At the same time, certifications are also useful marketing tools – efficiently communicating more ethical and sustainable practices to roasters and consumers. 

However, given that most producers don’t market their own coffees, understanding how certifications can retain more value in producing countries is essential.

To learn more, I spoke with three coffee professionals involved in Falcafé’s Neighbors and Friends Program. Read on to find out more about how certifications are used to market coffee.

You may also like our article on certifications and direct trade in the coffee industry.

The evolution of marketing in coffee

Although the coffee industry has certainly changed over the years, its current marketing model is largely a product of its history. In turn, many smallholder farmers don’t market their own coffee – and roasters handle the majority of marketing in consuming countries.

To better understand this, we need to consider the colonial history of the coffee sector. Throughout the 1600s and 1700s, European colonial powers established the coffee trade as we know it today. As the vast majority of coffee produced during this time was exported to Europe, marketing was targeted towards consumers rather than traders or roasters – albeit in a much more rudimentary form compared to today.

This trend of marketing coffee in majority consuming countries continued over the following centuries. During the 1700s and 1800s, coffee was branded as an “exotic” product. This means it came with a higher price tag that many people couldn’t afford.

However, at the turn of the 20th century, coffee businesses started to shift their marketing focus to meet changing demand. As convenience became a more important purchasing factor, more and more consumers expected their coffee to be roasted for them. At the same time, coffee also became more affordable and accessible to the masses.

In many major consuming countries since then, coffee marketing has continued its focus on the consumer. As such, almost by default, business-to-consumer marketing remains the responsibility of roasters and coffee shops. 

Ultimately, this means most of the value in the global coffee market is created after coffee leaves origin. This is because roasting adds significant value to coffee, after which it is marketed and sold. 

While there are some roasters in origin countries, because the majority are based in consuming countries in the Global North, this is where much of the marketing takes place.

What about specialty coffee?

The foundations of marketing strategies in the coffee industry have largely remained the same for centuries. However, that’s not to say the way coffee is marketed hasn’t changed – especially with the growth of the specialty coffee sector.

Humberto Florezi Filho is the CEO of Falcafé, a specialty coffee exporter in Brazil. 

“Generally speaking, with specialty coffee, there are more direct trade relationships between producers, exporters, and roasters,” he says. “The price of specialty coffee is also based on a wider range of factors, such as quality and flavour profile.”

There are many reasons for these changes, but evolving consumer demand has played a huge role. Now more than ever, consumers want to receive more information about coffee production, as well as knowing that farmers receive a “fairer” price.

Victor Fachinetti Vuolo is the Export Manager at Falcafé. He explains how demand for more information about producers and their coffees has increased in recent years.

“Traceability is becoming a very important factor in sourcing and marketing coffee,” he says. “Today’s specialty coffee consumer wants to know how the coffee was grown, who the producer is, and where the farm is located.

“Different processing methods have also had a big impact on specialty coffee,” he adds. “Over the past few years, there have been many new processing techniques, including controlled fermentation. This means roasters need to provide more information about coffee.”

How are certifications used in coffee marketing?

With a bigger focus on sustainability, quality, and traceability than ever before, certifications have started to play an important role in coffee marketing.

In theory, certifications can prove that a specific coffee is grown or purchased in an environmentally, socially, or financially sustainable way. Producers achieve this through implementing formal agricultural training programmes, as well as adhering to a strict set of protocols and standards.

For example, to receive the 2020 Rainforest Alliance certification, producers need to comply with a number of sustainable requirements. These include safe and healthy working conditions, environmental protection schemes, and no forced or child labour practices.

Other examples of prominent certifications in the coffee industry include:

• Fairtrade
• Organic
• 4C (the Common Code for the Coffee Community)

Over the past few years, several coffee companies have also launched their own private certification schemes. Some of these are:

• Nespresso’s AAA programme
• Starbucks’ C.A.F.E. practices
• Falcafé’s Neighbors and Friend Program

In turn, including certifications on packaging means roasters and other coffee retailers can more effectively showcase their commitment to ethical business practices. 

“Certifications help to assure consumers that the coffee they buy is grown sustainably and ethically,” Humberto tells me.

Moreover, research has shown consumers are willing to pay more for certified coffee. For instance, the Specialty Coffee Association found that people paid up to US $1.36 per pound (0.45kg) more for organic coffee – with interest in other certifications also playing a role in purchasing decisions.

How do producers benefit from certifications?

It’s certainly evident that roasters reap the rewards of selling certified coffee. But do the producers who have to adhere to these standards see similar benefits?

By obtaining certifications, producers can showcase a dedication to maintaining quality, sustainability, and fair labour practices. This can help to strengthen their branding, differentiate from competitors, and even gain access to different markets.

“Certifications demonstrate producers’ commitment to quality and safety,” Victor tells me. “It affirms that their business practices have passed specific and strict performance and quality assurance tests.”

In theory, this also means farmers can receive higher prices for certified coffees.

Gabriele Maia Teajs is a producer in Brazil involved in Falcafe’s Neighbors and Friends Program.

“If farmers meet all the criteria for the certification programme, they can get a better price for their coffee,” he says. “This means they can invest more in their farms, and also improve their quality of life.”

Overcoming challenges when obtaining certifications

When opting into certification programmes, there are clear advantages for producers. However, growing certified coffee can be both financially and logistically challenging.

The process of obtaining certifications is neither easy nor cheap, with extensive documentation, audits, and ongoing compliance involved. Ultimately, this increased level of administration can take time and attention away from core farming activities, such as irrigation and quality control.

Moreover, the fees needed to obtain and maintain certifications can strain producers’ already limited resources. This is especially important considering that coffee farmers are usually paid in a lump sum once a year when they sell their harvest, so finances need to be managed as effectively as possible.

It is therefore crucial that producers receive the right level of support when applying for and adhering to certification schemes.

In response to these challenges, Falcafé’s Neighbors and Friends Program was designed to help smallholder farmers achieve similar outcomes to more traditional certifications in a more accessible manner.

“The Neighbors and Friends Program provides one-to-one agronomic assistance, as well as offering training courses in partnership with Brazil’s National Service of Rural Learning (SENAR),” Gabriele says. In turn, producers have the opportunity to improve coffee quality and yields.

“With its expertise in the specialty coffee sector, Falcafé helps Brazilian producers to sell their coffees in many different international markets,” he adds.

Support in formalising agricultural best practices

For certifications to work most effectively, they need to have strict standards and requirements. To adhere to these successfully and sustainably, producers need to receive the right level of support based on their needs.

“When we share knowledge – such as choosing which varieties to plant in certain plots of land, proper fertiliser application and management, or best practices for drying coffee – farmers can benefit and maximise yields and quality,” Victor says.

Humberto agrees, saying that support can extend beyond farming practices.

“As well as providing training on how to reduce the use of pesticides and increase productivity, we also inform producers on how to take better care of their equipment and how to work in harmony with nature,” he explains. “This helps to improve the quality of life for producers, local communities, and coffee production in general.

“Moreover, when we provide this support, we don’t charge producers,” he adds. “This makes Falcafé’s Neighbors and Friend Program more accessible for smallholder producers.”

Certifications have played an integral role in coffee marketing, and will continue to do so in the future, too. At the same time, they are also part of much broader marketing strategies that highlight a wide range of factors, including origin, processing method, and sensory profile.

While it’s up to producers to implement stricter farming practices in line with specific certifications, the responsibility to support them in these efforts must be shared.

Enjoyed this? Then read our article on growing sustainability in the coffee supply chain.

Photo credits: Catenacom

Perfect Daily Grind

Please note: Falcafé is a sponsor of Perfect Daily Grind.

Want to read more articles like this? Sign up for our newsletter!

The post How are certifications used to market coffee? appeared first on Perfect Daily Grind.

With demand for experimentally processed coffees increasing, a small but growing number of producers are starting to implement more complex processing techniques on their farms. When done right, these methods can result in distinctive sensory profiles – and even improve coffee quality.

However, this is sometimes easier said than done. Without the right level of support and access to resources, some smallholder coffee farmers can struggle to carry out experimental processing methods successfully. 

To find out more about how experimental processing techniques can help coffee producers – as well as the level of support they may require – I spoke to Jeanine Niyonzima-Aroian, founder of JNP Coffee. Read on for more of her insight.

You may also like our article on how fermentation results in fruit flavours in coffee.

Why have experimental processing techniques become so popular in specialty coffee?

Before we explore why demand for experimentally processed coffees is rising, we first need to break down how we define experimental processing methods.

Although these techniques have been used by farmers in many producing countries for some time now, there is no formal term or definition for them. We can, however, describe them as processing methods which aim to create different sensory experiences. 

For instance, some prominent characteristics of experimentally processed coffees include:

• Wine-like or “boozy” flavours
• Intense fruit flavours, including more pronounced tasting notes of tropical fruit
• Creamier and enhanced mouthfeel, as well as more yoghurt-like flavours

Ultimately, the processing method largely determines the final cup profile. There is a growing number of different experimental processing techniques – including carbonic maceration and thermal shock. But one of the most popular is anaerobic fermentation.

This is when farm workers ferment coffee in hermetically-sealed containers, such as large tanks, plastic barrels, or plastic bags. Producers can then place these containers in temperature-regulated storage areas or water tanks.

The oxygen-free environment means microorganisms will break down the sugars more slowly, so the fermentation process will take place at a reduced rate. As a result, anaerobically fermented coffees taste more complex and nuanced.

Producers can choose to carry out anaerobic fermentation in different ways. For instance, natural anaerobic fermentation uses whole cherries, which can be fermented for as long as 96 hours. Washed anaerobic coffees, meanwhile, are fermented with no skin, flesh, or mucilage on the beans. This typically results in cleaner flavour profiles.

Rising demand in the market

It’s been hard to ignore growing interest in experimental processing methods in recent years. In specialty coffee shops around the world, it’s becoming more and more common to spot at least one experimentally processed coffee on menus, which baristas usually serve as pour overs.

There’s good reason for this rise in demand. Processing methods like anaerobic fermentation can create more unique and interesting flavour profiles, which often pique the interest of many industry professionals and consumers. 

As these techniques usually require more upfront investment from producers – and are also marketed as more premium and high-end products by roasters – farmers often sell them for higher prices. 

“Most experimental processing techniques are currently carried out on a small scale because they require a certain level of investment and commitment from producers,” Jeanine says. 

She explains how JNP Coffee, a US green coffee importer which sources exclusively from Burundi, has supported smallholder coffee farmers in the remote Muyinga province to test out natural anaerobic fermentation processing methods with high levels of success.

