STARBUCKS C.A.F.E. PRACTICESIMPACT ASSESSMENT
2011 — 2015
Prepared by Conservation International, 2018

1 //

Author: Ana López

2 //Designer: Tanja Bos

Cover photo: ©Lorena Garcia-Bustos / CI – Renovated Coffee Lot in Santa Rosa de Lima, Guatemala.

Editor: Bambi Semroc

Table of Contents
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3
Sustainability Journey...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7
Methods............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9Participation.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................13
A look through the supply chain..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................13
C.A.F.E. Practices: Focus on farms...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................17
Re-verification and Attrition........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................21
Global performance analysis.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................26
Approval status and scoring......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................23
Performance changes in re-verified supply chains............................................................................................................................................................................................................................26
Zero Tolerance incidents............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................28
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) analysis...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................30
KPI: Medium and large farms.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................31
KPI: Smallholder farms..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................34
KPI: Producer Support Organizations (PSOs)................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................36
KPI: Processors.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................38
Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................40

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2015 // 1© Cristina Mittermeier - Man unloads bag of coffee cherries - Chiapas, Mexico

Executive Summary// 2011-2015 Performance Highlights
Starbucks and Conservation International (CI) havebeen working together for nearly 20 years to promotesustainable coffee production that ensures continued
productivity of high quality coffee while improving the
livelihoods of producers and conserving nature.
The Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices is acoffee verification program that is used by Starbucks toensure ethical sourcing of coffee since 2004.
Verification results have been used as one view forunderstanding the impact of the C.A.F.E. Practices
program. CI conducted the first assessment in 2008,
and this report represents the fourth analysis in the
period, analysing results through 2015.

This impact assessment report focuses on the period
2011 to 2015, covering five years of results andincluding not only verifications taking place during
the period but also all suppliers with a valid statusduring the same timeframe. This enables better
understanding of how the C.A.F.E. Practices coffee
supply to Starbucks is changing from year to year.
As shown in figure 1, main trends observed in the
program included a growth in the number of farms
in the program (38%), growth in coffee area (11%) andin number of total workers hired by participating
entities (26%).
In a similar way, performance in the program has
demonstrated improvements over time, including thescoring obtained in the C.A.F.E. Practices verificationand the proportion of supply chains obtaining astrategic approval status, which is the highest status ofcompliance obtained in the C.A.F.E. Practices program.
Program retention has also grown by 3% in the
period 2011-2013, while the number of supply chains
improving approval status in re-verification has also
increased (46%).
A deeper analysis of Key Performance Indicators also
provided a view of where the program participants arewith regards to key program requirements. See figure
2 (next page) for a selection of social, environmental
and economic highlights from the analysis.

Fig 1 // Participation and Performance in C.A.F.E. Practices
Trend* in the period 2011-2015
SUPPLY CHAINSIMPROVING STATUS
IN RE-VERIFICATIONSTRATEGICAPPROVAL STATUS
NUMBER OF FARMS+38%
256,000 farms
in 2015TOTAL
WORKERS

COFFEE AREA

+11%842,000 hain 2015+26%

1.3 total workers
in 2015 (permanentand temporary)

+46%

+35%

67% of the valid
supply chains had
obtained strategic
status in 2015

60% of valid supply chains in 2015
had a previous verification
SCORING OF
SUPPLY CHAINS+7%

Average score of
87% in 2015

*Trend refers to changes observed

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2015 // 3

Fig 2 // Participation and Performance in C.A.F.E. Practices.

SocialEnvironmental

Economic

In 2015, the participating farms and mills in
the program hired 1.3 million permanent andtemporary workers.

In 2015, there were 187,628 hectares of land managed
for conservation, which represented 13% of the total area
under the program.

Small farms represented 98% of
the C.A.F.E. Practices program
participants in 2015.

WAGES

SOIL

WATER

FARM TRACEABILITY

53%

94%

AT LEAST 97%

is the annual average of
C.A.F.E. Practices farms
implementing erosion
prevention practices on allland in the period 2011-2015

is the annual average of C.A.F.E.
Practices large and medium farms
maintaining buffer zones alongside
all water bodies in the period
2011-2015

AT LEAST 96%

of the total farms and mills ensured a minimum
wage for permanent workers in the period
2011-2015

EDUCATION

HUMAN RIGHTS

100%

100%

of C.A.F.E. Practices farms
and mills with school age
children ensured accessto school in the period
2013-2015

BENEFITS

of C.A.F.E. Practices farms
and mills have committed
to no child labor during theperiod 2011-2015

AGROCHEMICAL USE

AT LEAST 98%
of C.A.F.E. Practices farms
ensured no prohibited chemicals
have been used in the period
2011-201559%

is the annual average of C.A.F.E. Practices
farms and mills ensuring benefits topermanent workers in the period 2011-2015

AT LEAST 80%

of the workers on C.A.F.E. Practices mills
received paid sick leave in the period
2011-2015

KEEPING RECEIPTS/INVOICES

92%

99%

is the annual average of
C.A.F.E. Practices wet mills
managing solid wastes in a
way that do not contaminate
the local environment

70%
BIODIVERSITY

AT LEAST 99%
MEDICALCARE

PROCESSING
WASTE

of C.A.F.E. Practices Producer Support
Organizations (PSOs) working with small
farmers (less than 12 hectares), havedemonstrated having tracking systems
from point of purchase to point of exportin the period 2011-2015

of C.A.F.E. Practices farms haven’t
converted forest into coffee
production (since 2004) in the
period 2011-2015, which is important
ensuring farmers are not expanding
production at the cost of forests

COMPOSTING

is the annual average of C.A.F.E. Practices
farms receiving and maintaining receipts
for the coffee

93%

is the annual averageof C.A.F.E. Practices
wet mills composting
byproduct

Performance is based on sampled/verified entities and does not reflect corrections made through the Zero Tolerance Ccorrective action process, see page 28 for more details.

4 //is the annual average of
C.A.F.E. Practices Producer
Support Organizations (PSOs)
that provide receipts to farmers
for coffee transactions in the
period 2011-2015

Sustainability Journey
In 2015 Starbucks reached the milestone of sourcing
99% of its coffee from C.A.F.E. Practices verified
suppliers. This was a major milestone in Starbucks
journey to sustainability, but not the only achievement.
Altogether, the company has invested in programs
that contribute to sustainability through different
approaches including:
Coffee And Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices.
Third party verified sourcing program that serves as
the foundation for promoting continuous improvementof sustainable practices within the Starbucks coffee
supply chain.
Farmer Support Centers. Coffee and agronomy
experts located in 9 key coffee producing countries
who share knowledge (open source) and researchwith coffee farmers to improve quality, productivity
and sustainability.
Global Farmer Fund. $50 million fund for farmer
financing that supports farmer needs including
renovation efforts. To date, it has benefited 62
cooperatives in 8 countries and over 40,000 farmers.
100 Million Tree renovation commitment.
Expansion of the One Tree for Every Bag campaignthat donated 30 million disease-resistant coffee
trees to become a broader initiative to donate 100
million coffee trees by 2025.

improving livelihoods, water, sanitation, and hygiene tostrengthen communities.
Sustainable Coffee Challenge. In 2015 Starbucks
jointly with Conservation International – initiated theSustainable Coffee Challenge, a collaborative effort ofcompanies, governments, NGOs, research institutions
and others to make coffee the world’s first sustainableagricultural product.

PARTNERSHIP WITHCONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL
For the past 20 years Starbucks and Conservation
International (CI) have worked together to promotecultivation of coffee in a manner that protects
biodiversity and improves the livelihood ofcoffee farmers.
The first steps in the partnership focused on supporting
growers of shade coffee in areas of high biodiversity
and promoting the use of environmentally sustainableagricultural practices – thereby providing a model ofthe potential for coffee production to play a positiverole in the conservation of the Earth’s biodiversity.

The partnership has evolved over time from working
with coffee farmers around the world to promote
coffee production practices that conserve biodiversity,
maintain healthy ecosystems and support economic
and social development in coffee producing
landscapes, to the development of the C.A.F.E.
Practices program for sustainable coffee sourcing.
The partnership has also explored opportunities forextending conservation beyond coffee farms and into
surrounding landscapes to address the most pressing
environmental issue of our day – climate change.
In 2015, CI and Starbucks conceived the Sustainable
Coffee Challenge and launched it with 18 founding
partners, with a common goal of making coffee theworld’s first sustainable agriculture product. To date,there are over 95 international partners actively
contributing to the movement.
CI, supported by the Starbucks Foundation is now
working on a project in Oaxaca, Mexico to promote a
net-positive-impact coffee origin demonstration thatdelivers and quantifies positive outcomes for coffee
farmers, communities, and water quality. The project,that began in 2017, will define a new model for originbased investments within the coffee sector.

