Geoff Watts of Intelligentsia explains the ins and outs of Shade-Grown Coffee.
In the article, he provides some arguments for and against shade-grown certification (courtesy of the NW Shade Coffee Campaign)…
For:
- Without certification growers can’t earn a premium for shade-grown coffee.
- Without certification consumers can’t be confident that they are getting true shade-grown coffee.
- Without certification there is no basis for holding companies accountable for their claims.
- Major companies say they can’t ask the market to trust them the way a small company might; they have to have certification to have credibility.
- Companies may tell the public, “Most of our coffee is shade grown,” lulling customers into thinking they are helping the environment. Even if much of the coffee is shade grown, it’s not helping growers as much as certified shade-grown coffee.
- Certification ensures reliable scientific standards are met, as opposed to subjective judgments by people who don’t necessarily know all requirements for viable habitats.
Against:.
- It is difficult to hold certifiers accountable or to enforce truth in labeling in the face of political instability and endemic corruption.
- Certification does not eliminate the possibility of fraud. Even if certifiers are on the up-and-up, there is nothing to prevent labeling sun coffee bags as “shade-grown.”
- Brokers who actually visit the farms and are known and trusted in the coffee industry are more reliable than certification.
- Shade certification in and of itself doesn’t insure a premium for farmers.
- Requiring certification limits the availability of shade coffee to consumers because certification is expensive and time-consuming. Certification will make the retail price too high.
- Some brokers do far more for the growers than certification demands. They provide market access and technical assistance and pay well above market prices.
- It should be brokers, not growers, that are certified since brokers provide a trail.