“Producers use Bourbon, as well as other similar varieties such as Jackson, Kent, and Mibirizi,” she tells me. “We also anaerobically ferment different lots for 24, 48, and 72 hours, respectively.”

Jeanine says the producers were inspired by practices used in other coffee-growing regions of Burundi, where farmers will seal whole cherries inside of plastic bags to ferment, and then dry them on raised beds.

“We began using these processing techniques when we started to grow coffee in places where there was no access to a wet mill, but farmers still needed somewhere close by to process their cherries,” she explains. “We then discovered these methods resulted in some interesting flavour profiles.

“Producers used both 48 and 72-hour anaerobic fermentation methods, which resulted in sweeter flavours,” she adds.

Can experimental processing methods help smallholder producers overcome challenges?

It’s important to note that producers in different coffee-growing countries face their own unique set of challenges. Many difficulties, however, stem from an overall lack of access to resources to improve coffee quality and yields. In fact, around 44% of the world’s smallholder coffee producers are living in poverty.

Looking at Burundi specifically, the World Food Programme reports that some 70% of the country lives below the poverty line, with many people experiencing food insecurity, too. Although the reasons for this are incredibly complex, they largely originate from Burundi’s colonial history.

Coffee was first introduced to Burundi in the 1930s when the country was under Belgian colonial rule. Many farmers were forced to grow coffee, and few were paid for their labour.

Although Burundi became independent in 1962, decades of civil unrest and political instability have left many coffee producers unable to scale production sustainably. Moreover, agriculture is the main source of income for at least 80% of Burundi’s population. This means improving coffee quality and yields is especially important.

Processing methods as a means to improve quality

According to the Coffee Quality Institute: “post-harvest processing has the potential to not only preserve quality and food safety, but to create flavours and add significant value [to coffee]”. 

Burundi is renowned for growing coffees with fruit-forward flavours, as well as sweeter and brighter flavour profiles. But using experimental processing techniques such as anaerobic fermentation has allowed producers to unlock new sensory experiences.

“These processing methods are incredible opportunities for Burundian farmers because there’s plenty of demand for natural anaerobic fermented coffees,” Jeanine says. “These techniques have helped us to develop sensory profiles with accentuated fruit and floral notes, as well as a more pronounced body. 

“Based on different fermentation times, we have also experienced more wine-like flavour notes,” she adds.

In theory, this means producers can add more value to their coffee and sell to a broader range of buyers in different markets – potentially for higher prices, too. 

Receiving the right support

For coffee producers to implement experimental processing methods sustainably, they ultimately need better access to resources and financial support.

This is largely because there is a higher level of risk with carrying out processes like anaerobic fermentation. If farmers don’t control a wide number of variables, it’s all too easy to over-ferment coffees. This will result in undesirable flavours like overripe fruit or soured yoghurt.

For this reason, many farmers only process smaller batches of coffee using these methods to improve quality control. However, this can be costly for them. 

Jeanine explains how JNP Coffee worked with a local quality control specialist who provided technical guidance and assistance to local producers. With more rigorous systems in place, farmers were able to improve both quality and consistency.

She adds that JNP Coffee has also started providing quality control training to all its partner farms and wet mills to teach best practices for drying and carrying out experimental processing methods, specifically anaerobic fermentation.

Will more producers start to use experimental processing techniques in the future?

Given that the market for experimentally processed coffees is only continuing to grow, it’s likely the number of farmers using these methods will steadily increase in many producing countries.

Within the context of Burundi, the country’s high altitudes and volcanic soil, as well as the popular double-washed processing method, result in clean and juicy flavours. However, diversifying from traditional processing methods can also benefit Burundian farmers.

Because of this, Jeanine believes that more producers in Burundi will start to implement more experimental processing techniques. However, she emphasises the need for better support, especially with providing educational resources and the necessary equipment.

“Both of these are essential if producers are to grow high-quality coffee,” she says. “When producers have the right equipment, they can showcase what’s possible in terms of quality and flavour.”

Addressing context-specific challenges

There are many benefits to producing experimentally processed coffees, but it’s important to note that not all farmers will reap the same level of rewards. In fact, without the right resources in place, some producers may not be able to turn a profit.

In Burundi, for example, many farmers have to walk for miles to the nearest wet mill to process their coffee – which makes it extremely difficult to use the traditional (and time-consuming) double-washed processing method. 

Natural anaerobic fermentation, meanwhile, requires less water. Moreover, producers often don’t need to use equipment to depulp cherries.

“In remote areas where access to water is scarce, anaerobic fermentation can be a wonderful opportunity for producers,” Jeanine says.

While experimental processing only makes up a small percentage of coffee production, the market for these coffees is certainly growing. So it follows that some producers may be able to leverage these processing techniques to add more value to their coffee.

However, the most important consideration is that farmers have the capacity and resources to implement these methods successfully, especially after first testing them out in small batches.

Enjoyed this? Then read our article on whether you should brew experimentally processed coffees differently.

Photo credits: JNP Coffee

Perfect Daily Grind

Please note: JNP Coffee is a sponsor of Perfect Daily Grind.

Want to read more articles like this? Sign up for our newsletter!

The post Can experimental processing help coffee producers overcome challenges at origin? appeared first on Perfect Daily Grind.

Across the industry, this level of innovation in coffee flavour development has been the most apparent at the World Coffee Championships, especially the World Barista Championship. During their routines, competitors will often explain in detail how they worked with producers to develop a specific flavour profile. 

Following this trend – and for many other notable reasons – a growing number of specialty roasters are also choosing to collaborate with farmers to create more unique (and repeatable) flavours in coffee.

To find out more, I spoke to Yiannis Taloumis, CEO and Head of Quality of Taf Coffee, and Francisco Mena, a producer at Sumava Farm and manager at Exclusive Coffees in Costa Rica. Read on for more of their insight into how farmers and roasters can work together on these projects, as well as the benefits for both.

You may also like our article on how certain compounds create fruit flavours in fermented coffee.

Why create specific flavour profiles?

Before we get into how you can develop specific sensory profiles for specialty coffees, we first need to ask why producers and roasters are interested in doing so.

For many years now, specialty coffee producers have been using farming and post-harvest processing techniques to control and alter the flavour profiles of certain coffees. This can range from growing particular lots on different areas of their farms to leaving a specific amount of mucilage on green coffee when using honey processing methods, for instance.

More recently, we have also seen an increasing number of specialty roasters partner with producers to create limited-edition coffees. These tend to have more unique flavour profiles.

There are many reasons for this, but perhaps the most obvious is that the roaster can market the coffee as a unique selling point. Owing to the fact that they are often available in smaller quantities (and tend to sell out quicker than other lots), the perceived exclusivity of these coffees can gauge more interest from specialty coffee consumers. 

Yiannis tells me many roasters want to create more unique flavour profiles to engage with different types of customers. They can also develop their own “signature” coffee.

“A roaster’s preferred flavour profiles are shaped by their own experiences and knowledge, as well as what their customers want,” he says. “At the same time, they also have the opportunity to participate in coffee production, which makes the whole process even more exciting.”

Besides developing more unconventional flavours in coffee, a roaster may also want to create more repeatable and consistent sensory profiles. These more dependable coffees are often at the core of most specialty roasters’ offerings – largely because they serve an important purpose for many consumers.

What about producers?

Francisco explains that developing customisable flavour profiles can help producers to market their coffees more effectively, as well as to establish more premium branding for their farms. However, not all producers are able to do this successfully as the majority of marketing expertise is retained in consuming countries.

“Farmers can create a clear vision of their desired sensory profile which can allow them to secure a more favourable position in the market,” he says.

As they are marketed as higher-end coffees, they typically come with a higher price tag. Theoretically, this means the producer can also receive more money – as long as the entire process is sustainable and equitable.

Developing specific flavour profiles at farm level

A coffee’s final cup profile begins on the farm. At this level, there are a seemingly endless number of variables which influence coffee quality, flavour, aroma, and mouthfeel. These include, but aren’t limited to:

• Climatic conditions – such as altitude, rainfall, soil health, and exposure to sunlight. These are also collectively referred to as terroir
• Farming inputs and practices – fertilisers, pruning, and more
• Harvesting practices – hand picking vs. mechanical harvesting, level of cherry ripeness, etc.
• Post-harvest processing techniques – such as processing methods, grading, sorting, and more

All of these factors will have an effect on a coffee’s sensory profile to different extents. With a more thorough understanding of how, producers and roasters can control these variables to enhance more desirable characteristics. These generally include sweetness, acidity, and body, as well as any distinctive flavour notes.

Given the wide range of variables, some producers and roasters reverse engineer the process of developing a flavour profile. This is when the roaster first selects a particular sensory profile they are looking for. If sustainable to do so, the producer can then implement the appropriate farming and post-harvest processing techniques to achieve said flavour profile.

Before considering this type of collaborative project, Francisco emphasises that organisation is key.

“Both the producer and roaster need to understand and prioritise the importance of order and care with every step of the process,” he says. “For example, they need to think about selecting the plot of land to grow the coffee, as well as how clean the milling stations are.”

Choosing a variety and processing method

Before deciding on a set of farming and post-harvest processing practices, producers and roasters need to select which variety (or potentially coffee species) to use. Ultimately, this will have a huge impact on the desired sensory profiles – mainly because different varieties have different flavours.

Francisco tells me he grows several varieties at Sumava Farm, including Caturra, SL-28, Villa Sarchi, and Gesha. For the collaboration with Taf Coffee, he explains they chose Villa Sarchi. This is a natural mutation of Bourbon, which causes the plant to grow smaller. 

“When Yiannis came to our farm in March this year, we measured the Brix content of the cherries,” Francisco says.

Brix readings are used by many industries to measure the sugar content of liquid, including for coffee cherries. Based on these readings, producers are able to determine the flavours and aromas of a certain coffee, as well as to assess how ripe coffee cherries are.

“Only very ripe cherries were harvested for the Ariston micro lot coffee,” Yiannis says, which helps to increase coffee quality. He explains that the name derives from the Greek word for “excellence” or “the best”.

Following this, producers and roasters must decide on a processing method which highlights the coffee’s best qualities. Yiannis and Francisco explain they used a red honey processing method to enhance sweetness and complexity.

“We sun-dried the parchment coffee on patios to bring out more of the fruity flavours, too,” Francisco says.

Why should producers and roasters work together on these projects?

When collaborating to develop specific flavour profiles, it’s imperative that specialty coffee producers and roasters work together.