The Starbucks Foundation. Grants to organizations
supporting projects in coffee communities focused on

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2015 // 5

6 //Mittermeier - Man raking coffee cherries - Chiapas, Mexico.
© Cristina

Introduction
Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices serves
to ensure ethically sourced coffee for Starbucks. The
program not only secures a future supply of highquality coffee but also promotes best practices thatare good for both people and the planet, including
improvement of livelihoods, environment protection
and climate change mitigation, among others.
C.A.F.E. Practices was developed by Starbucks andConservation International back in 2004, as a wayof leveraging Starbucks supply chain to promote
continuous improvement on quality, economic,
social, and environmental performance. The program
also provides Starbucks with assurance that farms,
mills and those providing support services tosmallholders are complying with legal requirements
and working toward best practices. This third-party
supply chain verification program engages theservices of SCS Global Services to oversee thetraining, approval, and oversight of the independent
verification organizations who verify complianceamong participants.
As shown in figure 3, the program is based on
economic transparency and quality as pre-requisites
for participation. This requires that suppliers meet
Starbucks quality requirements by having a green

coffee sample approved and submit evidence of
payments made throughout the coffee supply chain
to demonstrate how much of the price that is paid forgreen coffee gets to the farmer. Social responsibility
evaluates hiring practices and working conditions.
More specifically, it ensures that workers’ rights areprotected, safe and humane conditions that include
being paid minimum wages and that no child andforced labor is present. The environmental leadership
portion evaluates coffee farms on soil, water andbiodiversity conservation practices and goodenvironmental management. On mills, the program
evaluates water and energy conservation as well as
waste management and good labor practices.
As part of the partnership between Starbucks andConservation International, CI has been assessing theimpacts of Starbucks C.A.F.E. Practices program since2008. Impact assessments can inform if the programis delivering on its purpose and objectives, as well as
identifying where improvements are happening andwhere additional focus is required. This report is the
fourth impact assessment. The most recent report
was published in 2013 and presented findings onparticipation and performance of farmers in C.A.F.E.
Practices in the years 2011 and 2012. The current

report focuses on the period between 2011 to 2015,
including observed trends and correlations, presented
in two sections that include global and country level
findings.
Global report – focuses on global participation andperformance in C.A.F.E Practices. While the program
includes over 200 indicators, Key Performance
Indicators have been identified as critical topics todemonstrate performance and impact of the program.
Regional findings and observations in the program arealso included to understand context differences andassociated challenges.
Country dashboards – contain specific participationand performance information for each of the selected
countries: Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica,
Ethiopia, Guatemala, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico,
Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Tanzania,
and Vietnam.

The countries presented in country dashboards have been selected based on several factors such as the presence of a Starbucks Farmer Support Centers (FSC), sourcing priorities, participation trends, etc.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2015 // 7

Fig 3 // C.A.F.E. Practices focus areas

PRE-REQUISITES

PRE-REQUISITES &THIRD-PARTY VERIFIEDQUALITY

ECONOMIC TRANSPARENCY

Green Coffee
Preparation

Cup Quality

Equitable
Payments

Long-Term
Viability

THIRD-PARTY VERIFIEDSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Wages

Benefits

MedicalCare

Ensure that all coffee sold toStarbucks meets its standard ofhigh quality arabica coffee.
Receipts/
Invoices

Farm
Traceability

Starbucks suppliers are required tosubmit evidence of payments madefor green coffee through the coffee
supply chain, including receipts tofarmers for coffee sold containing
information on quantity, type ofcoffee, unit of measure, date, nameof buyer and seller and price.

Education

Living andWorking
Conditions

ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP

Soil

Processing
Waste

Shade
CanopyEnergyWildlife

Water Use &Conservation

Agro-Chemical
Use

Water Body
Protection

FarmManagement
and Monitoring

Human
RightsEnsure fair and non-discriminatory
hiring and employment policies. Protect
employees from workplace hazards.
Conform to national laws as well as tointernational conventions related tooccupational health, safety and living
conditions. Strive to improve the qualityof life for coffee farmers and workers.

Ensure that all coffee is grown
and processed in a manner that
not only minimizes impacts, butalso contributes positively to theenvironment. Many of the coffeegrowing regions overlap with areas
rich in biodiversity—called Key
Biodiversity Areas. By encouraging
sustainable farming, Starbucks helps
to alleviate pressures on thesevaluable habitats while supporting
still livelihoods.

8 //

4
3

Methods
C.A.F.E. Practices uses a defined set of criteria
described in the generic and smallholder scorecard
to evaluate the economic, social and environmental
aspects of coffee production. Each supply chain’s
performance against the scorecard is evaluated by athird party and reported to Starbucks.
The units that apply for verification under C.A.F.E.
Practices are called supply chains and include allentities along the path from coffee cherry to green
bean (farms, wet and dry mills). In the case of supply
chains that include small-scale farmers, these supply
chains are required to identify and include a Producer
Support Organization (PSO) who provides services
to the farmers. The Producer Support Organization isevaluated against the Producer Support Organization
scorecard within the program.
This report considers all active supply chains under
C.A.F.E. Practices, meaning with a valid status in agiven year. It means that a supply chain that went
through verification in a different year might be valid
in 2015 and is included in the analysis of participationand performance trends for 2015. This is in contrast
with past reports, which focused on verifications
completed during a year, and did not include the fullpool of Starbucks suppliers with an active status ina given year. See figure 4 for detailed information
showing years in which verification occurred for eachvalidity year.
The new approach normalizes the population
across years regardless of when the supply chain
underwent verification and thus enables us to better

2
1
Thus, applications are not undergoing verificationcompare performance over time. The main reason foron an annual cycle, and the methodology needed tothis changeisrecognizingthatthevalidity
periodfora0
address this to gain greater insight into participation
supply chain varies (1-4 years) and depends on factors
and performance trends.
such as scoring and timing of verification (e.g. whether■ POS■ Coffee growing
or not the verification■occurred
duringtheharvest).
Coffee Processing Dry■ Social responsibility■ Coffee Processing Wet

This analysis presents participation and performance of supply chains while in the C.A.F.E. Practices
program. Participation analysis offers details about the number of entities such as participating farms,
mills and PSOs, and complementary information such as area and volume of coffee in the program, andprovides further details to describe the active/valid entities. Meanwhile, performance focuses on the
proportion of supply chains under each approval status and the average scoring for supply chains during
each valid year. Changes in approval status and scoring over time are used as an indication of progress.
A list of Key Performance Indicators is also used as a way of assessing improvements and weaknesses ofthe participating entities.

NUMBER OF EXTRA POINTS EARNED BY SUBJECT AREA

Fig 4 // Years in which verification occurred for each validity year

Fiscal Year
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
VALIDITY YEAR:

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2015 // 9

As shown in figure 5, validity periods also varydepending on the region associated with the supply
chain and correspond with the coffee harvest andshipping cycles, while the specific validity date used
to select the data population each year for the reportanalysis is the same across all program participants
for measurement consistency year over year. T
The approval status is assigned based on theverification results. A supply chain receives a statusthat ranges from Non-Compliant (NC) to three levelsof compliance: verified, preferred and strategic.
All compliance status levels require meeting the
pre-requisites of product quality and economic
accountability, as well as complying with all zerotolerance indicators. Preferred and Strategic supply
chains have longer validities because throughperformance, they have demonstrated more mature
or advanced practices are in place. Additionally,
verifications performed during harvest are eligible

for approvals lasting more than two years. The
description of each status based on the compliancelevel is as follows:
Strategic: applicants score at least 80% total aggregate
score. Validity of four years is awarded if the verification
occurs during harvest. Verifications conducted outsideof harvest receive a two-year validity.
Preferred: applicants score at least 60% total
aggregate score. Validity of three years is awarded
if the verification occurs during harvest. Verifications
conducted outside of harvest only receive a one-year
validity.
Verified: apapplicants scoring less than 60% total
aggregate score. Validity of one year is awarded if
the verification took place off-harvest and two years
if the verification took place in harvest.

Historical data on participation allows tracking
the entry of new supply chains, attrition, andre-verification. It also allows tracking change inperformance levels of specific supply chains overtime as they undergo re-verification. For this reason, it
constitutes an exception to the validity date approach
explained above, since it is based on the analysisof the original verification against a new verification
report (or lack thereof in the case of attrition).
Despite participation and performance data being
related, the population used for each analysis isdifferent. Participation data such as number of farms,
total area or percentage of women in the program,
have in common a focus on all active supply chainssince the interest is understanding the populationof suppliers having validity to sell C.A.F.E. Practices
coffee into Starbucks in a given year. Performancedata showing breakdown of applications byapproval status levels and scores considers also

Fig 5 // Validity periods across countries/regionsR

JANUARYFE

E
MB

GROUP 1 // STARTS VALIDITY PERIOD ON APRIL 1 AND EXTENDS TO MARCH 31.
Colombia / North & Central: Boyaca, Cesar, La Guajira, Magdalena, Norte de Santander, Antioquia, Caldas,
Cundinamarca, Risaralda, Santander, Casanare
Peru / North: Amazonas, Cajamarca, Piura, San Martin
Hawaii, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania / North, Uganda

