I´ve a question for you that I could also probably answer going through the Conference contents… was the “real” sustainability of direct trade projects questioned based on economics factors? or were some environmental issues brought to the table at the same time?

Cheers,
nico

Sure, as trade continues newer and newer niches will arrive. All of which will have positive and negative consequences. Think about how far the industry has come since Fair Trade became an household word.

However, apathy and acceptance of the status quo is not the solution to poverty coffee producers face. If, for some reason, the market does not provide a demand for low quality coffee perhaps their efforts would be better spent producing something else like sugar cane. We must continue moving forward.

It isn’t likely that with the trend toward direct will create a global collapse of the coffee market. Perhaps this direct trade model can be implemented in markets like bananas and sugar.

meanwhile, we may be contributing to this tightening of demand ourselves, with all the price trends and specialty effects described above. i’m not opposed to specialty, obviously — i’m a hopeless junkie for it. but it’s worth noting what the forces are, and how they may well play out in the near future.

it’s true that specialty — like fair trade — seems an excellent model as far as it goes. but if the vast majority of farmers and trade arrangements continue to be unsustainable, the question is whether (a) specialty is economically vunerable, and (b) whether specialty can or should play a role in the solution.

if you read the thread over on coffeed, it’s pretty clear that the champions of specialty continue to believe that to continue what they’re doing is to gradually, slowly change the consumer market overall and thus effect more “just” specialty in producing countries. my question is, is this the best way?

historians love to put instructive context to these ideas, and economists love to look at the most effective methods on a broad scale, as born out by the data. of those at the conference, neither set seemed convinced that specialty has what it takes to influence coffee toward sustainability.

thank you again for your summary of the conference i believe this is going to cause needed soul-searching and self-reflection in our industry or at least for me.

I would also like to hear some of the comments from the economist who attended.

Andrew Timko

as jon lewis said, i’m really quite biased for specialty coffee. this is one of those things where, the more you love a thing, the more you scrutinize it and ensure that outside arguments are considered. nothing worse that a cocooner, who ceases to get his niche’s relevance to the world.

i get the parallels with other specialty food niches. i guess the outstanding question in my mind is whether any of these niches really changes the game (does the rise of farmer’s markets really hurt supermarkets and mcdonald’s?). i know i’d like to think that specialty coffee is a game-changer, but on a macro-economic scale, i’m not convinced that it is yet.

furthermore, the question seems to be whether specialty is tied, economically, to the fate of the coffee trade at large, in which is should be concerned about c-grade farms, or whether specialty is a distinct and insulated sector all its own.

related talk here:
http://coffeed.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=2472&p=26219

Whilst my understanding of the economics of coffee is limited, it carries a lot of scaleable parallels with other sectors of the food and drink market. In nearly every area of the food and drink industry there’s a speciality sector where quality, provenance, snob value and slick marketing add values, costs, margins and ultimately the consumer willingly pays.
Wine is the easy parallel, cheese and Ale slightly less so. Coffee should be viewed as no different and seems to be following a predictable path.

Correa do Lago’s suggestion that the ‘crux’ of coffee farmers wellbeing was consumer demand really jarred. Did he comment on the supply issue?
Whilst it is unfortunate that some coffee farmers don’t make any money, in the global scheme of things that has to happen and must be allowed to happen. Speciality coffee is a niche but essential part of the industry. The trickle down will hopefully be in technique, knowledge, quality, invention and innovation. Until the oversupply (of commodity coffee) is addressed, prices will remain entirely separated from the trickledown effect..

the correlation between quality and consumption is something i’m not familiar with. one presentation, by mccook i think, showed the opposite — that consumers in the u.s and europe have had a very high tolerance for increasing amounts of robusta.

the use of the word snob in the first section is mine. the later reference belongs to ken davids. in practice, i actually hate the idea too — our coffee should be accessible to all comers, in my view, not just an elite subset.

phil: i appreciate the feedback. i don’t think that it’s at all clear that the current coffee trade models are sustainable, based on the evidence trotted out last weekend. which is another reason specialty should be concerned, even if its own practices are, by and large, equitable.

The only clear idea I can get is that in fifty years, we might not have coffee in America for one of two reasons: either its consumed mostly at origin or the whole trade model will have collapsed. The former is preferable.

I would be glad to never drink coffee again if it meant coffee producers (all coffee producers) could have a sustainable way of life outside exporting their coffee to consuming countries; one of the reasons I’ve stayed in coffee is that I think this is an unrealistic goal and that coffee CAN help overcome the problems of globalization.

I’m not as sure anymore.

Thanks again for this.

I suppose it could be because there is almost too much here to comment on.

I guess my view is likely the one that supports my direction in the industry. I can’t begin to know it all, understand it all and comprehend how and if we’ll have an impact.

I understand some of the basic economics discussed above, but in all things it is really about the nuance, the detail and there I am lost.

The fact that I think there is a direct correlation between quality and consumption (look at the US consumption during the years major brands slowly subbed in more robusta for example) means that I have to be driven by quality. That and I suppose I am a snob! (Was the use of snob in the first section your word or someone else’s? I will try not to get into my usual anti-snobbery rant….)

I feel like I managed to say nothing substantial above in response to a very substantial post.