“Roasters need to develop close working relationships with producers, which are established through long-term partnerships,” Yiannis says. 

This is a concept often referred to as relationship coffee, which largely revolves around building trust between roasters and producers. The idea behind these partnerships is to encourage long-term buying, rather than roasters making a smaller number of one-off purchases. In turn, roasters are also likely to pay higher prices for certain coffees.

There are several key reasons why strong working relationships are essential to these kinds of projects. Arguably the most important is that developing a specific flavour profile requires producers to implement strict protocols – some of which may differ substantially from their usual farming practices. These can require significant upfront investment, and can quickly increase costs, too. As such, it’s important for the producer’s stability that a buyer of these coffees is already in place.

Franciso explains that building trust between producers and roasters helps to mitigate any risks, and ensures that the former receives the right level of support to take on any additional costs.

“A long-term relationship brings trust to new projects,” he says. “Together, farmers and roasters can better understand how to plan at farm level and during the harvest season.”

Yiannis adds: “Equally important is that the producer’s financial security is guaranteed, regardless of the outcome.”

Open dialogue

One of the core tenets of relationship coffee is transparent communication between roasters and producers. For the working partnership to be as successful and sustainable as possible, both parties must benefit.

Alongside discussing best practices for farming, processing, and roasting, Yiannis emphasises that both roasters and producers need to remain open-minded and collaborative. Ultimately, a free exchange of ideas and opinions can mean that any potential problems are resolved more quickly.

What are the advantages of developing a specific sensory profile?

There are many benefits of tailoring a coffee’s flavour profile for both producers and roasters. However, it’s still important to note that taking on such a project will require additional resources and labour, and will result in higher production costs. In line with this, producers need to make sure they are able to absorb these additional costs as sustainably as possible.

Yiannis tells me that the overall process can be an exciting experience for both parties.

“Creating a custom coffee like Taf’s Ariston – which will be launched soon – is a fascinating process for both the roaster and the producer,” he says. “Not only do they create a truly unique product, but they can also offer an exclusive experience to customers.”

As well as selling a high-end coffee for a premium price, roasters can also develop more consistent-tasting coffees – and thereby build more trust with their consumers.

Furthermore, developing a specific flavour profile can improve a roaster’s ability to effectively communicate tasting notes to their customers, as well as disseminate more detailed information about origin and coffee production.

What about producers in particular?

For producers specifically, projects like this means they can experiment more with farming best practices. In turn, they can not only create new sensory profiles, but they can also understand more about how to tweak different variables to achieve a repeatable flavour profile – helping to build trust with green buyers and roasters, too.

For producers and roasters, developing specific flavour profiles can unlock a new realm of possibilities for specialty coffee. However, at the same time, establishing a mutually-beneficial and sustainable working partnership is an essential part of this.

When done right, customising coffee flavour, aroma, and mouthfeel allows roasters to market more exclusive coffees. Producers, meanwhile, can add more value to their coffee.

Enjoyed this? Then read our article on how controlled fermentation processing methods can enhance coffee flavour and quality.

Photo credits: Francisco Mena, Yiannis Taloumis

Perfect Daily Grind

Please note: Taf Coffee is a sponsor of Perfect Daily Grind.

Want to read more articles like this? Sign up for our newsletter!

The post How can producers & roasters develop specific flavour profiles for specialty coffee? appeared first on Perfect Daily Grind.

To add to this, El Salvador also boasts unique microclimates and terroir which contribute to the production of high-quality coffee. As a result, at the 2022 Cup of Excellence (CoE) El Salvador auction, four coffees received over 90 points – certainly an indication of growing quality.

However, while quality is clearly on the up, prices still haven’t caught up with it. But these scores at auctions naturally draw comparisons to other producing countries with a reputation for high-scoring coffees. Among these is Panama.

This begs an important question. The story of Panamanian Gesha is familiar to specialty coffee professionals all around the world. So, with a unique variety already associated with El Salvador that can clearly yield outstanding quality – could the country also leverage Pacamara to achieve similar results?

To find out more, I spoke with two Salvadoran coffee professionals. Read on to find out what they had to say about the future of the country’s coffee sector.

Interested in attending a world-leading coffee event in El Salvador? Learn more about PRF El Salvador here.

A history of coffee in El Salvador

Before we discuss El Salvador’s potential and whether or not Pacamara can be leveraged like Gesha, we first need to look back at its history of coffee production.

It’s believed that coffee was introduced to El Salvador around 1740. In the years following, coffee quickly became one of the country’s biggest cash crops. 

By 1880, exports of coffee had significantly surpassed other commodities, especially indigo (a natural dye), which was also another major cash crop. In fact, between the late 1800s and mid-1900s, El Salvador was known as “the Coffee Republic”.

To encourage the continuing growth of the country’s coffee sector, the Salvadoran government offered farmers a number of benefits. These included a seven-year coffee tax exemption, as well as immunity from partaking in military service. 

However, following a civil war which began in 1980, the country underwent a period of significant political and economic turmoil. In turn, El Salvador’s coffee production dropped by an estimated 19%.

In 2014, the Salvadoran government began to focus on reviving production, but since then, annual production volumes have yet to reach historic highs. 

Between 1963 and 1989, the country produced an average of 2.5 million 60kg bags every year. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, El Salvador will produce some 619,000 60kg bags in the 2022/23 harvest season.

What makes Salvadoran coffee unique?

Although El Salvador currently produces significantly less coffee than in previous years, the country is renowned for its high-quality shade-grown varieties. The most popular are:

• Pacamara – a variety which originated from a cross between Pacas and Maragogype.
• Pacas – a natural mutation of Bourbon, similar to Caturra in Brazil and Villa Sarchi in Costa Rica.
• Bourbon – a tall-growing plant characterised by its low yields and high cup quality.

Rodrigo Giammattei is the General Manager at Café Caté, an exporter and roaster in El Salvador and Canada.

Rodrigo explains that because high-yielding varieties were never introduced to farmers, and many farms aren’t located in areas which receive intense sunlight, more than 50% of the country’s farms plant high-quality varieties.

However, this wasn’t always the case. Rodrigo adds that in the early 1900s, Bourbon, Pacas, and Pacamara collectively only made up around 4% of the coffee plants on Salvadoran farms. Today, the International Coffee Organisation estimates that Bourbon alone accounts for 62% of the country’s coffee production. Pacas and Pacamara, meanwhile, account for around 31% and 2%, respectively.

Moreover, El Salvador’s fertile volcanic soil, high altitudes, and vast expanses of shade cover also help to produce high-quality coffee with unique and desirable sensory profiles.

Maria Pacas is a producer at Café Pacas in El Salvador. She explains that coffee is emblematic for Salvadoran people. This is because much of the country’s infrastructure was developed as a result of its booming coffee sector, which has led many producers to feel passionate about their work.

Unique varieties

At Café Pacas, Maria says there are 64 different varieties, one of which was first discovered on one of its farms. 

She explains that when Café Pacas first acquired Finca Los Boletos, farm manager Ruperto Bernardina Meche found five coffee plants which produced different kinds of cherries.

The producers then harvested and processed these cherries separately to others on the farm. Samples were sent to traders and roasters, who scored these coffees 90 points or more.

When tests were conducted, results came back inconclusive – their genetic lineage was effectively unknown. However, we now know the coffee as the Bernardina variety – named after the farmer who discovered it. 

“Many people believe that Bernadina is a natural mutation between Bourbon and Pacas, which were already growing in El Salvador,” Maria says.

In terms of its genetics, Bernadina is 70% identical to Gesha, while the remaining 30% of its genetic material has been linked to coffee from the Agaro region in Ethiopia. This results in a highly desirable flavour profile, with some coffee professionals describing notes of jasmine and stone fruit flavours.

Could varieties like Pacamara become more exclusive?

Given its association with high-quality shade-grown coffee and the point scores that their lots are capable of, there is clearly potential for Salvadoran coffee to become more sought-after.

As mentioned previously, there are comparisons emerging between El Salvador and Panama – another Central American country which is known for producing highly-prized coffee.

Despite the fact that Gesha originated from Ethiopia, it is mostly associated with Panama’s coffee sector. Gesha took the global coffee industry by storm in 2004 when it received US $21/lb at the 2004 Best of Panama (BoP) auction – a record high at the time.

In the years since, prices paid for Gesha have only continued to increase. In fact, at the 2022 BoP auction, the top-scoring coffee received the highest-ever bid of US $2,000.49/lb. Proud Mary Coffee recently sold the coffee – a natural processed Gesha – for US $150 per cup at its US locations.

However, although El Salvador is growing more and more 90+ point coffees, prices paid per pound are still an astronomical distance from those paid for record-breaking Panamanian coffees. So, is there scope for this to improve? And could Pacamara come to rival Gesha?

How important is marketing?

“We have the terroir, we have the varieties, we have the soil quality, and we have the farming best practices,” Rodrigo says. “We just need to improve our marketing skills.”#

Marketing is a key topic at every step of the coffee supply chain – and production is no exception. And there’s no doubt that it has been a key part of the journey of Panama Gesha; the Central American country is now arguably more associated with one of specialty coffee’s most well-known varieties than Ethiopia, where it originally comes from.

A huge part of this is BoP – clearly a platform which Panama leveraged to catapult Gesha to become a new darling of specialty coffee in the mid-2000s. This was a marketing push the likes of which specialty coffee hadn’t really seen before.

Maria agrees with Rodrigo, saying: “When you market your company, you need to highlight what makes your brand different and unique.

“Sadly, Salvadoran producers have not been able to highlight those differences as effectively as possible so that consumers notice and appreciate them more,” she adds.

If this were to change, producers could push Pacamara as an individual variety renowned for its quality and one that grows predominantly in El Salvador.

Exclusive boutique auctions for high-scoring lots, partnerships with third wave coffee roasters associated with innovation, and investment at trade shows in major consuming countries could all be ways to push this – but this would require a lot of funding.

Differentiation is key

Although comparisons to Panama are somewhat applicable, Maria emphasises that El Salvador still needs to retain its uniqueness.

“I don’t think the goal should be for El Salvador to become another Panama because our country’s coffee sector is very different to Panama’s,” she says. “Our farming practices, our varieties, and our producers all make our sector unique, so we need to highlight all of these characteristics.”

The question now is whether or not marketing efforts like BoP are replicable in other producing countries like El Salvador.

In reality, the investment required promises no results, especially when we consider that BoP holds most of the market share and almost all of the awareness for auctions of its kind.