BR

E

UA
RY

NO
VE
M

BE

R

C
DE

31ST

GROUP 3
OCTOBER 1

GROUP 1APRIL 1GROUP 2

MA
Y

30TH

JULY 1

AU
G

US
T

30TH

10 //

GROUP 2 // STARTS VALIDITY PERIOD ON JULY 1 AND EXTENDS TO JUNE 30.
Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama,
Puerto Rico, China, India, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Sumatra, Thailand, Vietnam
GROUP 3 /// STARTS VALIDITY PERIOD ON OCTOBER 1 AND EXTENDS TO SEPTEMBER 30.
Colombia / South: Cauca, Huila, Nariño, Tolima, Valle del Cauca, Meta, Caqueta
Peru / Central & South: Junin, Huanuco, Pasco, Apurimac, Cusco, Puno
Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador
Burundi, Cape Verde, DR-Congo, Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania / South, Zambia, Zimbabwe
East Timor, Papua New Ginea, Sulawesi, Javanon-compliant supply chains as the interest isunderstanding proportion of supply chains according
to approval status and any non-compliance with Zero
Tolerance indicators.
Further differences in the analysis are due to theavailability of data. All information tracked using
supply chain level information (number of entities,
volume of coffee, approval status, scoring, among
others) is available data for the entire list ofparticipants of the C.A.F.E. Practices program. Farmlevel data such as yield and number of workers, and
Key Performance Indicators compliance, come fromsupply chains in which verification of individual farms
was conducted based on a sampling methodology
but has been extrapolated to the entire populationof farms within a particular supply chain. Finally,
there are sets of farm level data such as gender,
food security, and pest incidence, that come fromthe sampled farms, making it useful to describe
the farms but not necessarily representative of the
population of farms in the supply chain or program.
Compliance with zero tolerance (ZT) indicators
is tracked as total number of incidents of noncompliance in the sampled farms and thepercentage of cases corrected. This analysis isfocused on verifications taking place during theyear and concentrated in the verification periods
applying the Version 3 of the scorecard and beyond.
Non-complying ZT indicators are then subject to the
ZT Corrective Action (ZT-CAR), described in further
detail in page 28.
A subset of indicators from the full scorecard, called
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), has been used
to monitor changes in scoring across the years andallows deeper analysis based on other variables
such as farm size and geographical location of valid
farms. The list of KPIs is harmonized over the years

when updates to the scorecard were made to allow
comparison between impact assessment reportrounds. However, some indicators were added forthis report to strengthen the KPIs analysis. The current
list of KPIs for farms is composed of 22 indicators,
including 6 that are ZT. Smallholder farms areassessed through 16 KPIs, including 6 ZT indicators.

Processor KPIs consist of 17 indicators, 4 of which are
ZT; and PSO KPIs include 12 indicators – 5 of which
are ZT. The KPIs list is representative of the three
dimensions of ethical sourcing included in C.A.F.E.
Practices: economic, social and environment. Table 1
shows the list of ZT indicators in the program as well as
their overlap with the list of Key Performance Indicators.

Table 1 // List of Zero Tolerance indicators
ZERO TOLERANCE INDICATORSCodeZT indicators / Requirement

KPIs

SR-MS1.1

Transparency to operations, policies, processes and records *SR-MS1.2

Anti bribery *SR-MS1.3

Commitment to continuous improvement *SR-HP1.1

Minimum wage paid (Permanent workers)✓

SR-HP1.2

Minimum wage paid (Temporary workers)✓

SR-HP1.3

Wages are paid regularly and in cash or cash equivalent

SR-HP1.7

Benefits to permanent workers✓

SR-HP4.1

No child labor✓

SR-HP4.2

Employment of authorized minors follows legal requirements

SR-HP4.3

Anti discrimination policy and enforcement

SR-HP4.4

Anti forced labor policy and enforcement

SR-HP4.5

Workplace free of harassment and abuse

SR-HP4.6

No retention of workers' documents

SR-WC2.1

School age children attend school✓

CG-CB3.1

No forest conversion✓

CG-EM1.1

No WHO chemicals✓

CP-MT1.1

Tracking system for C.A.F.E. Practices coffee

CP-MT1.2

Tracking system for C.A.F.E. Practices coffee

PS-MT1.1

Tracking system across all entities for C.A.F.E. Practices coffee✓

PS-MT1.2

Updated list of C.A.F.E. Practices producers✓

PS-MT1.3

Each farmer receives a receipt for coffee✓

PS-EM1.1

No distribution of WHO chemicals✓* Added in V3.4, therefore not selected as KPI for this analysis

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2015 // 11

12 //© Neil Palmer/CIAT- A farmer in Colombia’s Nariño Department checks her coffee trees.

Participation in C.A.F.E. Practices// A look through the supply chain
Fig 6 // Starbucks coffee supply chain
Coffee production
hectares by farm size

Coffee
Farm

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Total coffee area
762,157 hectares

Total coffee area
581,660 hectares

Total coffee area
622,89 hectares

Total coffee area
745,34 hectares

Total coffee area
842,817 hectares

232 PSOs

162 PSOs

142 PSOs

185 PSOs

214 PSOs

5,605 total
stand alone mills

14,191 total
stand alone mills

13,955 total
stand alone mills

14,587 total
stand alone mills

15,177 total
stand alone mills

102,317 total mills

77,863 total mills

96,472 total mills

116,957 total mills

138,437 total mills*

367 million lbs

491 million lbs

496 million lbs

447 million lbs

595 million lbs

17,003
retail locations

18,066
retail locations

19,767
retail locations

21,366
retail locations

23,043
retail locations

SMALL
MEDIUMLARGE

PSO count by type
ASSOCIATION/ COOPERATIVE

Producer
SupportOrganization

EXPORTER/SUPPLIER
EXTENSION SERVICES
PROCESSOR
OTHER

Stand alone millcount by type
WET MILLS

Processor/
Mill

WET/DRY MILLSDRY MILLSOTHER

Roaster

RetailVolume of C.A.F.E. practices
coffee purchased

Number of retail stores* The count of total mills include small farms who wet mill their own coffee, called on premise milling in C.A.F.E. Practices

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2015 // 13

As of 2015 there were 23 countries participating in
the C.A.F.E. Practices program, showing a growth of
22% in the period 2011-2015. Some of the additions
in more recent years are Vietnam and China in 2011,
US (Hawaii) and India in 2014, as well as Jamaica in2015. Two countries, Zambia and Bolivia that werein the program prior to 2011, had no supply chainsverified during the analysis period, 2011-2015. See
figure 7, showing the location of participant countries
by sourcing region. Note that countries in dark grayare countries with history in the C.A.F.E. Practices
program, but no recent activity during the time periodof this analysis, 2011-2015.

LAND AREA

management. Producers in Asia were much less likely
to have land under conservation management – only
2% of total area – when compared to other regions.
North & Central America had on average the largest
proportion of land managed for conservation (24%).

In 2015 1.4 million hectares of land were managed by
farmers participating in the C.A.F.E. Practices program.
59% of that area (842,000 hectares) was used forcoffee production and 13% of the area (187,000
hectares) was under some type of conservation

The total area under C.A.F.E. Practices program has
increased annually in 2014 and 2015 by an averageannual rate of 26%. This was following an averageannual rate decline of 9% during the period fromFig 7 // Regions and Countries Participating in C.A.F.E. Practices

North &
Central America
China
United Statesof America(Hawai’i)

Asia

MexicoJamaica Puerto Rico
GuatemalaHonduras
El Salvador Nicaragua
Costa Ri ca
PanamaColombia

AfricaEthiopia
RwandaBurundiPeru

BrazilBoliviaSouth America

14 //

India

ZambiaVietnam

Kenya
Tanzania

Papua New
Indonesia
GuineaEast Timor

Fig 2 // Number of farms participating in C.A.F.E. Practices
2011 to 2013. The total coffee area also increased on
average by 13% per year between 2013-2015.

Fig 8 // Number of farms participating in C.A.F.E. Practices

Growth in total area, coffee area and conserved area
showed a positive correlation with the increase in
number of farms in the program. However, the speedof growth was very different depending on the region.
Both, South America and North & Central America
showed steady increases across all land use types.
Africa showed an accelerated growth in total area andnumber of small farmers in 2014 and 2015 but this has
not significantly increased the coffee area entering
the program. In Asia, the majority of land entering
the program was managed for coffee production and
was associated with an increase in number of small
farms in 2014 and 2015. It is worth mentioning that thegrowth of area in the program is due to new farmers
entering the program and not due to participating
farmers expanding into new areas.

100,000

In 2015, non-compliant applications represented
28,000 coffee hectares. Compared with coffee area
approved under the program, this represents
approximately 2% of the area. This has been the trend
for the time period analyzed in this report.

NUMBER OF FARMS
The number of farms in the C.A.F.E. Practices program
has been growing over the last four years analyzed.
In the 5-year period analyzed, the number fell toits lowest in 2012 and peaked in 2015, with over
256,000 farms participating. Growth in participationrose by 35% from 2014 to 2015, due in part to anincrease in the number of new farms entering the
program in Africa during the last two years but also
due to the recovery in the number of participant farms
in South America after a drop in 2012. See figure 8 fordetailed changes in number of farms.
In 2015, the vast majority – 98% – of participating farms
were small with less than 12 hectares. This breakdown

Africa and South America are the regions showing more growth in recent years.

80,00060,00040,00020,0000

2011
TOTAL 186,063

2012
TOTAL 148,206■ Africa■ Asiais relatively consistent through the years, with only aslight growth from smallholders representing 96% ofparticipants in 2012 to 98% in 2015.

