I was watching Australian broadcast TV (unusual for me, I know) and I noticed an proclaiming that McDonalds' McCafe has moved to using "rainforest alliance certified" coffee. The first thing I did was fire up google and check out what the 'rainforest alliance' actually was, having never heard of it before and half-thinking it was some front company made up so the giant fast food chain can appear to be 'ethical' without paying "fairtrade" prices.

Turns out that the 'rainforest alliance' is a real NGO and does do good work, but the criticsm section on wikipedia(below) is a little concerning ...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticism

Rainforest Alliance agricultural certification has been criticized by a range of academics and media sources. The Manchester Evening News notes that critics have dubbed the Rainforest Alliance" Fairtrade lite"^[25] therefore offering companies such as Chiquita and Kraft a cheap way to tap in the ethical consumer market. Alex Nicholls, professor of social entrepreneurship at Oxford University, called Rainforest Alliance certification "an easy option for companies looking for a “flash in the pan at a cheap price”.^[26] Beyond the price issue, Michael Conroy, an independent consultant on certification for sustainable development and chairman of the board of Transfair USA [67], criticized Rainforest Alliance in his 2007 book Branded! for having "little tangible impact on the actual conditions under which work is done and workers are paid".^[27]

Minimum price issues

Rainforest Alliance sustainable agriculture certification, like the certification scheme UTZ Certified and organic [68], does not offer producers minimum or guaranteed price ^[28], therefore leaving them vulnerable to market price variations: as an example, in the 1980s, a pound of standard-grade coffee sold for around US $1.20. In 2003, a pound sold for about $0.50, which was not enough to cover the costs of production in much of the world.^[29] The price of coffee has since rebounded somewhat, with prices for Arabica reaching $1.18/pound by the end of 2007 [69].

In March 2007, Ethical Corporation reported that due to higher coffee market prices, Rainforest Alliance Certified farmers on average receive $1.20 per pound, or 9% less than the Fairtrade minimum price and premium and 20% less than the average price paid to Fairtrade certified producers.^[30][31]

Michigan State University professor Daniel Jaffee has criticized Rainforest Alliance certification, claiming that its standards are "arguably far lower than fair trade's" and saying "they establish minimum housing and sanitary conditions but do not stipulate a minimum price for coffee. Critically, they require plantation owners only to pay laborers the national minimum wage, a notoriously inadequate standard."^[32]

The Economist, however, seems to favor the Rainforest Alliance's method and notes that "guaranteeing a minimum price [as Fairtrade does] means there is no incentive to improve quality." They also note that coffee drinkers say "the quality of Fairtrade brews varies widely. The Rainforest Alliance does things differently. It does not guarantee a minimum price or offer a premium but provides training advice. That consumers are often willing to pay more for a product with the [Rainforest Alliance] logo on it is an added bonus, not the result of a formal subsidy scheme; such products must still fend for themselves in the marketplace." ^[33]

Crop prefinancing issue

The lack of crop prefinancing has been another point of contention regarding Rainforest Alliance standards in the past years: Rainforest Alliance standards do not require importers to offer crop pre-financing, a key condition described by Whitni Thomas, head of the Access to Finance Initiative at NEF (New Economics Foundation), as a "cornerstone of the Fair Trade philosophy". Thomas further describes crop pre-financing in "Financing Fair Trade" as particularly critical for commodity producers, especially in the context of the recent collapse of formal lending programs in many developing countries.^[34]

Use of seal

Rainforest Alliance certification has been criticized for allowing the use of the seal on coffee containing a minimum of 30% of certified coffee beans ^[35] According to Michael Conroy, chairman of the board for TransFair USA [70], this use of the seal is the "most damaging dimension" of [Rainforest Alliance's] agricultural certification program and "a serious blow to the integrity of certification": "Yuban coffee, a very popular lower-grade canned coffee available nationwide in the US, proudly advertises on the front of its cans that 30% of the contents are Rainforest Alliance Certified. What are consumers to believe about the other 70% of that coffee? That it is pesticide-laced and irresponsible in its water use? In neither of the other certification systems with which [Rainforest Alliance] is associated, FSC forest certification and the Sustainable Tourism certification, would it allow the use of its logo with such a low bar."^[36] The organization counters that this approach encourages larger purchases of beans from certified farms, having a greater global impact on the environment and livelihoods of farm communities as large roasters blend the beans into mainstream brands. ^[37] Consumer Reports ^[38] counters Conroy's implication that the label is misleading, judging it to be "clear and meaningful," and calling the Rainforest Alliance Certified label on agricultural products "highly meaningful."

Focus on plantations

Michigan State University professor Daniel Jaffee has criticized Rainforest Alliance certification for targeting large and medium coffee plantations, unlike Fairtrade's focus on small peasant coffee farmer cooperatives.^[39]