Along with Gesha, the Pacamara variety consistently receives some of the highest scores at the CoE El Salvador competitions thanks to its exceptional cup quality. However, its beans are very large, which can pose challenges for roasters.

“From my own experience roasting Pacamara, you need to drop the temperature slightly before loading the roaster,” Rodrigo says. “Per batch, we also roast 20% less volume than we would with the Bourbon variety grown at a similar altitude.”

Looking to the future

As we’ve established, there is clearly plenty of potential for Salvadoran coffee. A big part of this includes hosting more groundbreaking coffee industry events, such as PRF El Salvador, which will take place on 16 and 17 March 2023 at the Salamanca Exhibition Centre in San Salvador.

However, both Maria and Rodrigo agree that the future of the country’s coffee sector ultimately depends on whether producers can market Pacamara and other varieties on the international stage.

Moreover, they say it’s also important that Salvadoran producers work together on these efforts. As part of this, there needs to be more encouragement for more women and younger people to join the coffee sector.

The role of women and young people

Maria explains that historically, there has been little collaboration between Salvadoran producers. She says this is largely because of differences in opinion. However, in recent months, we have seen the inclusion of women and younger people bolster co-operation in the sector.

“The inclusion of women in the Salvadoran coffee sector has been fundamental,” Maria tells me. “Producers are able to openly share farming practices, processing techniques, and how they market their coffee.”

Rodrigo says that some farmers are starting to focus more on producing higher yields, while others are looking to grow more pest and climate-resilient varieties. And given that rainfall is both increasing and becoming more unpredictable in El Salvador, adapting to the impact of climate change is an important consideration for many.

However, Rodrigo adds that these new varieties can sometimes produce lower-quality coffee. Ultimately, he says maintaining a balance between quality, quantity, and resiliency to pests, diseases, and climate change will be key to the future of the country’s coffee sector.

It’s clear that El Salvador is well on its way to becoming a “boutique” coffee origin – especially with industry-leading events like PRF set to take place in the country in the coming months. 

However, given that El Salvador can’t compete as a high-volume origin, the question for the years ahead lies in how well the country can compete against more exclusive origins, such as Panama. Marketing is one key component of this, but this is a complex challenge that has no overnight solution.

Enjoyed this? Then read our article on speakers and panellists for PRF El Salvador.

Perfect Daily Grind

Want to read more articles like this? Sign up for our newsletter!

The post How can El Salvador leverage Pacamara coffee like Panama leveraged Gesha? appeared first on Perfect Daily Grind.

Two of the most widespread coffee farming models are estates and co-operatives. The former is simply a coffee farm (usually a large one) which generally processes and sells its coffee alone. The latter, meanwhile, is a model which encompasses a group of farmers who process and sell their coffee collectively in order to gain better access to equipment, facilities, and business opportunities.

While both models have their advantages and drawbacks, in recent years, smallholder producers in some countries have started to leave co-ops in favour of alternative farming models. The reasons for this are complex, however, it has ultimately led to the formation of new hybrid models – including the concept of “coffee farmer collectives”. 

To learn more about the differences between coffee estates and co-operatives, as well as farmer collectives, I spoke with Symon Sogomo, a producer at Sogomo Coffee Estate in Kenya, and Alejandro Hernandez, a coffee quality control manager in Colombia. Read on for more of their insight.

You may also like our article on why people are calling for reform in Kenyan coffee production.

Co-operatives vs estate farms: What are the main differences?

Before we explore the issues with these two models, we first need to understand how they work and how they are different – mainly when it comes to size.

Essentially, a coffee co-operative is a group of producers who join together to collectively improve their access to a number of resources. These can include fertilisers, farming tools, seeds, and loans. 

As well as this, farmers can also have more access to formal training programmes and can leverage better marketing and business opportunities. In theory, this can help them to receive higher prices for their coffee, or improve stability by committing to selling a larger volume of coffee on a repeat basis.

Coffee co-operatives have been prominent across the industry for decades. When well-managed, they offer a number of benefits to farmer members – typically smallholder producers who own smaller parcels of land. However, the model has received its fair share of criticism in recent years.

In Kenya, for example, co-ops receive money once a coffee has been sold. The co-op then deducts fees and remits money to individual members, but this can sometimes lead to disagreements over the final amount.

“For a number of complex reasons, not all of Kenya’s coffee-growing regions have well-developed co-operatives,” Symon says. “For instance, in areas where there is plenty of land, there are more coffee estates.”

Looking at coffee estates

In comparison, estate farms are much larger in size than each co-operative member’s individual farm. First and foremost, this gives producers ownership over more of the production process, including how they process and sell coffee. 

Farmers can carry out post-harvest processing on-site, and will often process and sell their coffee separately to other producers in the area – although this isn’t always the case.

However, this increased ownership also means increased responsibility. On estates, there isn’t a support network of other co-operative members and professionals to help with the processing, marketing, and sale of their coffee. Similarly, the party which owns the estate must deal with any financial issues.

Are more farmers leaving co-ops?

As previously mentioned, in recent years, we’ve seen more and more producers choose to leave co-operatives in some countries. There are a number of reasons for this.

Firstly, many co-op members depend heavily on their collective access to resources, formal training, and business opportunities, farmers may also have to deal with collective burdens. For instance, co-operative-wide financial issues (such as unforeseen costs or issues with debt) affect the entirety of its membership.

Decision making and autonomy over the processing and sale of coffee can also be difficult at co-ops. Although coffee remains the property of the producers, co-op management makes the majority of decisions about the processing and sale of coffee. 

This means that an individual farmer has much less ownership over their coffee – they are, for instance, often unable to process their coffee in a different way to other members. Furthermore, while they may have a say, they also don’t get to individually choose the price the coffee sells for.

“In Colombia, we don’t have many large coffee estates,” Alejandro explains. “Most of the varieties grown in the country are traditional, such as Caturra and Castillo, and the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia (FNC) mainly wants to buy washed coffee, too.

“Co-operative members receive more money for fully washed coffees than estate farmers,” he adds. “Most producers in Colombia belong to co-operatives because growing specialty coffee is still a relatively new concept here.”

What about estate production?

For the most part, owning a coffee estate is down to the amount of land that a producer has access to. This provides a greater scale of production, as well increased autonomy – estate owners can choose to pivot and experiment a bit more easily.

For example, we’re seeing a lot of younger producers becoming more aware that certain processing methods – especially more experimental techniques – can add value to their coffee in specific markets, which can potentially increase the prices they receive.

“With estate production, farmers can have full control over their operations, including processing,” Symon says. “In theory, they can reap more rewards when they put more effort into their coffee production.”

In some producing countries (such as Kenya), land inheritance can force farmers to leave the co-operative model behind. Furthermore, older producers often carry out most of the decision making in co-operatives, which can leave younger generations of farmers disillusioned. As a result, some of them register as estate farmers, which allows them to have much more control over coffee production.

The drawbacks of estate farming

However, just because estate farmers typically have larger farms does not mean they are without their own unique problems. For example, in some producing countries, farmers need a licence to operate estates.

“In Colombia, the FNC manages the majority of coffee exports,” Alejandro says. “The FNC deducts a small percentage of total sales of coffee (known as ‘coffee contribution’) to be used to support farmers.

“However, if you are not a member of the FNC, you need to have a license to operate as an individual or estate farmer,” he adds.

There are several requirements which coffee farmers need to meet to receive an estate licence. Although these can vary between producing countries, they generally include a number of minimum coffee plants, the acreage under coffee production, and total production volume.

Alongside licence fees, establishing a coffee estate can be expensive and time consuming. It’s likely that farmers will need to invest in a substantial amount of equipment and resources, which represents a significant upfront cost. Furthermore, estate farmers need to manage production and labour costs themselves, as well as the processing and marketing of their coffee – all things that co-operative management would often take care of.

What are coffee farmer collectives?

Although co-operatives and estates are two of the most common coffee farming models, Symon tells me that more “coffee farmer collectives” are starting to emerge in some producing countries – particularly Kenya.

“It’s a hybrid model – these collectives are like estates, but they operate in a similar way to a co-operative society,” he says. “The owner of the estate maintains their independence.

“A co-operative has to have at least five members or so to become established, whereas a farmer collective requires less members,” he adds.

Farmer collectives tend to include producers who don’t own or lease farms which are large enough to register as estates, but they are also not willing to join a co-operative.

In these cases, a small group of producers from the same region can form a farmer collective, which can be registered as a coffee business with the local authority. Each farmer can retain control over their respective farm, however, coffee processing can be carried out collectively at local micro mill facilities.

Coffee farmer collectives are also able to own and operate their own dry mills, where they can remove parchment from beans, as well as grade, sort, package, and export their coffees. This way, members of the collective can retain more of their coffee’s value.

Unlike coffee estates, larger areas of land aren’t required to establish a farmer collective. In some cases, the requirements to join a farmer collective can vary widely, so smallholder producers are also able to become a member.

Individual members of coffee farmer collectives are also able to directly interact with buyers, which means they are able to negotiate prices. However, Symon points out that this can be a problem, too.

“As a collective, you can negotiate prices and conditions more effectively,” he says.

What does the future hold for coffee estates and co-ops?

Irrespective of the emergence of the coffee farmer collective model, we know that estates and co-ops are far more prominent across the industry. But how might this change in the years to come?

“Well-managed co-operatives ensure that all members abide by the required guidelines and standards, which in turn means producers have better access to resources,” Symon says. “Co-op managers can also restrict a member’s earnings if they don’t produce coffee to a high enough quality, [which can be an incentive to maintain quality standards].”

Co-operatives can also act as a safety net for some smallholder producers, as they provide easier access to facilities, resources, and business opportunities. Moreover, the costs of production can also be reduced, while estate production can be costly for individual farmers.

Weighing the pros and cons

If well managed and with proper oversight, some buyers often prefer to purchase coffee from co-ops rather than estates – largely because they often have a better reputation for quality control. For instance, cherries need to be sorted before they can be accepted by co-operative management, which in theory means only ripe cherries are processed.

Furthermore, estate farmers generally hire seasonal labour to help across the harvest season. If pickers are paid for the amount of cherry they harvest, this could be an incentive to focus on volume over quality – although this is not always the case.

“Estate farmers need more time and equipment to harvest ripe cherries, which is not always easy,” Alejandro says. “Co-operatives, however, don’t always face this issue.”

However, at the same time, the increased autonomy of estate production remains a key factor: farmers who have more scale can add more value to their coffee through processing, branding, and marketing.