2013
TOTAL 165,231

2014
TOTAL 190,677■ North & Central America

2015
TOTAL 256,777■ South America

PSO since the PSO is evaluated with regards to its
supporting role and services provided to each supply
chain that it is included in, therefore the same PSO
may have several scorecards results. See the table 2
with count differences.

PRODUCER SUPPORTPG 27 fig 16 & 17: Supply chains total scoring - by region
ORGANIZATIONS

Producer Support Organizations (PSOs) rolein C.A.F.E. Practices is to provide support to
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
smallholders. The number of PSOs in 2011 was
Table 2 // Number of Producer Support
100%
232, but dropped to 142 in 2013 and recovered toOrganizations (PSO) in the program
214 in 2015. In 2015, 69% of the participant PSOs
were identified as associations and cooperatives
NUMBER OF
NUMBER OF PSOS
of farmers, while 19% were exporters/suppliers, 10%
YEAR
PSOS
(with duplicates)
processors, and the remaining 2% were not identified.
80%
2011
232
382
For the purpose of reporting on participation, a PSO is
only counted once even if it supports more than one
2012
162
260
supply chain. However, the performance analysis uses
2013
142
248
the larger number of PSOs that considers when there
2014
185
318
are
several supply chains receiving services from a60%■ Africa■ Asia2015■ North & Central America

214■ South America

385■ Global average

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2015 // 15

n African Asian North & Central American South America

MILLS

Figure 5
2014

Figure 7

Stand alone mills are evaluated under the social
responsibility and the wet or dry processing sectionsof the scorecard and based on this scoring assigned
a validity period. A mill only needs to go throughverification once during this validity period, even if it isincluded in multiple C.A.F.E. Practices applications.
2015
In 2011, the total number of mills in the program was■ Preferredover 102,000. Approximately 15,000 (5% of the total)■ Strategic
were stand alone mills and 95% were considered on■ Verified
premise wet mills, which means farms that do the wet
milling operation on site and are assessed through thefarm scorecard.
In 2012 there was a reduction in the number of mills,
which may be a product of the lower participation offarms
in theowned
C.A.F.E.farms
Practices program that year. The
n Malefollowing
years
showedan average annual growth ofn Female owned farms
21%ninNo
total
numberofmills.
gender specified In 2015, stand-alone millparticipation reached 11% of total mills, as a result of a
gradual increase in the number of wet and dry mills in
the program in recent years.
Between 45% and 55% of the participant small farms
reported on-premise wet mills in 2011-2015. This
number tends to change depending on the country.
Indonesia, Colombia, Mexico and Peru are thecountries where the majority of smallholder farms
process coffee on the farm.

PURCHASES
For the C.A.F.E. Practices program, it is important tomeasure the linkages between verified supply chains
and Starbucks coffee purchases. In 2014, Starbucks
bought coffee from 74% of the active supply chains,

Fig 9 // Proportion of purchases by C.A.F.E.
Practices approval status
Major proportion of purchases come from preferredsupply chains, followed by strategic.
56%
43%
37%

37%

20%
7%

■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified

2014

2015

whereas 2015 purchases came from 66% of the active
supply chains.
For 2014, 1,987 million lbs of green coffee were
produced by supply chains approved* under
C.A.F.E. Practices, which represented 17% of thetotal production of Arabica coffee by all exporting
countries. Starbucks purchased 447 million lbs
that corresponded to 23% of the volume in the
program that year and 4% of the global production of
Arabica coffee according to the International Coffee
Organization (ICO) statistics.
In 2015, the volume approved was 2,110 million
lbs of green coffee (18% of the total production of
Arabica coffee by all exporting countries). Starbucks
purchases reached 28% of the volume or 595 million
lbs, accounting for 5% of the global production basedon ICO publicly available data.
A look ahead at 2017 figures showed that the 3,317

million lbs of green coffee approved under C.A.F.E.
Practices increased its participation to 26% of the
Arabica global production. Starbucks purchases(621 million lbs) continued to be 5% of the global
production according to ICO statistics.
Purchases by Starbucks from approved C.A.F.E.
Practices supply chains can be analyzed by the
C.A.F.E. Practices approval status, strategic, preferred,and verified. See page 10 (Method) for a descriptionof each status. In 2014, 37% of the purchasesvolume was from strategic supply chains, while 43%
was from preferred and 20% from verified supply
chains. In 2015, the proportion of purchases fromstrategic supply chains was the same as 2014, but
the proportion of preferred supply chains selling toStarbucks increased to 56% and the percentage ofverified supply chains declined to 7% (see figure 9).

TIMING OF VERIFICATION
In 2009, the C.A.F.E. Practices program implemented
a measure to track if the verification took place
during the harvest season when more workers arepresent on the farms. Supply chains were also given
incentives to undergo verification during the harvest
period via longer validity periods associated with theapproval status. However, it was not until 2012 when
all valid supply chains included a data field on timingof verification.
In 2015, 84% of the valid supply chains underwent
verification during harvest, increasing slightly from 2012(82%). It is evident that in 2010, the number of supply
chains verified during the harvest period increased
significantly, which coincides with the implementationof the incentive to verify during this timeframe.

*Approved volume – In the majority of cases, the estimated volume produced by the supply chain is calculated based on sampled farms and is also the amount approved. However, there are unusual scenarios/circumstances where the volume approved may be different than the estimated produced volume due to a variety of reasons. For example, adjustments to the approved volume can be made if the supply chain was undergoing
major renovation efforts at the time of verification or if the sample selected by the inspector was not representative of the full supply chain. In such cases estimates based on the sample of farms verified may over orunderestimate the actual volume.

16 //C.A.F.E. Practices: Focus on Farms
Fig 10 // C.A.F.E. Practices farms in depthWorkers*

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

1 million
total workers

0.8 million
total workers

0.8 million
total workers

0.95 million
total workers

1.25 million
total workers

9% female owned farms

12% female owned
farms

13% female owned
farms

15% female owned
farms

NO DATANO DATANO DATA

2,498 lbs/ha

2,681 lbs/ha

2,580 lbs/has

2,239lbs/ha

2,111 lbs/ha

NO DATANO DATA

Workers hired byfarms in the C.A.F.E.
Practices program

MALE OWNED FARMS

Gender**Foodsecurity***

Yield*FEMALE OWNED FARMS

INSUFFICIENTDATANO GENDER SPECIFIEDFOOD SHORTAGE
NO FOOD SHORTAGE

Global average yield(green coffee lbs/ha)

LOW INCIDENCE (<10%)

Rust
incidence****HIGH INCIDENCE (>10%)
NO INCIDENCEUNKNOWN* Total counts of each worker population and yield are estimates based on sampled farms and extrapolated to the entire population.
** Gender data comes from verified sampled farms. It may not be fully representative of the population of farmers in the program as these figures are not extrapolated to the entire population.
*** Food security data comes from verified sampled farms using the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard version 3.2 and beyond. Information is only available for 2014 and 2015 and is not fully representative of the population of
farmers in the program. In 2014, food security data was not collected for 29% of sampled farms, and 25% of sampled farms in 2015.
**** The collection of data on coffee leaf rust incidence started in 2013 with the implementation of version 3.2 of the scorecard. Data comes from verified sampled farms and may not be fully representative of the populationof farmers in the program. Rust incidence data is heavily influenced by regions participation and level of response on pest incidence data collection. For instance, in 2013 most responses were provided by North andCentral America and South America, two regions that accounted for 45% of total farms - coincident with the regions most affected by the leaf rust disease. The following years still presented a similar situation despite theresponse rate has grown across all regions from 23% in 2013 to 69% in 2015.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2015 // 17

0%

100%

■ No response

WORKERS
C.A.F.E. Practices supply chains employed 1.3
million workers in 2015. Nearly 60,000 of thesewere permanent workers and over 1.2 million were
temporary. Farm workers represent at least 96% of
the total number of workers, while a small proportion
were hired by processors. It is important to highlightthat numbers of workers is reported on sampledfarms through the verification report and this
proportion is used to estimate number of workers in
all participating farms in the program.
South America is the leading region offering
permanent and temporary employment on farms
participating in the C.A.F.E. Practices program. Even
though medium and large farms represent 3% of
the farm size landscape globally, they contributeheavily (39%) to the total number of permanent
workers. Temporary workers are hired by most farms
to contribute with the labor intensive collection ofcherries during the harvest season.

GENDERIn 2015, women owned 15% of the sampled farms. In
the last four years, the number of women participatingin ownership and management of the farms has
increased, but they still constitute a minority.
Women’s management of farms in the C.A.F.E.
Practices program did not vary significantly by farmsize. Their representation, however, does vary byregion with South America having the highest
proportion of women-managed farms in the program(19%) and Asia having the lowest (12%).
Gender information is collected only for sampledfarms during the verification, so this data may not
be representative of all farms participating in the
program. While gender is not a required attributeto consider in the sample selection for verification,

18 //■ No food shortage■ Food shortage

Fig 11 // Number of months with reported food shortages on farms participating in C.A.F.E. Practices
Offigure
farms9that reported food insecurity, the most common food security shortages are for a period of 1-3 months,
while some farmers reported up to 5 months of food insecurity.
1 month
2 months
3 months
4 months
5 months0%■ 2014

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

■ 2015it still constitutes one of elements used to ensure a
representative sample.
Although a greater percentage of valid applications
will include data on gender in each year in the C.A.F.E.
Practices program through the verification process, it
is recommended that Starbucks collects gender data
for the entire list of farms participating through theapplication process and not solely for sampled farms.
In this way, Starbucks could understand the gendercomposition of its supply chain, identify trends that arestronger with female producers and make sure training
is designed in an inclusive way.
Additionally, in 2015, Starbucks began collecting
farmers’ ages to better understand issues associatedto the next generation of coffee farmers. This topic
will be addressed in future reports when additional
data is available.

