Sustainability Standards for Coffee and Wine What are the Differences? AAWE – Padova, Italy – June 2017 Morten Scholer mortenscholer@hotmail.com

Coffee – Flowering, cherries and green beans

Coffee – Two species Arabica Robusta 60 % 40% Share of world   Arabica Robusta Share of world production 60 % Latin America, East Africa, South East Asia 40% Vietnam + other S.E. Asia, Brazil, West/Central Africa Quality (Caffeine) Fine-flavoured aromatic (1.0 – 1.5%) Strong and harsher (filler) ( 2% )

Coffee – Leading sustainability standards Dimension Standards with a ‘main dimension’ Standards covering ‘all dimensions’ Environment  Organic (Biodynamic, Shade-grown, Bird-friendly) Rainforest Alliance Utz Certified ……………………………................ 4C (GCP) ……………………………….............  Nespresso – AAA  Starbucks C.A.F.E. Practice  Keurig Green Mountain’s Responsible Sourcing Social  Fairtrade (FLO)  Fair Trade USA Economic

Coffee and wine – Four structural differences - Value chain (parties involved and physical transformations) Complex for coffee – simpler for wine - Quality enhancement (‘manipulation’) Only few options in coffee – many in wine - Size of companies (relative size) Big in coffee (some have +10% of world trade) – small in wine (all below 3%) - Sustainability standards Coffee is more complex than wine (coffee has worldwide standards, with more processes, locations and partners (sometimes illiterate))

Coffee Wine Sustainability standards – Origins and focus   Coffee Wine Where were the standards initiated? Importing countries Consumers in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe Producing countries Grape growers and winemakers Which dimension was first in focus? Social – with focus on fair prices and later also on other aspects Environment – with shifts to organic farming and other nature-oriented practices What was the rationale behind the initiatives? Solidarity – expressed for poor coffee growers and their families Nature in focus Concern about nature and care for the health of producers

Coffee Sustainability standards – Geographical range     Coffee Wine  Standards are global Standards are national or regional/local

Sustainability standards – Value chain complexity   Coffee Wine   Long value chain Field work Harvest In-land trading Primary processing (dry / wet) Milling Sorting Stuffing (bags or bulk) Sale from exporter ……….… Border …..…… Shipping Storage In-land transportation Roasting Blending Packing Sale to professional or retail Grinding Brewing Serving – drinking Short value chain (one place) De-stemming, sorting, crunching Maceration Fermentation Storage (aging) Bottling Sale from producer ………... Border ………

Sustainability standards – Geographical spread in blends    Coffee Wine  Geographical spread – High Example of a typical blend (Arabica) 40% Brazil (for body and sweetness) 25% Colombia (body and acidity) 20% Guatemala (aroma and flavour) 15% Kenya (acidity and brightness) Geographical spread – Next to none Chile, COYAM, Emiliana, Biodynamic 38% Syrah 27% Carménère 21% Merlot 12% Cabernet Sauvignon 1% Mourvèdre, 1% Petit Verdot

People involved – Few (relatively) Sustainability standards – Number of people, education, language, access to information …    Coffee Wine  People involved – Many Example – Uganda Standard: 4C (Global Coffee Platform)  NUCAFE Cooperative  5,100 farmers ( = 1% of Uganda’s farmers)  4 local languages + English  Education – often modest  Access to information – often modest  Uganda produces 2% of the world’s coffee People involved – Few (relatively) Example – New Zealand Standard: Sustainable Winegrowing NZ  254 wineries and 1,918 vineyards  98% of NZ’s vineyard area is certified  One language  Education – good  Access to information – easy  New Zealand produces 1% of the world’s wine

Conclusion Sustainability standards are more complex to develop and to implement for coffee than for wine – Not the same as easy for wine    Coffee Wine  Standards are global Value chains are long Blends: Input from many countries Producers: Many – with limited education and access to information  Language: Often several Standards are national or local Value chains are short Blends; Input is local Producers: Few (relatively) – with good education and access to information Language: Usually one only