In short, for individual farmers who operate on larger amounts of land, the economy of scale simply means estate farming can be more profitable in the medium and long term.

At the same time, for many smallholder farmers around the world, there is simply no choice but to operate as part of a co-operative – without the access to infrastructure and other resources in this way, many of them wouldn’t be able to process and effectively sell their coffee.

Ultimately, the size of a producer’s farm largely dictates which farming model they will follow, however, it’s clear that alternative models – such as farmer collectives – are also beginning to emerge.

Enjoyed this? Then read our article on how price increases affect coffee co-operatives.

Perfect Daily Grind

Want to read more articles like this? Sign up for our newsletter!

The post What’s the difference between coffee estates and coffee co-operatives? appeared first on Perfect Daily Grind.

However, research has found that farmers (particularly smallholders) sometimes receive as little as US 40 cents per cup of coffee. This means they often have little money left over to invest back into their farms and improve coffee quality – potentially restricting their income even more.

But is there a way for coffee producers to improve their access to goods and services without exchanging money? 

One way they can do so is by bartering. This is where two parties directly exchange goods and services for other goods and services – meaning no money is exchanged during the transaction. In coffee production, this often involves providing producers with the products and services they need, while the farmer agrees to provide a certain amount of green coffee in return. 

So how exactly does a barter system work in coffee production? To find out, I spoke with three Brazilian coffee farmers who work with Nucoffee. Read on to find out what they had to say. 

You may also like our article on whether it is possible to get good quality coffee from unripe cherries.

What is bartering in coffee production?

To understand barter systems in coffee production, we need to know what bartering is.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “barter” as “to trade by exchanging one commodity for another” or “to trade goods or services in exchange for other goods or services”. For instance, two businesses may barter goods or services with each other rather than providing payment – particularly if the two companies specialise in different industries (such as carpentry and welding).

In coffee production, bartering often involves the exchange of farm inputs (such as pesticides and fertilisers) and other goods, or services such as technical assistance, in exchange for a set amount of green coffee. Farmers typically provide the coffee at an agreed upon date.

José Carlos Bacili is a producer at Fazenda Coito in Minas Gerais, Brazil. 

“In coffee production, a barter system allows farmers to use their coffee as a bargaining tool to obtain the goods, services, and technologies they need to produce coffee,” he tells me. 

Márcia Takiuti is a coffee farmer in Monte Carmelo, Brazil.

“In coffee production, bartering is used to acquire supplies in exchange for bags of coffee,” she says.

Francisco Sérgio de Assis is a producer at Fazenda Água Limpa in Alto Paranaíba, Brazil. 

He explains that farmers can trade green coffee for “farming inputs, machinery, and services”.

While a barter system may be more common among smallholder producers who typically have less access to financial resources (such as credit facilities and long-term loans), coffee farmers around the world can use bartering as means of acquiring the resources and services they need.

How does bartering in coffee production work? 

Márcia explains more about Nucoffee’s barter system, which extends beyond more traditional coffee barter models by working closely with producers to deliver as much value to them as possible.

She tells me that producers can visit warehouses which offer a number of goods, including equipment, as well as fertilisers, pesticides, and other farming inputs. 

Márcia adds that in order for the producer to receive the required goods, they must agree on a set date by which they need to provide a certain amount of green coffee. Once the transaction date is finalised, the producer receives the goods and will usually provide the trader with the required amount of green coffee accordingly.

However, it’s important to consider the risks involved with bartering green coffee. Farmers (especially smallholders who produce less coffee) need to ensure that they only commit to providing feasible volumes of green coffee.

In addition to bartering, Nucoffee also offers resources and training to support more than 4,000 Brazilian coffee producers to improve their coffee quality and yields. Ultimately, this can create more demand for their coffee and potentially help to increase their income, too. 

Moreover, Nucoffee provides farmers with up-to-date market information, which can allow them to keep track of fluctuations in the price of coffee, as well as any emerging trends in the coffee industry.

In fact, the company was one of the first to pioneer the green coffee barter system. Since its establishment in 2017, Nucoffee has been offering services such as technical consulting and workshops to inform farmers on how they can identify areas to improve their businesses – prioritising the needs of producers.

“We receive equipment and support for post-harvest processing, especially for producing specialty-grade coffee,” José Carlos says.

Márcia also tells me that through Nucoffee’s barter system, she has received support which allowed her to understand more about fermentation in processing, as well as how it can affect quality and sensory profiles.

This is especially important, as it’s estimated that post-harvest activities (including processing) can be responsible for up to 60% of final coffee quality.

In 2009, Nucoffee was one of the first green coffee traders to provide educational workshops on harvesting and post-harvest techniques for specialty coffee – which involved around 80,000 producers. The following year, in partnership with the Coffee Quality Institute, the company helped to establish the first-ever group of Q graders in Brazil.

Alongside this, Nucoffee also works with the Federal University of Lavras (UFLA) in Brazil, which houses an educational centre on post-harvest activities and coffee quality – sharing knowledge on how to improve coffee quality.

Understanding the benefits of bartering

Naturally, the biggest advantage of bartering in coffee production is providing an alternative trade model for producers who might otherwise struggle to save up the capital for fertiliser, equipment, training, or other supporting goods and services.

Improving producers’ access to resources, such as farming inputs and technical assistance, is vital – especially if they have little financial resources available to them. In this case, without the barter system, coffee farmers would not be able to receive the goods and services which they may urgently need.

“The main advantage of the barter system is that producers don’t need to have working capital to pay for the goods and services at the moment of acquisition,” she says. “Producers are guaranteed to have the product when they need it.”

Without access to finance, many coffee producers struggle to invest in their farms, ultimately making it difficult for their businesses to be profitable in the long run. Unforeseen repairs and maintenance, food insecurity, and family emergencies can also exacerbate coffee farmers’ economic vulnerability, and leave them trapped in a cycle of poverty.

Moreover, as coffee is a seasonal product, many farmers receive lump sums of money on an annual basis. This means financial management in the long term is key, but planning ahead until the next harvest can be difficult; coffee farms can require unforeseen maintenance at short notice for a number of reasons.

Márcia explains how bartering can support producers with financial management.

“Coffee plants [need a lot of care and attention], so we work on them during the whole year, and then harvest cherries once a year,” she says. “There are many different kinds of products we need to use in order to do this.

“The coffee barter system works well for all parties involved,” she adds. “For us, the producers, it helps us to buy all of the products we need in advance, as we already know which products we’ll need throughout each harvest year.”

José Carlos agrees, saying: “[Bartering provides producers with] better visibility of the year ahead and [allows them to carry out] more efficient planning.”

Alongside this, both Francisco and José Carlos say that barter systems help producers retain more of the value from their coffee by giving them more flexibility to bargain.

Furthermore, with climate change becoming a more pressing issue in the global coffee industry, all three producers tell me that changing weather conditions are resulting in more unpredictable harvests. Ultimately, this makes it more difficult for producers to plan ahead for the future.

“When a harvest is affected by climate change, producers can often lose some of the capital they need to deliver the coffee to traders,” Márcia explains. “We also lose some of the money we need to operate a farm.”

José Carlos adds to this by saying that changing weather patterns can have detrimental effects on both coffee quality and yields, and that these effects can vary year to year.

When facing issues such as climate change, bartering is an option to help producers receive the resources and support they need.

How can coffee farmers retain more value?

When talking about sustainability in the coffee industry, we often consider three key pillars: social, economic, and environment. When it comes to economic sustainability, one of the biggest concerns is ensuring that farmers receive more money for their coffee, as well as retaining more value.

To further these efforts, Nucoffee launched its Direct programme, which offers coffee farmers customised services and solutions – ensuring more of their needs are met. The programme has four elements: transparent trading, coffee quality, sustainability, and logistics.

Ultimately, by closely following new trends and technologies in the coffee industry (such as sustainably-grown coffee), programmes like Nucoffee Direct can help to create new market opportunities for producers. Not only does this potentially improve coffee quality and yields, but also farmers’ income.

“This is a unique selling point for coffee,” Francisco says. “By improving traceability, you are providing more sustainable coffee to the end consumer.” 

José Carlos mentions that this also can add value to roasters and coffee shops as consumers are demanding more transparent and traceable coffee, too. Ultimately, programmes like Nucoffee Direct improve consumers’ access to more sustainable and high-quality coffee.

“Through the programme, we improved the traceability of our coffee,” Márcia explains. “We were able to track harvests and farming inputs used.

“We are able to record data when applying fertilisers, as well as knowing how long to wait for the next application,” she adds.

Improving access to farmer education is also another way for producers to retain more value.

Nucoffee’s Sustentia programme can help farmers to implement more sustainable agronomic practices on their farms, as well as supporting them in achieving Rainforest Alliance certification.

“The Sustentia initiative helps us with audit fees, which are expensive,” Márcia tells me. “The company also helps us to maintain our Rainforest Alliance certification.”

When implemented effectively, certification programmes can have a number of benefits for producers – including receiving more money for their coffee.

For coffee producers, the barter system can be a useful alternative to traditional financing models. Not only can it allow farmers to access products and services when they need them, it can also help them retain more value in the long run.

Alongside this, for some smallholder producers who may find accessing finance a challenge, the barter system can provide a safety net to make sure they receive the support they need.

To learn more about Nucoffee, visit the website here.

Photo credits: Nucoffee

Perfect Daily Grind

Please note: Nucoffee is a sponsor of Perfect Daily Grind.

Want to read more articles like this? Sign up for our newsletter!

The post How can producers use green coffee to barter for other goods and services? appeared first on Perfect Daily Grind.

Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and South Sudan are the seven members of the regional East African Community intergovernmental organisation. Comoros, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Seychelles, Somalia, and Sudan are also part of the region as far as geography is concerned.

A large proportion of East African coffee workers are women. In fact, in 2018, the International Coffee Organisation (ICO) reported that up to 70% of labour in coffee production is carried out by women, although this number can vary between countries and regions.

Despite making up a significant proportion of the coffee labour workforce, East African women often earn substantially less money than their male counterparts. This is largely a result of prejudiced misconceptions about womens’ roles in decision making, as well as a lack of progress in improving womens’ access to finance.

To understand more about the role of women in East African production, I spoke to two local industry professionals. Read on for their insight into how gender equality can be improved in East Africa’s coffee sector.

You may also like our article exploring how improving gender equity can benefit coffee production.