FOOD SECURITY
Farmers started reporting on food security issues withthe version 3.2 of the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.

As of 2015, 78% of the valid farms that were sampledprovided information on food security and 25% ofthem reported some food insecurity. This was quiteconsistent to what was reported in 2014: 74% of farms
reporting and 29% with some food insecurity.
Farmers in Africa had the highest level of foodinsecurity – with 47% of farms reporting challenges
in 2014 and 33% in 2015. Over 30% of farmers in Asia
and North & Central America reported periods of foodinsecurity in 2014, and this declined to 29% and 27%,
respectively, in 2015. South America reported foodsecurity issues for 12% of the sampled farms in 2014
and 15% in 2015.
Most of the farmers that indicated some food insecurity,
reported the average duration of 2 months, and some
reported 3, 4 and even 5 months. In 2015, there was adecrease in the number of farmers having food security
issues for 1 month in comparison with 2014, and to aminor degree a similar trend for 3-month shortage
issues. See figure 11 showing the # of months reportedof food insecurity by those who experienced somelevel of food insecurity.

YIELD• North & Central America / 22,336 farms in 2015 /11% of total farms in 2015
• South America / 76,194 farms in 2015 / 30% of total
farms in 2015
• Africa/ 80,644 farms in 2015 / 31% of total farms in 2015
• Asia / 71,603 farms in 2015 / 28% of total farms in 2015.

Fig 12 // Green coffee yield (lbs/ha) of farms in C.A.F.E. Practices globally and by region
Global average yield has declined in the period of analysis. South America has surpassed Asia as the leading
ALLinFARMSYIELDREGIONregionmore recent
years,(LBS/HA)
while Africa GLOBAL
continues toAND
be theBY
regionwith more challenges in productivity.
3,500
Lbs/ha

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

3,000

Based on data collected for sampled farms as part ofthe verification process,* the global yield in C.A.F.E.
Practices has declined 15% (from 2,498 lbs per
hectare in 2011 to 2,111 lbs/ ha in 2015). There appear
to be several potential causes for the change in yield,
the main causes to highlight include:• Growth in number of farms participating in C.A.F.E.
Practices, particularly from areas of low yields.
New participants entering the program year overyear can dilute the results in terms of adoption ofpractices and performance in the program, which
could impact other measures including yield ofparticipating farms. The African region grew 225%
in the number of farms in the period 2011-2015 –equivalent to 55,850 farms. Asia as a region did not
grow but there was a shift in country participation,
including some countries significantly increasing thenumber of farms as they begin participation in the
program, while some countries reduced the numberof farms by as much as 45%.
• Coffee rust outbreaks in Latin America. North andCentral America presented a slight decline in yield
which can be easily associated to the coffee rustoutbreak in 2012-2013 impacting years 2014 and2015 of the analysis. The different outbreaks andtheir impact on yield over time are documented by

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000
■ Global■ South America■ North andCentral America

Avelino et. al. — authors of the paper “The coffee
rust crises in Colombia and Central America 20082013” published by Springer in 2015. The researchrecognized different rust outbreak periods impacting
productivity at different times, for instance Colombia’s
outbreak in 2008-2011, dropped the national yield■ Asia■ Africaby 31%. In Central America the outbreak created adecline in yield by 16% in 2013 and an additional
10% drop in 2014. Mexico, Ecuador and Peru alsopresented deterioration of yield, however, thestudy mentioned above does not include specificmeasures of its impact at the national scale.

* During the verification, harvest information is collected for the most recently completed harvest and an additional two harvests prior if the data is available at the farm, however, the yield analysis only considers the mostrecently completed harvest information. Additionally, given the validity periods approach used for yield analysis, changes in yield during that time are not captured until the next verification.

NUMBER OF SUPPLY CHAINS & FARMS IN THE C.A.F.E. PRACTICES PROGRAM - BY APPROVAL

Supply chains
500

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2015 // 19

Fig 13 // Green coffee yield (lbs/ha) variability of farms in C.A.F.E. Practices in 2015
There is large variability in productivity. For instance, Asia has the most variability due to extremely highand low yield farms. Africa’s average yield is closest to the minimum value and shows the least variability.

4,000

0

3,500

1000

2000

3000

3,000Global

4000

5000

6000

Yield range

2,500

Average yield: 2,111 lbs/ha

2,000
1,500 Africa

Yield range

2014

As shown in figure 12, Asia had the highest yield in the periodof 2011-2013 but as of 2015, South America reached the leading
position in terms of yield performance with 2,662 lbs/ha or 26%
above the global average. Africa remains the region with thelowest yield during the entire period, with a yield of 1,238 lbs/
2015
ha,
42% below the global average in 2015.

- Global

YIELD VARIATIONS

Average yield: 1,238 lbs/ha

1,000
500 Asia

Yield range

0

Average yield: 2,097 lbs/ha

2011

North andCentral■ Africa
America2012■ Asia2013

Yield range■ North & Central America■ South America

Average yield: 2,422

SouthAmericaYield range
Average yield: 2,662 lbs/ha% Above or below the averageFig 14 // Yield (lbs/ha) and differences by farm size
In a scenario where global yield has been declining, medium and large farms show a growing trend inyield against global values. Small farms have reduced the difference and keep closer to the average.
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
-20%

2011

■ Large farms
20 //

2012

2013

■ Medium farms■ Small farms

2014

Additionally, since South America’s rust outbreak took placeearlier, response efforts to combat rust, such as renovation
and rehabilitation of coffee plantations would have impacted
production, initially due to unproductive area under renovationand later due to yield recovering once production started in
new areas. That said, rust’s impact on yield is not immediately
evident across all countries as C.A.F.E. Practice validity periods
extend up to four years, which means that some of the supply
chains do not have recent data collected on yield performance.

2015

While average yield provides a good understanding of the
farmers challenges and successes in addressing productivity
issues, it is also important to consider the large variability in yieldamong farm sizes and countries. Figure 13 shows the range ofvariability in more detail. In 2015, Asia was the region with thehighest variability in yield between countries (from 408 lbs/ha inEast Timor to 5,592 lbs/ha in Vietnam). The smallest variability
between countries was from Africa, reporting a minimum yield of
616 lbs/ha and a maximum yield of 1,991 lbs/ha.
As shown in figure 14, farm size seems to be a factor in yield.
Medium farms outperformed in yield, showing a growing trend
and reaching a yield that was 29% over the global average in2015. Large farms have followed closely this trend, having ayield 26% over the global yield in 2015. Meanwhile, small farms
have presented a more erratic behavior with regards to yield,
ranging from a yield 14% below the global average (2011) to ayield 2% over the global average in 2012. In general, global
figures have dropped because of the large participation ofsmallholders in Starbucks supply chains — 98% of all farms in2015. The decline in small farms yield could be associated tosignificant population changes (39% growth in the period 20112015) compared to medium and large farms that registered
growth rates of 10% and 11% for the same periods, respectively.

134

89
■ No legacy■ With legacy// Re-verification and attrition
The C.A.F.E. Practices focus on continuous
improvement implies that supply chains are expected
to improve their performance over time, so it isimportant to track an application’s evolution in termsof continuous improvement or departure from theprogram. These two elements are assessed throughthe re-verification and attrition analyses, respectively.
This analysis constituted an exception in themethodology given it was developed using supply
chains going through verification during each given
year instead of considering all valid supply chains
during the same period.
Based on total supply chains verified in 2015,
supply chains entering the program for the first time
represented 40% of the total number. The proportionof new supply chains has varied over the years andhas generally been on the rise – from 34% in 2011
to 40% in 2015. The exception to this trend was in2012, when 79% of the supply chains had a previous
verification (legacy in the program), a moment thatcoincided with a peak in the number of supply chains
during the 5-year period analyzed. See figure 15 fordetailed information on number of new supply chains.
A look deeper at the supply chains with history in the
program shows that historically 48% of the supply
chains with legacy had not changed their composition
significantly, meaning that at least 80% of the entities(farms, mills, and PSOs) continued to be part of thesame supply chain in a new cycle of verification.
Meanwhile, 39% of the supply chains had changed
their composition of entities and are no longer
considered the same supply chain.

