.
The bottom line is that producers are being asked to shoulder far too large a burden of responsibility in addressing the current price crisis. Now is the time to chart a path towards more authentic global collaboration.
Beyond the conversations last week in Brazil, the Specialty Coffee Association has been galvanizing numerous leaders in the industry for its Coffee Price Crisis Response Initiative (CPCRI). Former SCA Executive Director Ric Rhinehart is heading the initiative, and he outlined some of its early work with the Boss Barista team in their latest podcast episode.
Liam Brody, the president of Sustainable Harvest who also happens to be my boss, was at a recent CPCRI meeting, and he shared with me a few key reflections:
Farmers are desperate and can’t hang on much longer. We must all step up and do what we can now. We can’t wait for someone else to save this thing we all love so much. We each must find ways to take leadership and be part of the solution. Don’t wait for permission or an invitation.
What defines specialty coffee cannot be just quality. A coffee cannot be special if it is not sustainable. How can you celebrate the bean and not treasure the planet and people that brought it to us. This should and could be done as consistently and quantitatively as we now measure Q grades.
We must recruit new allies, ideas and resources. While we each must step up, this is now far bigger than just the coffee industry. This is about migration. It is about narco-trafficking. It’s about a humanitarian crisis in the making. It’s about human rights. It’s about climate change. It’s about foreign policy…and so much more.
It was in 2001 that coffee prices sank to as low as $0.43 per pound, jolting the entire sector. When the market picked back up by 2004, then International Coffee Organization Executive Director Néstor Osorio warned of the economic and social tolls that the crisis had on producers and, subsequently, on the global economy. In words that resonate clearly today, he wrote:
The industry has flourished, new products have been developed, the value of the retail market has more than doubled, and profits have risen. This is something to celebrate, but the question must nevertheless be asked as to how long such a state of affairs can be sustained. Coffee farmers have shown enormous resilience and one way or another most have managed to survive and continue to produce. But not all and not at any cost.
The true cost of today’s prices remains to be seen.
Levi Rogers is a writer and coffee roaster. He is the co-founder of La Barba Coffee in Salt Lake City, Utah, and a Q Arabica grader. He currently works in quality control at Sustainable Harvest in Portland, Oregon.
Tags: “Business, Caryn Nelson, certifications, coffee prices, cost of production, direct trade, Enveritas, Fairtrade, International Coffee Agreement, International Coffee Organization, Juniors Roasted Coffee, Mike Nelson, Power and Sustainability in a World of Global Value Chains”, prices, Stefano Ponte, sustainability
As a roaster who was an early adopter of Fair Trade and has stuck with it and defended it through the age of direct trade and other small, firm-led schemes (and as a direct buyer, too), it is SO gratifying to see the discourse arriving somewhere a little more nuanced and a little less competitive. Thanks for the article, Levi.
We can look back on the days of the ICA and say, “That cartel was corrupt,” but what isn’t corrupt about the deregulated market we have now? Didn’t price regulation help farmers all over the world without remotely affecting the ability of consumers to access the product?
If a roaster can’t bear what a $2.00 minimum would do to their business, then maybe they need to restructure their business.
“Is this coffee Fair Trade?” they’d ask. “Is it organic?”
It annoyed me a little bit. Did my customers really know the intricacies and differences between concepts like “direct trade” and certifications like Fair Trade, organic, Rainforest Alliance, Bird Friendly and UTZ?”
They probably didn’t but marks like these take away the need for customers to research companies and supply chains for which they don’t have time for even if they are committed to more ethical shopping. The problem is the supply chain in modern times is not transparent at all to the customer, it’s easy for a business to say they are ethical but how do you really know, who judges this? Once the press release about a company doing good has gone out, people forget and a year or so later they can quietly forget about something they pledged on doing.
Glad to see you have embraced the Fairtrade mark, it’s not perfect but it has helped many of the poorest farmers and producers and from the customer side at least they can make a more informed choice. It does get complicated with so many certifications and marks but hopefully this will encourage shoppers to think more about what they buy.
I think it is happening, over the last 30-40 years people have been tempted in by cheap prices, and companies given an incentive to cut corners, put cheaper ingredients in, cover things in plastic, use harmful chemicals in products all to boost margins or cut prices but it seems now more people are waking up to why things are getting cheaper. Here in the UK the supermarkets always go on about how good they are yet they use buying power to squeeze smaller sellers especially farmers forcing them to sell milk at far to low a cost because they control the whole supply chain and have all the buying power. The problems that face farmers in the third world who rely on Fairtrade to help them, are actually faced here as well with big business putting on pressure and exploiting smaller business.
Good piece Levi – although not a roaster, I have come to similar conclusions!
I agree that Fairtrade, although it has its problems, is a good model – it tackles the price problem head on and it works at scale through co-ops (or at least FT Europe does). That’s why we (Climate Edge Ltd) are working with them, trying to improve data gathering, communications, feedback etc. to enhance and streamline their work.
At for Direct Trade, there is free-rider problem as covered here: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/4/651/htm?utm_campaign=buffer&utm_content=bufferb7fbd&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com
And Enveritas is a very interesting initiative – a big problem with certifications is that the farmer pays for it and, as a trained certifier once told me, you really don’t want to disqualify the person paying you….
Enveritas has a different model and it will be interesting to see if it grows.
Thank you so much Levi for this article! It has always made me so sad and angry when young hipster roasters that have never been to a coffee farm dismiss Fairtrade and even Organic certifications with a tone of arrogance and infinite wisdom. Roasters and baristas influence opinions as “professionals” that should know what they are talking about. Yet their statements undermine trust in schemes that have taken decades to build and are too susceptible to rumors about them. These schemes don’t just cover coffee, but also all the other crops we want farmers to diversify to, so the impact on producers is immense. I much prefer the honest answer of “I can’t afford the cost (1300€ every 3 years?!) of certifying my roaster/coffee brand Fairtrade, that’s why I don’t offer this mark, but I am following its principles and doing my best to have a fair relationship with the producers of my coffee in X,Y, and Z ways. Unfortunately I find it very hard to find reliably fair relationships or have a good conversation about this in speciality coffee places in Amsterdam, where Fairtrade arguably started. All this is legitimized by SCA and the speciality coffee magazines barely ever touching on the topic. (so glad for this article, again!)
I suggest that instead of everyone repeating “despite its faults”, we all take a close look at these potential faults of Fairtrade and see how to fix them, if they exist. In the USA (and no other country) this will help you distinguish between FT America and FT USA. Then we make Fairtrade hip again with all the IG and cool beard power that speciality coffee has over Milennials. That is much faster and better for farmers than reinventing the wheel and repeating discussions that have been going on at Fairtrade organizations for 30 years now.
You are absolutely right, Levi, the onus is on all of us to educate ourselves first.
Enjoyed your article, thanks. Some of the evidence we have gathered through the 100k+ farmer interviews we have conducted at Enveritas point to a *small* bump for certified farmer in *certain* countries, but nothing in others. What we can do with clarity is see if those premiums are getting down to the farm-gate level, and shine a light on the whole chain. It makes for interesting analysis, and usually suggests a bunch of quick-win remediation strategies, as well as some longer term issues that will take longer to fix. Data is key!
Your email address will not be published.
August 2, 2023