Women in agriculture in East Africa

Simply put, women play an essential role in agriculture across East Africa. According to USAID’s East African Gender Fact Sheet, up to 96% of women in Burundi, 76% in Kenya, 84% in Rwanda, 71% in Tanzania, and 77% in Uganda work in agriculture – including the countries’ respective coffee sectors. 

However, it’s important to note each country’s agricultural exports can vary widely – meaning we need to account for these differences.

In many cases, women carry out the majority of physical labour in East African coffee farms – including harvesting, pruning, weeding, and removing ageing plants. 

Lorraine Girinka is the Communications Director at Kahawa Link Company (KALICO), a woman-owned coffee company in Burundi. 

“In Burundi, women have some of the most important roles in coffee production, from planting seeds to harvesting cherries,” she says. “Women are largely responsible for ensuring that coffee plants grow healthily. 

“Even if a farm is owned by a woman and her husband, it is mostly women who have to take care of the coffee plants,” she adds.

In line with a number of traditional sociocultural norms in East Africa, men are generally the owners of these coffee farms, and the coffee plants as a result. Ultimately, this means that even if women work on these farms, men in the industry are more likely to hold important decision-making roles, and receive more of the profit.

Max Peters is a coffee professional in Tanzania. 

“A lot of Tanzanian farms are owned by male heads of households, but when it comes to carrying out manual labour, this is largely the responsibility of women,” he explains.

According to a report by Farming First, Ugandan women carry out up to 58% of fieldwork labour on coffee farms, and up to 72% of post-harvest processing.

Despite the unequal distribution of physical labour, male coffee workers often make more money than their female counterparts. For instance, the Specialty Coffee Association’s 2015 report on gender equity in East Africa found that on average, men earned more than US $700 harvesting coffee, while women made less than US $450. 

Although this is a result of many complex issues, the economic gap between men and women is largely because of several disadvantages and prejudices that women and girls face – including a lack of access to financial resources, education, and decision-making roles.

Why are women excluded from decision-making roles and access to finance?

Issues surrounding gender inequity are highly complex, but can partly be attributed to social and cultural misconceptions and prejudices about women being in leadership positions.

“My mother, who worked in coffee production, would tell me about the challenges she had to overcome simply because of being a woman,” Max says. “Some men would claim that it would be too difficult for her to hold a leadership role in coffee production because of bureaucracy and paperwork, and it would be easier to pay a man to deal with these matters on her behalf.

“But the same men who refused my mother access to decision-making roles and financial resources would gladly welcome me to their training workshops [because I’m male],” he adds.

In some coffee-growing countries, the exclusion of women in senior roles has been an institutional problem for some time now. For instance, some coffee co-operatives in the region implement policies and regulations which make women feel unwelcome, while others provide no growth opportunities for women.

Moreover, to join a co-operative as a member, applicants are generally required to own at least a few coffee plants. Considering how ownership often works for coffee plants and farms in East Africa, this presents a significant barrier.

“It’s a common social and cultural norm in East Africa that coffee farms have to be inherited by male members of a family,” Max explains. “In Tanzania, it’s difficult for women to own coffee farms, even if they have the financial means to do so.

“In some parts of central Tanzania, it’s almost impossible for a woman to own a farm,” he adds. “This area includes a lot of inherited parcels of land, and only men are allowed to inherit them.”

Max adds that women are able to inherit parcels of land, but only from their husbands and not from their families. Ultimately, this is an issue which only further contributes to placing more value on a woman once she marries a man.

Lorraine tells me many of these problems are a result of a formal lack of education for women and girls.

“Women and girls are not encouraged to attend school, so they grow coffee in order to earn some money for their families,” she explains. “They are also not empowered enough to run their own coffee businesses.

“Burundian women aren’t encouraged or valued enough to take up positions of leadership in coffee production, especially women from more rural areas,” she adds.

Furthermore, because of social and cultural traditions which require women to carry out the vast majority (if not all) of childcare and household duties, women often have little time to take part in other activities.

Is gender equity improving in East African coffee production?

First and foremost, it’s important to note that improving gender equity anywhere in the world is an arduous task that requires massive shifts in social and cultural mindsets and practices.

“We need to change these mindsets,” Max says.

He explains that because women have been so vital to the production of coffee in East Africa for so long, many of them possess invaluable expertise and experience in coffee production. He adds that their male counterparts need to recognise the value of this knowledge and expertise.

However, gender equity is about much more social and cultural beliefs; improving womens’ access to finance and resources is also vital.

In recent years, more and more co-operative societies are starting to offer training and technical support to women in the coffee industry – helping to improve their access to resources and education. 

As well as this, there is the support of several women’s coffee organisations, notably the International Women’s Coffee Alliance (IWCA). In fact, several East African countries have their own IWCA chapters, including Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Burundi.

In Uganda, several non-governmental organisations like Farm Africa are providing women with better access to different markets, as well as encouraging them to join coffee co-operatives, take on more leadership roles, and make changes to decision-making dynamics within their own households.

The Tanzania Women in Coffee Association also carries out similar work to Farm Africa, but membership growth has been slower – showing that more work still needs to be done in Tanzania’s coffee sector.

In Kenya, the Gender Value Chain Training for Kenyan Women Coffee Farmers programme focuses on training women to carry out best agricultural practices and processing practices.

Meanwhile, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (which is reportedly one of the most economically vulnerable countries in the world), non-profit organisations such as On The Ground run gender equity training programmes.

The work of such organisations allows women coffee workers to collaboratively overcome the challenges they collectively face – allowing women to empower themselves. 

By providing women with the best practices for weeding, pruning, mulching, harvesting, and processing, they can carry out these practices more effectively – potentially increasing yields and quality.

Ultimately, however, women are still vastly under-represented in many East African coffee co-operatives. As a direct response to this, some women are establishing their own women-only cooperatives to ensure they have a more equal role to men in regards to financial access in coffee production.

How does improving gender equity benefit the wider coffee industry?

Besides the obvious importance of improving gender equity to better support and embolden women and their families, there are a number of clear benefits for the global coffee industry.

It’s believed that across the Bean Belt, women lead somewhere between 5% and 30% of all coffee-growing households. This means that when access to education and resources improves for these women farmers, coffee quality and yields increase in turn.

The ICO estimates that closing the gender gap in coffee production could increase global output by up to 4% – the equivalent of 30 billion extra cups of coffee per year. And considering the ICO halved its 2020/21 global coffee surplus earlier this year, boosting global coffee production has never been so important.

Coffee production in some East African countries has also been waning in recent years, particularly Kenya and Tanzania, yet it still retains its importance for both countries’ economies.

Moreover, with an ageing coffee farmer population and the younger generations’ general lack of interest in coffee production, it’s clear that coffee production as a whole across East Africa would benefit from having more women in positions of leadership and decision making.

Lorraine expresses concern that in the face of so many difficulties, women in coffee production across East Africa may be reluctant to challenge the status quo.

“​Even educated women don’t have the chance to get more involved in coffee production,” she laments. “Burundian women haven’t been given the opportunity to see themselves in leadership roles.”

Ultimately, in order to create a truly sustainable global coffee industry, women need to be more involved in all aspects of the supply chain – including women in East Africa. While there is still certainly work to be done here, as there is elsewhere across the world, the growing presence of women-led and focused organisations provides some hope. 

Enjoyed this? Then read our article on women in coffee cooperatives.

Perfect Daily Grind

Want to read more articles like this? Sign up for our newsletter!

The post Women in East African coffee production appeared first on Perfect Daily Grind.

However, the country’s coffee production has been steadily declining since the 1990s for a number of reasons. These include a widening generational gap in coffee farming and the increasing prevalence of several pests and diseases.

Some coffee professionals believe that for Kenyan coffee production to return to its former heights, however, change must occur at a policy level. Some steps have already been taken to change the structure of the country’s coffee sector – most notably the country’s Coffee Bill 2021.

To learn more about this bill, other proposed reforms, and how they might affect the Kenyan coffee sector, I spoke with two local coffee professionals. Read on to find out what they had to share with me.

You may also like our article exploring the role of a Kenyan coffee marketing agent.

A brief overview of Kenya’s coffee sector

According to the Kenyan Agriculture And Food Authority, coffee was grown on around 119,000ha of land in 2019, making it one of Kenya’s biggest cash crops.

The vast majority of Kenyan coffee is sold on the Nairobi Coffee Exchange (NCE), which is organised by the country’s Exchange Management Committee. Every Tuesday, an auction takes place, unless the volumes of coffee brought to auction are too low.

The NCE system works in a unique way. After harvesting cherries, farmers transport them to a local washing station, which is usually operated by a co-operative. The co-operative then sends the coffee to a dry mill where it is assigned a unique tracking number – known as an “out-turn number” in Kenya.

Once the green coffee is milled, graded, and packaged in jute bags, it is handed over to a coffee marketing agent. This person will prepare a catalogue of the coffees available for auction, and will pass this on to traders at the NCE.

Like most auctions, buyers place bids for coffee which are available on the trading floor. The highest bidder will receive the particular lot they want to purchase.

Once payment is complete, a warehouse worker where the coffee is being stored will issue a “warrant”. This provides the buyer with formal ownership of the particular coffee.

However, some coffee professionals are critical of the NCE system – particularly producers and other stakeholders who work at the beginning of the supply chain. This is largely because it is the responsibility of marketing agents to pay farmers, and payments can sometimes be delayed for months.

Furthermore, the number of people involved in the supply chain ultimately reduces final payments for producers as other supply chain actors take a percentage.

The co-operative model in Kenya has also come under criticism in recent years. As co-ops receive the money once a coffee is sold, deduct fees, and then remit money to individual members (per kg of coffee), it can sometimes lead to disagreements and discontent over the amounts received.

Kevin Karuga is a coffee farmer in Kenya. He believes that reforms are overdue in the Kenyan coffee sector.

“The management of co-ops should be transparent so that they can account for the money paid to farmers,” he says. “Reforms are necessary because the coffee industry is meant to benefit all actors in the value chain.”

Are reforms necessary?

As a result of the issues which Kenyan coffee production faces, many in the sector are calling for more reforms. 

However, in response to a range of criticisms, the Kenyan government has implemented a range of new measures in recent years.

One of the most significant changes to the country’s coffee sector was the introduction of the “Second Window” in 2006 – effectively a direct trade system in Kenya. This means international roasters and traders were able to buy coffee directly from producers in the country, although the system is still largely unused.

Lucy Wanjugu is a coffee farmer in Kenya.

“When the ‘Second Window’ was introduced, some farmers thought they would receive more money, but this has not been the case,” she says. “Farmers are the most vulnerable to low coffee prices, so if we don’t have a system in place to ensure reforms work then [Kenya’s coffee industry cannot grow].”