Preferred and strategic supply chains are rewarded
After the verification, a supply chain receives anwith approval periods of 1-3 and 2-4 years, respectively.
approval end date that can extend from 1 to 4 years■ High overlap
This means it is possible to track attrition up to 2014 fordepending on the approval status obtained and■ Low/No overlap
preferredand 2013 for strategic supply chains, neither
whether the verification took place during the harvest■ Mediumoverlapof which reported significant attrition rates.
season. Supply chains that choose to continue in the
program submit an application for re-verification, prior
to expiration of their current validity, and provide any
Fig 15 // C.A.F.E. Practices program legacy —necessary updates on the composition of the group.
expressed in number of supply chains goingOnce complete, the supply chain the supply chain
through verification each year
goes through verification. If an application has expired
With the exception of 2012, there is a growing trend
and has not submitted a new application or gonein the number of new supply chains (no legacy)through re-verification, it means that the supply chain
entering the program, representing up to 40% of themay have left the program, which could be associatedtotal number each year.
to lack of interest, selling their coffee to other buyers,
76
a change in the relationship with a supplier, or alack of capacity to comply with the C.A.F.E. Practices
requirements.
281
All supply chains verified and granted an approval
status in 2011 to 2013 have expired at the time of
performing this analysis, making it an opportune
period to analyze attrition rates. In 2011, anequivalent to 25% of the total supply chains thatwent through verification that year, opted not torenew in the program. This rate declined to 22% in
the period 2011-2013, which means retention has
improved 3% in the 3-year period.

89

65

82

153
115

134

22
43
2011

2012

2013

■ No legacy

2014

2015

■ With legacy

More recent years also offer some insights on
program attrition. Verified supply chains — which
received 1-2 year validity period — presented a 22%
attrition rate in 2011, 13% in 2012 and no attrition in
2013-2015, meaning all supply chains with verified
status 2013-2015 have been re-verified at time thisanalysis was performed.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2015 // 21

22Plett// – Kenyan coffee farmer.
© Randy

1,000■ Global■ South America■ North andCentral America■ Asia■ Africa

Global Performance// Approval status and scoring
APPROVAL STATUS
A supply chain that undergoes verification receives anapproval status depending on its performance in the
C.A.F.E. Practices verification. Status goes from Non
Compliant (NC) to a set of different increasing levelsof compliance (Verified, Preferred, and Strategic).
Supply chains not meeting the minimum performancerequirements are encouraged to engage in the ZT CAR
process. More about ZT CAR is detailed on page 28.
In the last 5-year period, up to 2% of the supply chains— representing only 1% of the total green coffee
volume — were NC and thus excluded from the listof valid suppliers for Starbucks purchases under the
C.A.F.E. Practices program. Meanwhile, at least 98% of
the supply chains applying to the program have fallen
into one of the compliance levels. In 2015, 66% of the
supply chains were assigned a Strategic, while 28%
were preferred and 4% were verified. The proportionof strategic supply chains has grown from 32% to
66% in five years. In the meantime, the proportion ofpreferred supply chains has decreased slightly from
32% to 28% and the share of verified supply chains
has declined more dramatically from 35% to 4%.
See figure 16 for detailed information on the changes
in composition of supply chains by their approval
status and growth in participation and correlated to

Fig 16 // Number of supply chains & farms in the C.A.F.E. Practices program – by approval status
NUMBER OF SUPPLY CHAINS & FARMS IN THE C.A.F.E. PRACTICES PROGRAM - BY APPROVAL
Approval status composition has varied in the five year period. Number of strategic supply chains hasgrown and number of verified has declined.
Supply chains
500
400
300
200
100
0

2011
TOTAL FARMS: 187,067■ Non compliant

2012
154,6722013
168,546■ Verified

the number of farms participating in the program.
A quick assessment of the changes in approval statusalong the time suggested that program participants
were improving performance. However, these changes
might be caused by modifications in methodology
under version 3 of the scorecard, allowing more supply
chains to reach a strategic status due to the impact of2014
192,974■ Preferred

2015
288,589■ Strategic

extra points and the need of a total minimum scoring
instead of minimum scoring per subject area (social
responsibility, coffee growing, coffee processing wet/dry). The analysis on KPIs performance removes
factors such as program changes mentioned above to
identify change in performance within particular Key
Performance Indicators.

* All valid supply chains in 2013-2015 were assessed using V3.0 or newer scorecard version for verification with the C.A.F.E. Practices program, while in 2012 the new scorecard was only used in a portion of the applications
with validity verified during the time a previous version of the scorecard was in place. In 2011 supply chains were still using a pre-version 3.0 for the verification process.

NUMBER OF EXTRA POINTS EARNED BY SUBJECT AREA
8

2012

2013

2014

2015
IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2015 // 23

fig 16
Fig 17 // Supply chains total scoring — by approval status
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Average global
scoring has increased. Even NC supply chains’ performance is better based on score despite the
fig
16
100%
challenges with ZT requirements.

80%
100%

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

60%
80%

40%
60%
■ NC

■ Verified■ Preferred■ Strategic■ Global average

40%
■ NC

■ Verified■ Preferred■ Strategic■ Global averageFig 18 // Supply chains total scoring — by region
Average global scoring has increased, however there were some exceptions including a slight decline in Africa
fig 17and a dip in South America in 2012, then recovered to follow the improving trend.

100%

80%
100%

2011
fig 17

2012

2013

2014

2015

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

60%
80%

40%
60%
■ Africa■ Asia■ North & Central America■ South America■ Global average■ Africa■ Asia■ North & Central America■ South America■ Global average

40%

24 //

SCORING
Average scores obtained in the program are an
indicator of general performance in C.A.F.E. Practices
for a supply chain. As shown in figure 17, total scoringhas been increasing steadily from 80% to 87% in the
period 2011-2015. Strategic supply chains scoringhas maintained similar values in the 5-year period.
Meanwhile, preferred supply chain scores dropped
and verified and NC supply chain scores have
improved. NC supply chains improvement in scoringsuggested that while they did not meet minimum
standards, they did perform quite well in other areas
and once ZT issues are resolved they will do well in
the program.
Analyzing scoring per region demonstrated that North& Central America was the region with highest scoring
and the only one with scores over the global average.
Both Asia and South America showed a gradualimprovement over the period analyzed, aside from asmall dip in performance in South America in 2012. See
figure 18 for differences in scoring per region.
As previously mentioned, beginning with Version 3.0of the scorecard (November 2012), supply chainsno longer needed to reach a minimum score per
subject area to reach a specific approval status.
However, subject area scores continue to be agood indication of strengths and weaknesses of
performance in the C.A.F.E. Practices program. For
instance, in 2015 economic accountability and coffee
processing (dry) were the subject areas with bestscoring (90%). Social responsibility also showed ahigh scoring of 89%, followed by coffee growing(80%) and coffee processing (wet) with 79% score. In
2015, the subject area achieving the lowest scoring
was PSOs with 70% scoring.

Global average score of all supply chainsverified under version 3.0 and beyond,suggested that global performance has
increased from 78% to 86% between 2012
and 2015. Average scores by approval
status also presented some differencesin contrast with the analysis of all
supply chains. Strategic and preferredsupply chain scoring have shown major
improvements under version 3 of thescorecard, while verified supply chains
showed a decline in scoring along
the years. The improvement trend in
preferred and strategic supply chainsis stronger when comparing the results
exclusively under the same version of thescorecard, which removes the differencesin scorecard versions and scoring
methodology.

Supply chains scoring is also affectedby extra points, designed to incentivize
and motivate the implementation of bestpractices instead of negatively impact
scoring for the practices that go above andbeyond related to the different C.A.F.E.
Practices program requirements. Eachsubject area has a different number of extra

Fig 19 // Number of extra points earned by subject area
Coffee growing is the subject area in which C.A.F.E. Practices participants earned more extra points to improve scoring
and
8 thus performance.

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2012

2013

■ Social responsibility ■ Coffee growing

2014■ Coffee Processing wet

points available depending on the type of entity,
having the potential to earn up to 9 extra points under
the social responsibility area, up to 21 under coffee
growing, 2 under coffee processing wet and dry, andup to 5 under PSO subject area. As shown in figure
19, the coffee growing indicators are leading theprovision of extra points — with an annual averageof 5.99 extra points. Social responsibility follows withfurther 2.96 points on an annual average.

2015■ Coffee Processing dry■ PSO

Extra points are then added to the subject areascoring and then each subject area is weighted
to create the total scoring. With this methodology
the program ensures incorporating the incentive of
extra points in the total score, while balancing thecontribution of each area of the program.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2015 // 25

// Performance changes in re-verified supply chains

As mentioned in the methodology section, thisanalysis is focused on the number of supply chainsthat went through verification in a year, instead of
considering all valid supply chains during the same
period. It’s important to consider that comparison
to a previous verification could date back 1-4 years
since assigned validity can be 1-4 years depending on
approval status and timing of verification. See figure
20 for validity periods explanation.
Most supply chains that have gone through there-verification process have improved their status,
however, changing from one status to anotheris not easy, it often requires a significant change
in performance/score due to the score ranges
associated with each status. In 2015, 60% of the valid
supply chains had a previous verification report on
file. Of them, 60% improved their approval status, 36%
had no change, and 4% declined. An increase could
represent a supply chain going from any status to abetter one, e.g.: NC to verified, or verified to strategic.
A decline could be any supply chain moving backfrom one approval status to a lower status, including
strategic to preferred or preferred to NC to mention
some possibilities.

