Section IV cont'd
Institutional Scenarios

With this political context in mind, the following institutional scenarios for connected coffee are proposed, in two broad categories: certification and alternatives to certification.

Options for Certification

A lead certifier.
The advantage in not making coffee certification cooperative or harmonized is precisely that it does in fact foster competition among and between NGOs and roasters and between coffee producers - either collectives (in the way of gaining certification and visibility), regions (in attribution of quality to regional appellation), or countries (in progressive coffee programs and marketing). Two candidates to take the lead in Combined Criteria or �Connected� Coffee are ECO-OK (the Rainforest Alliance) and Equal Exchange.

A coalition of certifiers - or an alliance with government.
The USDA threat to private certification has not yet been able to unite private certifiers for the common cause of the continued existence of private certifiers. It remains to be seen whether certifiers will unite against the published regulations (due out in January 1998) or �turncoat� and compete for a limited number of positions as USDA-approved inspectors for the national program. Without interfering with free competition in the roasted coffee market, is it possible for coffee certifiers, non-profits, producer cooperatives and even government agencies to cooperate for bird conservation, land stewardship, or community self-sufficiency? An example of a successful coalition happens to be one for bird conservation, the Partners in Flight program. The alliance can be simply situational - diverse groups agree on one issue that needs action - or more institutionalized.

Certifiers back related activities.
Any and all of the options described below can be endorsed by coffee certifiers to whatever degree suits their purposes.

Alternatives to Certification

Pressure on all related industries.
Direct pressure on companies that manufacture and export pesticides has had success in cases where there was egregious damage. If coffee is supposedly the second most chemically intensive crop in the world, then it is probable that incidents of mass kills of birds after pesticide application have occurred but have not been brought to public attention. The reporting of mass kills of Swainson hawks in Argentine (Line 96) sunflower fields was sensational enough to pressure the American supplier of the pesticide as well as the Argentine producers to switch to a less-toxic pesticide. This case of poisoning was particularly dramatic: 4,000 dead hawks at four sites, and the culprit was easily targeted - a large US chemical firm. What is particularly effective about the story, what galls Americans and got action, is that pesticides banned in the US for their danger to wildlife were killing �American� birds somewhere else. This gives bird conservationists hope that there�s an effective activist population in the US; however, the lesson is also that there�s much for Americans to do on their own turf before we point the finger at technified farms in Latin America. A search of US Customs records from 1992 to 1994 (cited in Line 96) revealed that 109 million pounds of pesticides banned in the US were shipped to Latin American for use on farms.

The Argentine example is illustrative of how chemicals are replacing (eliminating) animals as the pest control mechanism. Unfortunately, even concentrated swarms of the �locust hawk� may not eat enough pests to give the crop yields farmers are now expecting. Demand for these pesticides is likely to increase as agricultural sectors in Latin America are under pressure to switch to high-yield export crops Clearly, chemification of farms is a problem that has to be dealt with both at the supply and demand sides.

The free market.
Rather than acting indirectly through policies, the ideal scenario would be to restore the one-to-one relationship of the buyer and seller in the marketplace. These decisions are made mainly on the appearance of the product and the price, but in cases where the market is long-standing and the community small, other factors may enter the decision, such as personal loyalty or preference, or rewarding of a neighbour�s good behavior in the community, and the desire to keep this or that seller in business for one�s own benefit. These sorts of decisions - whether one categorizes them as social cooperation or rationale self-interest - have always taken place in market squares and are still feasible in the many farmers� markets in cities and towns. However, this freedom of choice is nearly impossible when it comes to buying something that cannot possibly be grown locally, such as coffee. We must then either choose not to buy anything that is not locally grown or try to gather some information on where the product comes from and under what conditions (ecological or political) it is grown.

Connected coffee doesn�t mean that only the very well-connected can afford to buy directly from a certain coffee farm. Anyone willing to pay a premium for coffee can exercise some choice in where the coffee comes from. Micro-roasters have become so specialized that - if there claims are true - one can order a few bags of coffee from one particular farm. However, having never been there, the buyer must trust that the roaster�s claims are correct. Isn�t this the closest approximation to real consumer choice and buyer-seller connection? If coffee roasters can maintain their independence in labeling and uphold their claims (by either their own monitoring or third-party certification) then this allows for the maximum choice for consumers. Does this allow for the maximum choice for producers? Diversification of consumer preference in the form of micro-roasters who select coffee for particular groups of consumers or individuals allows farmers the opportunity to specialize, i.e., their small scale of operation is to their advantage.

An international convention.
An international standard for sustainable agriculture could build on either the Biodiversity Convention of 1992 (UNCED, Rio de Janeiro) or the World Food Summit of 1996 (FAO, Rome). The results of these two conventions were largely symbolic, and agroforestry, particularly shade or rustic coffee, does not fit into the scope of either of these conventions. An international convention on coffee is likely to bring together researchers and government officials who can then collaborate on new projects for coffee but it is not likely to serve the best interests of farmers, whose real power comes from their ability to organize at the local level and move their product. Trade shows that introduce new buyers to producer co-operatives are likely to have a much more positive impact on coffee farms.

Governmental.
National governments of coffee producing countries have obviously played a key role in production practices, price controls, and quality control, in many cases being major buyers of coffee as well as policy setters. These governments could also play a role in the emerging specialty coffee industry. A proposal has been made in Costa Rica to campaign for a new category of coffee under the ITO such that Costa Rica can market it�s coffee separately of the major producers (Maxey 97). In Nicaragua, an American specialty coffee roaster is lobbying the Nicaraguan government to enact legislation that would give incentives for organic production and dis-incentives (or removal of subsidies) for technified plantations. A coffee co-operative in Mexico is lobbying the government for a special designation of their coffee farms as a buffer zone for the nearby park.