Another major reform was the Coffee Bill 2020, which was instituted in October 2020 as an effort to streamline the supply chain. Some of the changes the bill enacted included ending some coffee trade licensing requirements, as well as removing some supply chain intermediaries.

However, despite these reforms, many issues still pervade in the Kenyan coffee sector. 

As with a number of other African coffee origins, the average age of Kenyan coffee farmers continues to rise. Ultimately, this will mean producers could become less physically able to carry out labour on coffee farms in the long term, and also means that the industry is at risk of losing hard-earned expertise without a clear succession plan.

To exacerbate this problem, many younger people in Kenya are migrating to urban areas in search of different lines of work. In many cases, younger generations aren’t as interested in coffee production, largely because it isn’t viewed as financially stable or viable.

Furthermore, increasing rates of urban development near Kenya’s larger cities means there is less land available for coffee production. 

This has led some smallholder farmers to lease land instead of purchasing it for themselves. While leasing land can have its benefits, there are also some downsides – notably disagreements between producers and landowners about plant ownership and harvest payments at the end of the lease.

Understanding the Coffee Bill 2020

Considering most of Kenya’s coffee is still not sold via the “Second Window”, the Coffee Bill 2020 has arguably had the most impact on the country’s coffee industry.

One of the most prominent changes was the formation of the Coffee Board of Kenya. The board allows producers to provide their insight through appointed members of co-operatives and registered estate associations.

“Farmer representation on the board is a positive thing, but if the representatives don’t have our interests in mind then there will be no benefits,” Lucy says.

The Coffee Bill 2020 also seeks to establish the Kenya Coffee Council, which will aim to provide advice and guidance to the Coffee Board and national government, as well as advocating for smallholder producers.

However, the new bill has also implemented some positive changes on the ground.

Smallholder farmers no longer need to own five acres of coffee to obtain a licence for a pulping station. Instead, they must own two and a half acres – making licensing more accessible for some farmers to diversify their income.

The bill also provides more support to the Coffee Research Institute (CRI), which is working to develop more climate, pest, and disease-resistant coffee varieties.

In an effort to streamline the supply chain, local county authorities can also now issue relevant licences and registrations, as well as having the means to establish funding and support programmes for producers. These projects may cover new infrastructure projects, technical assistance, or market access.

“In theory, anyone who wants to open a coffee business will have easier access to the licence and registration offices,” Kevin explains.

In terms of financial stability, changes made by the Coffee Bill 2020 should also allow producers to reliably receive a higher income

Prior to the introduction of the bill, only marketing agents were licensed to sell coffee at the NCE. Now, however, “grower marketers” and millers can also oversee transactions.

Furthermore, under the new regulations, washing station owners are prohibited from receiving money on behalf of farmers. Instead, all payments to dry mill operators, marketing agents, washing station workers, and individual farmers will come from the Direct Settlement System.

Payments to factories or societies from the Direct Settlement system for operations and maintenance is capped at 5% of the value of coffee sold, including the milling, warehousing, and marketing costs, or the actual cost of running a factory or society over the previous crop year – whichever is lower.

“When farmers receive payments directly into their accounts, they stand to gain more,” Lucy says. “The new rules state that the money should be deposited into our accounts within seven days.”

She also tells me that reforms mean marketing agents and dry mill operators are no longer authorised to offer loans to producers.

“These loans are part of the reason why co-operatives can fail and why farmers can receive less money,” she explains. “Our grower assets used to be kept as collateral, but then payments were low, which meant assets were used to recover the loans.”

What changes could be made in the future?

Currently, the Coffee Bill 2021 is still undergoing public participation with supply chain stakeholders, farmer representatives, local leaders, and government officials.

However, there are already some disagreements between the proposed reforms between the two bills. As a result of this, producers are calling for more crossover between the two bills, as there are still opportunities for them to remain economically vulnerable.

And although the Kenyan Coffee Producers Association claims producers are satisfied with current coffee prices, it is also requesting that the bills complement one another more effectively.

So how might the country’s coffee industry change in the coming years?

While these proposed reforms could well improve outcomes for smallholder producers in the Kenyan coffee sector, they have been met with some opposition.

Several court injunctions have prevented the implementation of certain other legislative developments, too. Kevin explains that there have been a number of delays at a policy and implementation level.

“It has prevented the development of the country’s coffee sector and some smallholder farmers have suffered as a consequence,” he says.

Furthermore, many smallholders in Kenya continue to struggle with illiteracy and a lack of formal coffee training opportunities. In order for the reforms to be truly effective, they need to address these problems.

As well as this, encouraging younger generations to become more involved in coffee production will definitely be essential.

“More young people should be leading the coffee sector,” Kevin concludes.

Although many of these reforms are yet to be implemented, both of the Coffee Bills 2020 and 2021 certainly have the potential to improve outcomes for Kenyan coffee farmers.

However, more formal education is needed, especially for smallholder producers who struggle with market access, financial literacy, and existing infrastructure problems.

Ultimately, if these reforms can offer a step towards restoring Kenya’s coffee industry to its former glory, then perhaps they can set out a policy pathway for recovery.

Enjoyed this? Then read our article explaining the Nairobi Coffee Exchange.

Perfect Daily Grind

Want to read more articles like this? Sign up for our newsletter!

The post Why are people calling for reform in Kenyan coffee production? appeared first on Perfect Daily Grind.

The vast majority of coffee grown in Indonesia is robusta. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that the country will produce some 9.3 million 60kg bags of robusta during the 2021/22 harvest season.

Despite the large volumes of robusta that Indonesia produces, most of it is used in blends or in soluble coffee products. The main reason for this is the perception that robusta is of lower quality than arabica – largely as a result of minimal quality control for robusta production.

But is there a chance this could change? To learn more, I spoke with several local coffee professionals. Read on for their insight into Indonesian robusta.

You may also like our article on how processing can be used to improve the quality of robusta coffee.

An overview of robusta production in Indonesia

Robusta is a major cash crop for Indonesia. In fact, according to Index Mundi, Indonesia is the world’s third-largest robusta producer after Brazil and Vietnam. So why does the country grow so much robusta?

Mia Lakhsmi Handayani is a R grader (also known as a Q robusta grader) in Indonesia.

“The country’s vast areas of suitable land for coffee production, as well as its different microclimates, make it ideal for producing robusta coffee,” she says. 

She adds: “These conditions also mean robusta flavours can range from more soft, subtle coffees with notes of chocolate and fruit grown in Central Java, to more intense flavours of vanilla and chocolate, like robusta grown in Sumatra.” 

The largest robusta-producing regions in Indonesia are mainly found in southern Sumatra – an island located west of Java. Sumatra’s high temperatures make it more ideal for growing robusta than arabica.

Like in many producing countries, the majority of farmers in Indonesia are smallholders who grow coffee on around one or two hectares of land. As many smallholder farmers produce coffee on a subsistence level, they often retain little money to reinvest into their farms, which understandably means quality control can become an issue.

Why do we need to improve robusta quality?

Denny Hermawan is also a R grader in Indonesia. He explains some of the issues which robusta farmers face in the country.

“Robusta production in Indonesia is plentiful, but quality and yields need to be improved,” he says.

In addition to a lack of widespread quality control measures, there are also problems around differentiating between fine robusta and commodity-grade robusta. To be considered fine robusta by the Fine Robusta Standards and Protocols, a 350g sample of green coffee should have no primary defects and no more than five secondary defects.

With quality control continuing to be an issue in Indonesian robusta production, it can be difficult firstly for smallholder farmers to identify the quality of their robusta, and then subsequently to improve it if they need to do so.

Furthermore, if producers are already producing fine robusta but do not have the knowledge or equipment to verify this, they could potentially be missing out on opportunities to scale their income.

However, these are not the only issues that Indonesian robusta production faces.

According to the paper Effects of Climate Change on Global Coffee (Coffea arabica L) Production, global warming could have devastating effects on the country’s arabica-growing land. 

In the study, the researchers claim that because up to 37% of the country’s land may become unsuitable for arabica production, Indonesian farmers may need to “climb higher” to reach better growing conditions.

However, it could also mean that Indonesian arabica farmers ultimately may be forced to produce more robusta, as it is much more climate-resilient than most arabica varieties. This could have detrimental effects on their income – largely because farmers receive higher prices for arabica compared to robusta.

In turn, this means an increasing focus on improving robusta yields and quality is becoming more and more essential for the future of Indonesia’s coffee industry.

Challenges in Indonesian robusta production

Alongside the increasing threat of climate change, Indonesia’s robusta farmers face a range of other difficulties

According to the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture, most coffee farms in the country yield about 817kg of cherry per ha. However, robusta plants are capable of yielding as much as 1,300kg per ha – indicating a productivity gap. In essence, this means that more investment could be needed to make robusta plants more productive.

“Most farmers only own small plots of land for robusta production, [and with such low prices for robusta], they are suffering economically,” Mia explains. “Their economic situation is made worse by the fact that the robusta plants need to be pruned and fertilised, which costs money.”

As a result of ongoing preconceptions about robusta as being of lower quality than arabica, many farmers in Indonesia invest less in processing and post-harvest for their robusta plants.

“Some producers don’t see the full potential of robusta because they receive less money for it than arabica, so they focus more on quantity over quality,” Denny says. 

Riswan Fitriyandi is a robusta farmer in Indonesia. He agrees that a lack of quality control during robusta production is a problem in Indonesia.

“There is a lack of maintaining quality control,” he tells me. “During harvest, pickers will remove all of the cherries, regardless of whether they are ripe or not, which can affect the harvest the following year.

“It’s not easy to change these practices as they have become somewhat normal in Indonesian robusta production,” he adds.

Ultimately, the issue circles back to information and resource availability as far as the correct production and processing techniques for robusta are concerned. Furthermore, with farmers accustomed to lower prices, as well as international perceptions of robusta being lower in quality, market growth certainly looks like a challenge at present.

Improving quality control standards

So, how can the quality of Indonesian robusta be improved?

Denny believes that it starts with increasing farmers’ access to education, including resources for processing coffee. This is especially important as it’s estimated that post-harvest can be responsible for up to 60% of overall coffee quality.

“It allows farmers to sort higher-quality robusta beans from commercial-grade beans,” he says. “I grow about 200 robusta plants and try to share my knowledge and data on how to conduct proper processing techniques with other farmers. 

“My methods may not be applicable to all farms in Indonesia, but they at least provide general guidance on how to improve robusta quality,” he adds.