26 //Fig 20 // Validity periods granted depending on scores, approval status and verification timing

100%
OH

Verification scoring

Supply chains that go through more than one cycle ofverification are assessed to understand the change
in performance in the C.A.F.E. Practices program.
This analysis is challenging given the dynamic natureof the supply chains, which might show changes intheir composition due to several reasons: addition or
removal of farms, mills and/or PSOs, merge of smaller
supply chains, or even split of larger supply chains due
to strategic sourcing decisions.

IH

80%
60%

OH Off-harvest

IH

OH

Harvest classification
IH In-harvest
Approval status

40%
OH■ Strategic

IH

20%

■ Preferred■ Verified

0%
1 year

2 year

3 year

4 yearValidity (years)

Fig 21 // Changes in approval status observed in re-verified supply chains
Re-verified supply chains tend to improve their approval status.
Decline in status is becoming less common every year.

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%

≥80%
100%
0%
2011
2012
2013
2014
OH
90%
■ Improvement ■ Decline ■ No change≥60% <80%≥60% <80%
80%

20% 70%10%
0% 60%

IH

OH

>60%

>60%

≥80%

2015

IH

When looking at the five-year trend (see figure 21),
there is significant growth in the percentage of supply
chains improving their status when undergoing reverification – from 14% in 2011 to 60% in 2015. The
number of supply chains with no change declined from
67% in 2011 to 36% in 2015, and those backsliding to alower approval status also fell from 19% to just 4%. An
100% of 46% of the supply chains across the 2011average
2015
period have improved approval status, 11% have80%
declined, and 43% have maintained the former status in60%
the program.
40%
The most observed changes in status were20%
improvements from verified to strategic (34% in
0%2015)and preferred to strategic (17% in 2015). These
2011
2012
2013

changes to strategic approval status were moreevident in recent years (2013 to 2015), coinciding
with the transition from version 2 to version 3 of thescorecard, which increased the possibility of gaining
the strategic status due to the requirement to achieve
minimum total score rather than minimum scores per
subject area to reach this status and the addition of
earning extra points. It is not clear how much this isdriving the described trend versus increased adoptionof practices in the supply chain.
Besides the changes in approval status, changes inscoring offer a good signal of performance changes
in the supply chains going through re-verification.
Supply chains with improvement based on approval
2014
2015

■ Improvement■ Declinein ■change supply chains
Fig 22 // Changes
in score observed
allNo
re-verified
Re-verified supply chains improving status present an increase in scoring of 14%,
while those with a decline in status, also have a declining scoring.

20%
10%

status have improved scoring on an annual averagerate of 14% in the 2011-2015 period. Supply chainswith no change in approval status have presented
an average zero increase in scoring during the same
period. Supply chains that have declined in status stillpresented a general improvement trend in scores byreducing the decrease in scores that prior years haveshown. See figure 22.

An alternative analysis using the proportion of
re-verified supply chains with similar entities’
composition over the course of time, suggested
that the described results are amplified. Using athreshold of at least 80% of common entities ina supply chain from one verification to another,suggested that supply chains with no change inapproval status improved their scores at an annual
rate of 2%, which is larger than the rate registeredby all re-verified supply chains. Meanwhile, supply
chains with a declining status have also reduced thedifferences in scoring along the period analyzed.

0%
-10%
-20%

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

■ Status improvement ■ Status decline ■ No change in status

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2015 // 27

// Zero tolerance incidents
As part of the C.A.F.E. Practices program, supply
chains must comply with the Zero Tolerance (ZT)
indicators before status and validity are granted. In
the event that a supply chain fails to comply with
one or more ZT indicators, it must submit andimplement a Zero Tolerance corrective action plan
(ZT-CAR). This process includes the submission,
implementation and documentation of the plan andre-verification by a third party to confirm compliancewith ZT indicators.
This analysis used data from supply chains going
through verification during each given year insteadof all valid supply chains during the same period.
The number of ZTs included in the program
scorecard changed so this analysis is focused only
on version 3 of the scorecard, analyzing the period
from 2012 to 2015 (rather than 2011 through 2015).
The ZT-CAR procedure allows supply chains tocorrect non-compliance with zero tolerance indicators
thus encouraging them to correct the issue andimprove performance rather than continuing thepractice and discontinuing their participation in the
program. By analyzing the ZT-CAR data, the programis able to track the proportion of non-compliant
entities that corrected those incidents to be able tobecome approved in C.A.F.E. Practices.
As shown in figure 23, the number of ZT incidents
had been on the rise — going from 107 in 2012 to786 in 2014, which is coincident with the growing
trend in the number of total entities participatingin the C.A.F.E. Practices program. However, 2015
presented two improving trends. First is a decline
in the number of ZT incidents to 311, despite

28 //the continuous growth in the number of entities
participating (35% growth in the number of farms,
4% rise in the number of stand alone mills, and
21% increase in the number of PSOs) from 2014 to2015. Second is the growth in the proportion of ZT
incidents corrected to 84%.
Labor intermediaries are only used when legallypermissible and have the documentation to
support evaluation of relevant social indicators(SR-HP 1.17). 10% of the total ZT incidents reported
in 2015 were related to this indicator. This issue
was more relevant in Indonesia and Colombia acrossthe time period while there were also periodic
issues in Brazil and Honduras. Evidence provided byinspectors suggested incomplete documentation ofcontracting to ensure minimum wages and benefits
were paid to farm and mills workers.

Employment of authorized minors meetslegal requirements (SR-HP 4.2). 6% of the total
ZT incidents in 2015 were on this requirement,
however it has improved from 9% share in 2014.
The improvement trend is both in proportion andabsolute figures. Findings indicated that some
supply chains had minors (15-17 year-old) working on
farms or mills, even in countries such as Colombiathat prohibit minors (15-17 year-old) from working on
coffee picking after school. Most of these incidents
occurred in South America (Brazil and Colombia)
but some were also evident in East Africa (mostly
Ethiopia and Kenya). Evidence suggested that noncompliance in most cases was related to supply
chains lacking the legally required documentation to
support the authorized minors.

Fig 23 // Number of ZT incidents and correction in annual verifications

900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2012

2013

■ ZT Findings ■ ZT Corrections

2014

2015

Minimum wage for permanent employees(SR-HP 1.1). A small number of farms failed to
pay minimum wages for permanent employees. In
2012, 12% of the ZT incidents were related to thisindicator, while the proportion has declined to 2%
in 2015. Non-compliance was identified primarily in
Africa (Kenya, Ethiopia, Rwanda, and Tanzania), andAsia (Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Philippines).
The main reasons for non-compliance noted byverifiers were: mislabeling of positions according to
the actual role of employees and some salaries below
the minimum defined for the type of work.

Updated producer list (PS-MT 1.2). PSOs are
required to keep an updated producer list for supply
chains. Incidents showing a PSO not having an
updated producer list represented 9% of the total
ZTs in 2015, but it has improved from a 13% sharein 2014. Absolute figures show a similar trend.
Africa (Kenya and Rwanda) has been identified as
the region with more incidents of non-compliancewith this indicator. Evidence from verification reports
found that the main issues were lists that included
deceased farmers (where a family member inherited
the property), and the failure to add new farmers to
the list. Also, there were cases where the area
registered in the farmer list was significantly different
from actual farm area under inspection, resulting in a
non-compliance for the indicator.

Tracking systems (CP-MT 1.2). Mills are required tohave a tracking system for C.A.F.E. Practices coffee frominitial purchase or intake through final sale or output.
There have been some historic incidents of noncompliance with this indicator, particularly in Rwanda
and Tanzania. However, in 2015 there were no
instances of non-compliance with this requirement.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2015 // 29

// Key performance indicator analysis
In addition to those that are ZT indicators, Starbucks
has identified a list of important practices that thecompany believes can be important KPIs to track asfoundational for a healthy supply chain. KPI analysis
is important to understand trends in performanceat a detailed level and is a complement to thechanges in approval status and scoring systems. A
list of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) has beendeveloped which allows Starbucks and others
to better understand where there are gaps inperformance. Those areas that need support can thenbe addressed by Suppliers, and PSOs in coordincation
with Farmer Support Centers. By increasing awarenesson critical social and environmental issues, Starbucks,
through C.A.F.E. Practices can influence industry
players to support improved quality of life and theenvironment, both of which are intricately linked.
Different interventions such as targeted trainings
facilitate moving toward 100% of supply chain
members (farms, processors, and PSOs) achieving
these KPI practices and tracking this overtime.

KPIs include several practices from working conditions
expected on farms and mills, to agronomy andenvironmental practices most important for farmers
to implement. It’s also important to differentiate thegaps in performance of smallholder farms as well as
challenges for other supply chain members including
mills and PSOs.
The total list of KPIs developed includes 40 practices
that are tracked on different supply chain entities(farms, smallholder farms, processors and PSOs).