International aid.
Sources of funds to assist coffee producers and researchers include the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the World Bank, the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), in-country cultural and technical assistance programs, enterprise exchanges such as the Cooperative League of America, or private foundations. Current areas of interest include carbon sequestration or �debt-for-shade� swaps, integrated conservation development plans (ICDPs), and technical assistance. At least one project is near completion (Newmark 1997) that has investigated the suitability of remote sensing to inventory canopy cover from shade coffee for possible qualification as carbon sequestration credits (such credits under negotiation in the on-going Global Climate Change Convention and possibly funded by GEF). Inclusion of shade coffee in ICDP projects to protect national parks or other areas of concern is another possibility. For example, the Nature Conservancy�s Parks in Peril program includes several areas of rustic coffee production near protected areas. Coffee could be brought into an eco-regional perspective to serve as corridors of forested habitat between critical cloud forest reserves.

Technical assistance is a mixed blessing. Some recent improvements to technology that can be readily applied to rural situations may mitigate destructive practices but at the same time allow for expansion of these practices. An example is ATI�s research into water recycling or Texas A&M�s development of a super-shade tolerant variety of coffee. Purists would reject the introduction of a non-traditional cultivar. However, the introduction of this cultivar could spare forests in areas where trees are cut down because the cloud cover is more than sufficient for coffee. The thing to keep in mind is that, after the special project funding is gone, farmers will only adopt or keep those technologies, however �appropriate�, that boost production and or save money.

The Price of Information.

The individual should not be forgotten in this discussion since the circumstances of the coffee �system� are made up of the actions and choices of individuals. How does an individual do the right thing? Enter any exchange such that you serve your own interests - and this includes saving habitat for birds - while maintaining the freedom of choice of both parties. This does not necessarily mean getting as much information as possible - since the institutionalized collection of information often works against freedom. Rather than trying harder to know the truth about a product that has come to you from thousands of miles away through a complicated chain of production, why not buy from your next-door neighbour? If he doesn�t have what you want - buy from within your county or State, such that the information gathered is made possible by policies that are influencable by the people on which they are imposed. If one lives in a Northern climate and must drink coffee than buy a label that you have some confidence can back up what it means but also was put in place with the full cooperation by the people involved.

For connected coffee to work, producer communities would be invited to submit what they believe is a practical and acceptable set of factors that is capable of being characterized and monitored in their area. Groups of consumers sharing similar values or information needs could submit their list of criteria. Matches may be made on whatever institutional level is comfortable and practical for both parties. This does not exclude National or International standards but such bodies must not interfere with other systems so long as these do not dangerously mislead the public. Laws against false advertising are already well established.

To expect to know everything about an item from another country is unreasonable and wasteful. The environmentally correct do not expect the collection of waste or the supply of energy to be free and unlimited services. Similarly, information comes with its own costly externalities of increased energy and time usage and decreased freedom. Uniformity does not substitute for awareness. Approaches that extract the most information but are the most costly and intrusive are highly centralized sets of standards backed up with high penalties, such as the Codex Alimentarius and the US Organic Program. At the opposite extreme, a system with the greatest amount of freedom for all parties but the least amount of information would be a completely unregulated market, in which there are no verification of claims. The ideal situation is of course for individuals to buy directly from someone they know. Third party certification, without government interference, attempts to recreate this situation.

Next Steps

In the political or moral sense, third-party, free market certification appears to be the best candidate for reforming coffee inasmuch as it has the potential to provide for the greatest freedom for all parties while giving an acceptable minimum of verifiable information. The certification system, whether as a merger of Organic and Fair Trade or as an entirely new system, can afford to refit its criteria to first principles of justice and land stewardship. But certification can take many forms and can be accompanied by other approaches, such as direct aid or protected area planning. Before any one of these institutional scenarios is supported, additional research is needed.

First of all, if �connected coffee� is to have as its primary goals independence and freedom, then the farmers themselves must be invited to participate in identifying the values most important to coffee farming communities. There are hundreds of cooperatives in southern Mexico and Central America. On a regional or a smaller scale, leaders of these co-ops could convene to draw up and present to the certifiers and consumers what they want out of coffee production and which of the many criteria presented to them by consumers are acceptable and feasible. Similarly, specialty coffee roasters should consider presenting a more unified front in order to move on the 4 or 5% share of the coffee market. To do this, they need to decide amongst themselves what�s in the best interests of their industry. Only after farmers, roasters, and conservationists, have on their own decided what their objectives are, should they reconvene at a second Coffee Congress. If the results again fall short of consensus, new partnerships can still be formed.

These objectives cannot be cultivated in a vacuum. All parties must be aware of the larger policy issues being debated in international trade. A cooperative �policy watch�, funded and staffed by farmers, roasters, conservationists, and consumers, could keep everyone well informed without interfering with the objectives of individual groups. This loose or situational consortium could, for example, campaign for the right to send a representative to the WTO, EC, USDA, or whatever other policy-making body that may have an impact on the coffee trade.

While ordinary citizens can engage in a North-South exchange of ideas without the �middleman� of academia there is still plenty of important work for qualified researchers. For example, there remains the need to characterize in more detail the habitat quality of coffee gardens, to determine the relation of shade trees to crop yields, and to gauge the broader environmental impact of technified vs. rustic farms on the landscape.

End of Section V.
To contact the author, Jennifer McLean, send e-mail to: [email protected]

Next section
Return to Coffee Contact index