Mia agrees, saying that more people in Indonesia need to be made aware of the existence of fine robusta. 

“When more people are aware of specialty-grade arabica, the market for it grows, which means connections to farmers are much easier to come by,” she tells me. “That’s why I became a R grader in the hope that it will increase awareness and demand of fine robusta, and ultimately boost the quality of robusta in Indonesia.”

She tells me how fine robusta can sometimes have similar flavour profiles to arabica. 

“I first tried a fine robusta in 2005,” she says. “It had a citrus-like acidity and a good body – it would have been delicious as a single origin espresso.”

Given that the C price for arabica has been steadily increasing for over the past year, roasters’ shrinking profit margins may mean they look to more affordable sourcing options to continue to meet demands for interesting cup profiles.

“The potential for robusta is definitely there; we just have to find a way to use our experience and knowledge to bring the best out of it,” Denny says. “By growing higher-quality fine robusta, we can create a more viable market for Indonesian farmers.”

Riswan agrees, saying: “The results of the first-ever Cup of Excellence Indonesia were promising last year, and I believe robusta can also shine in the same way [given the right time and investment].”

There’s no doubt that applying stricter quality control standards across the Indonesian supply chain will result in higher-quality robusta. But to maintain these improvements, these standards need to be scalable and accessible.

A large part of this revolves around increasing access to farmer education – which means supporting producers to learn more about robusta production and how quality control can be improved. If we do so, then Indonesia could improve its reputation within the niche of fine robusta coffee.

Enjoyed this? Then read our article on experiments with localised coffee flavour wheels in Taiwan & Indonesia.

Perfect Daily Grind

Want to read more articles like this? Sign up for our newsletter!

The post Understanding Indonesian robusta coffee production appeared first on Perfect Daily Grind.

The East African coffee origin produces both arabica and robusta in significant volumes. However, as a result of this, Tanzania has rejected other countries’ grading standards, and instead developed its own unique classification system.

Classifications for Tanzanian coffee depend on a number of factors, including species, bean size and density, processing method, and cup characteristics.

To learn more, I spoke with local coffee professionals. Read on for their insight on how coffee is graded and classified in Tanzania.

You may also like our guide to Tanzanian coffee production.

An overview of coffee production in Tanzania

Tanzania produces both arabica and robusta, with the former accounting for up to 70% of the country’s total coffee production volumes. Some of the most common arabica varieties include SC 3, SC 11, SC 14, SC 9, and KP 423.

Most of the arabica in the country is planted in the Southern Highlands, which includes the Mbeya and Songwe regions. Arabica is also produced in northern Tanzania, including on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro and Mount Meru. In more northern regions of the country, the main growing areas are Moshi, Arusha, Tarime, and Kigoma. 

Both the Southern Highlands and northern parts of Tanzania generally receive higher levels of rainfall and have cooler temperatures, resulting in more ideal growing conditions for arabica.

Robusta, on the other hand, is primarily produced in northwestern Tanzania, including areas close to Lake Victoria in Kagera. This region generally experiences higher temperatures which are more suited to growing robusta. 

Despite being Africa’s fourth-largest coffee producer, Tanzanian coffee farmers have experienced a number of difficulties over the past several decades – such as a rise in cases of coffee wilt disease in the 1990s, a widening generational gap in coffee production, and low farmgate prices.

What affects coffee quality in Tanzania?

Lucia Njau is a Q grader based in Tanzania. She explains that coffee quality can unfortunately vary significantly in the country.

Historically, Lucia says that some Tanzanian farmers used to add seeds and beans after their coffee was dry milled to increase the weight and artificially inflate their yield. 

However, she notes that this problem has been mitigated in recent years as producers have become more educated about post-harvest processes.

Processing in Tanzania

Processing has a significant impact on coffee quality in Tanzania. Lucia explains that most robusta farmers use one type of processing method.

“Last year, some producers processed washed robusta, but the majority of them use natural processing methods,” she says. “There is still a lack of knowledge about washed processing, so most farmers use natural processing because they believe it to be less expensive and easier to carry out.”

Tanzanian arabica farmers, meanwhile, tend to produce fully washed coffees, which are processed at central pulping units (CPUs) run by co-operatives.

Johnstone Mgangi is a coffee exporter and quality control professional, with extensive experience in the Tanzanian coffee industry.

He says that while interest in washed robusta is growing, the Tanzanian Coffee Board is attempting to implement best practices for processing methods in the country’s coffee sector as a means of improving quality.

Depulping is also a key step for quality control, especially for washed coffees.

However, some smallholders in Tanzania own their own hand pulpers, which allows them to remove flesh of the cherry without sending coffee to a CPU. In Tanzania, these are referred to as home processed (HP) coffees.

After depulping, HP coffees are usually fermented between 24 to 48 hours before being dried. According to Lucia, one of the biggest challenges with HP coffees is a lack of quality control.

“For instance, some farmers will harvest their coffee, but they won’t depulp it on the same day,” she says. “This has a negative effect on quality because the cherries will start to ferment on the side, which results in ‘foxy beans’ – a defect that creates unpleasant fermented flavours.”

Furthermore, while some producers do have access to the right facilities for depulping and fermentation, drying can still be an issue.

Overall, there is a lack of raised drying beds in Tanzanian coffee production, which means coffee often has to be dried on patios, which can sometimes impart earthy or silty flavours into the beans. In the long run, this can result in lower cup scores.

The role of co-operatives

Johnstone tells me that some practices that are popular among co-operatives in Tanzania can lead to lower quality coffee. 

“Unfortunately, even for farmers that follow best practices and deliver high-quality parchment to the co-operatives, all of the coffee is then grouped together under the same label,” he says. “This likely means that the overall price they receive for the lot is likely to be lower, even if some producers have contributed higher-quality, well-processed coffee.

“Most co-operatives also operate or own a share in some of the country’s CPUs, too,” he adds.

Despite this, Johnstone says farmers still receive higher prices when they sell their coffee through co-ops, as opposed to those who produce HP coffees.

At a CPU, staff members are responsible for carrying out processing methods and quality control, before specialist professionals inspect the final product. Some co-operatives in Tanzania work directly with private companies which can provide professionals to oversee and advise staff on how to carry out quality checks.

“They can visit each CPU on a daily basis to ensure that quality control procedures are followed, especially for washed coffees,” Lucia says.

Robusta quality standards in Tanzania

In many coffee-producing countries, green coffee is often graded according to size. To do this, screens are used, with each one using different-sized holes to separate the beans according to their size. 

Screen sizes are generally measured in increments of 1/64 inches. For instance, screen size 12 includes holes that have a diameter of 12/64 inches.

However, Johnstone says that in Tanzania, the same screen sizes are used for both robusta and arabica.

The largest screen size for robusta is known as screen 18, which is also referred to as “extra”. This size is considered the equivalent of grade AA – a high-quality grade of coffee used in countries like Kenya – and it generally receives a high point score on the Specialty Coffee Association scale.

The next lower screen size is known as screen 16 or “superior”. 

“‘Superior’ coffee has a good appearance, is free of any musty flavours and aromas, and has a minimum amount of defects,” Johnstone tells me. “It has a good cup quality, too.”

Any coffee below screen size 12 is considered as “triage” – these are very small beans mixed in with broken beans, low-quality coffee, and potential foreign objects (such as stones or small twigs).

What about standards for arabica?

Even though the same screen sizes are used to classify both arabica and robusta in Tanzania, quality control standards are usually stricter for the former.

Arabica parchment coffee is initially categorised into P1, P2, and P3 groups – depending on the quality. Each of these groups is then processed separately.

“At a dry mill, the coffee is hulled and graded depending on its bean shape, size, and density,” Lucia says.

Depending on the processing method used, Tanzanian coffee can also be categorised as either “hard arabica” (natural process) or “mild arabica” (washed process). The majority of arabica in the country is classified as “mild”.

“‘Hard’ arabica is harvested, dried, and milled,” Johnstone explains. “It is mostly produced in the Tarime region, mainly because the farmers there are more used to growing robusta – which usually undergoes natural processing.”

The official Tanzanian export grades for hard arabica are AAA, AA, A, B, PB (peaberry), C, E, F, AF, TT, UG, and TEX. These are all determined by both bean size and density – with AAA being the largest screen size and TEX being the smallest.

Typically, coffees from the Southern Highlands have a medium body and medium levels of acidity, as well as more citric, chocolate, floral, and fruit flavour notes. In particular, Tanzanian peaberry coffee is highly regarded for its high quality.

Coffee in Tanzania is then grouped into “quality baskets”, which include “grinders”, “FAQ”, and “AMEX” classifications. The AMEX category is mainly used for HP coffees, which are mostly produced in the Southern Highlands.

Most coffees from the northern regions are categorised as FAQ as they are more likely to be washed. These coffees are usually cleaner tasting and have more uniform quality than AMEX coffees.

Meanwhile, “mild” arabica is classified according to bean size and density, cup quality, number of defects, and appearance after roasting. These categories range from class 1 to class 17; the higher the screen size, the larger and higher quality the bean is – although this is not always the case as quality depends on a number of factors, including screen size. Lucia notes that most Tanzanian mild arabica is graded as Class 14 or higher, while semi-washed arabica is generally graded between 6 and 8.

“For instance, classes 1, 2, and 3 are all roughly the same size, are grey-green in colour, and have a moisture content between 9% and 12.5%,” Johnstone explains. “They usually have well-balanced acidity levels and body, and are free from any defects.”

Even within these classifications, there are further indicators of quality. Classes 1, 2, and 3 are considered “fine”, “fair”, and “fair/good”, while classes 4, 5, and 6 are labelled as FAQ+, FAQ, and FAQ-, respectively. The remaining classifications are “poor/fair”, “poor”, “very poor”, and “unclean”. 

Although Tanzania’s current classification systems can certainly help to identify and differentiate coffees based on quality, Lucia hopes that further changes will be made in the future.

“Hopefully the Tanzanian Coffee Board can revise the systems to reflect the higher-quality coffees that Tanzanian farmers are growing,” she says. “These systems have been around since 2001, and since then, farmers have vastly improved the quality of coffee in Tanzania.”

In doing so, we may well see more opportunities for the country’s coffee farmers to improve their income.

Enjoyed this? Then read our article exploring coffee & direct trade in East Africa.

Perfect Daily Grind

Want to read more articles like this? Sign up for our newsletter!

The post Exploring coffee grading systems: Tanzania appeared first on Perfect Daily Grind.