Fig 24 // Detailed list of Key Performance Indicators analyzed

Area

Sections
Economic Accountability

Social Responsibility

Environmental
Responsibility

Smallholder farms

Processors

Financial transparency

2

2

2

Hiring practices and employment policies

7

7

7

Working conditions

4

2

4

Protecting water resources

1

1

Protecting soil resources

2

1

Conserving biodiversity

2

1

Environmental management and monitoring

4

2

Water conservation

1

Waste management

2

Energy use

1

PSOs

Management & Tracking
Systems (PSO)

Management and tracking systems

3

Social Responsibility (PSO)

Hiring practices and employment policies

1

Protecting soil resources

2

Environmental management and monitoring

7

Training program on climate change

1

Environmental
Responsibility (PSO)

TOTAL
30 //

Medium & large farms

22

15

17

14

// Key performance indicators analysis: medium and large farms
The C.A.F.E. Practices program uses a Genericscorecard to assess the adoption of good practices
on coffee farms that applies to both medium andlarge farms. A shorter list of practices is used toassess performance of smallholder farms, while
adding a scorecard for the Producer Support
Organization.

large farms. However, global performance of KPIs
is also driven by countries with large participationof medium and large farms. For instance, during theperiod of analysis, Brazil represented up to 68%
of the medium farms and up to 75% of the large
farms. Nicaragua, Guatemala and Colombia werealso countries with large number of medium andlarge farms. See detailed data on performance andobserved trends in figure 24 for large farms and 25
for medium farms.

Fig 25 // Large farms KPIs performance
2011
2012is particularly low on
2013
2014
2015
Each scorecard includes a set of practices thatLarge
farms’ global performancethe environmental responsibility
KPIs for soil, management
100%and monitoring, driving down the global KPI performance for large farms. Economic and social KPI indicators
assess farm performance across three subject areas:
outperform the average.
economic accountability, social responsibility, andenvironmental responsibility. While each subject
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
area includes several indicators, this section of the100%
report provides a snapshot of global performanceof medium and large farms using a set of Key
80%
Performance Indicators (KPIs) that have been
identified as priorities within the three subject areas.
Some of the KPIs represent ZT indicators such as
80%
minimum wage, child labor, no forest conversion,and no use of prohibited chemicals. Other important
60%
indicators include management of receipts, benefits
to workers, use of personal protective equipment,water and soil resources management, pest
management (ecological control) and others.
60%
Global performance of KPIs has been traditionally40%
higher on large than in medium farms, however, inmore recent years, large farms presented a slightdeclining trend in KPIs performance (80% in 2011 to 74%
in 2015), while medium farms have maintained stable40%
between 70% in 2011 and 71% in 2015. Large farms
slight decline in KPIs performance was general across20%
all sections (economic, social and environmental).
Based on participation data, there is no evidence
suggesting that changes in performance areassociated with the growth in number of medium and

20%

100%

■ Global average■ Economic accountability■ Hiring practices and employment policies■ Working conditions

2011■ Global average■ Economic accountability■ Hiring practices and employment policies■ Working conditions
2012
2013

■ Protecting water resources■ Protecting soil resources■ Conserving biodiversity■ Environmental management and monitoring■ Protecting water resources■ Protecting soil resources■ Conserving biodiversity■ Environmental
management
andIMPACTASSESSMENT
FYmonitoring
2011-2015 // 31
2014
2015

LARGE FARMS (>50 hectares)• 1,842 large farms in the program in 2015.
Growth of 11% between 2011 and 2015.
• 126,000 total workers on large farms in the programin 2015. Increase of 6% in the period 2011-2015.

Large farms performance on economic accountability
KPIs maintained over 92% in the period 2011-2013,
but then declined to 86%, due to a drop in Mexico
and Brazil in both indicators under this section (EA-IS
1.3 and 1.4), which require receipts and specific data
included on receipts.
Social responsibility KPIs performance for large
farms moved from 86% to 82% in the period 20112015. Hiring practices and employment policies
showed a general decline in performance – from
85% in 2011 to 79% in 2015, while working conditions
KPIs performance has presented minimum change
from 88% in 2011 to 87% in 2015. Some observations
under the social KPIs were:• Large farms appeared to be struggling to exceed
the minimum wage for temporary workers (SRHP1.11), with performance of 36% in 2015.
• Improvement has been reported for the indicatormaximum hours of work (SR-HP 3.3) for workers
not to work more total hours than allowed by law.
Compliance rates grew from 75% in 2011 to 81%
in 2015.
• A decrease in performance was noted onproviding required benefits to permanent andtemporary workers (SR-HP 1.7 and 1.8), whichhave declined from 89% to 77% and 88% to72%, respectively. On the second indicator, adrop in Colombia was clearly the main reason,
but in general some other countries with low

32 //performance were Tanzania, China and Papua New
Guinea. Use of personal protective equipment(SR-WC 4.2) has significantly improved from 62%
to 84%. Brazil, Colombia and Nicaragua showed
improvement on this indicator.
• Zero tolerance indicators such as no child labor(SR-HP 4.1) and access to education (SR-WC 2.1)
were in full compliance in the period 2012-2015,
while zero tolerance indicators on minimum wage
for permanent and temporary workers (SR-HP
1.1 and 1.2) have presented some challenges inColombia, Brazil, Kenya and Ethiopia.
Performance against environmental responsibility
KPI’s on large farms has improved from 58% in 2012 to
62% in 2015. 2011 KPI performance is not comparable
to the following years due to the addition of a couple
of indicators on environmental management andmonitoring. During the five-year period, large farms
have improved performance on protecting water
resources (from 93% to 96%), and environmental
management and monitoring (from 37% to 50%).
Protecting soil resources has declined from 47% to
38% and conserving biodiversity has also decreased
performance from 96% to 93%. Some observations
under the environmental KPIs were:• Erosion prevention (CG-SR 1.4) declined from 36%
to 23% in the period 2011-2015. The country withlowest performance was Brazil, going from 19% in2012 to 4% in 2015.
• Having a written C.A.F.E. Practices improvement
plan and tracking activities (CG-EM 2.1) changed
from 21% in 2011 to 19% in 2015. Colombia and Brazil
are the countries with lowest performance andmajor number of large farms, so they are driving the
global performance down on this requirement.

• Long term productivity indicators (CG-EM 3.1 and3.2) added in V3.0, have low performance rates
but showed improvement along the years reaching
performance rates of 35% and 45% in 2015. Most
countries have acceptable performance rates
except for Brazil, whose performance in 2015 was
14% and 23%, respectively.
• Zero tolerance indicator on no forest conversion(CG-CB 3.1) showed a slight increase from 98% to
99% in the period 2011-2015 and no use of prohibitedchemicals (CG-EM 1.1) improved dramatically from
68% in 2011 to 99% in 2015, especially due toimprovements in Brazil and Nicaragua.

MEDIUM FARMS (12 to <50 hectares)• 4,476 medium farms in the program in 2015.
Growth of 10% between 2011 and 2015.
• 104,000 total workers on medium farms in the
program in 2015. Increase of 12% in the period
2011-2015.
Medium farm performance on economic
accountability KPIs dropped from a 89%-96% range inthe the first three years of analysis to 83% in 2014 and2015. The reason for decline in medium farms was
associated to a drop in performance on Colombian
farms in recent years.
Medium farms performance on social responsibility
KPIs has been in the range 72%-80%, reaching its
highest performance in 2013. Hiring practices andemployment policy KPIs declined performance from
82% to 75% in the five-year period, but working
conditions KPIs improved from 55% in 2011 to 72% in
2015. Some findings to highlight were:20%■ Global average■ Protecting water resources■ Economic accountability■ Protecting soil resources■
Hiringpracticesandemployment
policies■ Conserving biodiversity
Fig 26 // Medium farms KPIs performance■ Working conditions■ Environmental management and monitoring
Medium farms’ global performance is mostly affected by the environmental responsibility indicators: protecting
soil resources and management and monitoring (which showed an important improvement in recent years).
Economic and social indicators outperform the average, except for working conditions in 2011.

100%

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

• Employer contribution to costs of healthcare fortemporary workers (SR-WC 3.5) has dropped from
70% to 39% in the five-year period. This decline
was observed across many of the countries withmedium farms.
• Medium farms have improved the ability to exceed
minimum wage for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.11),
moving from 49% in 2011 to 70% in 2015. The only
exception was Brazil, which continued to struggle
with this indicator.

80%• Similar to the trend observed for large farms,
medium farms have improved the use of personal
protective equipment (SR-WC 4.2) from 60% to 76%.
Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Nicaragua improved
performance on this requirement.

60%• Zero tolerance indicator prohibiting child labor(SR-HP 4.1) has been in full compliance. Accessto education (SR-WC 2.1) presented a positivechange, improving from 80% in 2012 to 100% in
the subsequent years. Colombia and Brazil were
responsible for this change, as medium farms inthose countries improved to 100% compliance in2013. Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SRHP 1.2) deteriorated from 100% in 2011 to 87% in 2015,
due to Brazil’s performance in 2014-2015.

40%

20%
■ Global average■ Economic accountability■ Hiring practices and employment policies■ Working conditions• The most challenging social KPI on medium farms
was the provision of benefits to temporary workers
2011
2012
(SR-HP 1.8), which has declined performance from100%
58% to 28% in the period 2011-2015. Benefits to■ Protecting water resources■ Protecting soil resources■ Conserving biodiversity■ Environmental management and monitoringpermanent workers also presented a slight decline
from 77% from 63%. In both cases, the drop was
2013
2014
2015
general across the countries with a larger numberof medium farms.

Performance of medium farms on the environmental
responsibility KPIs improved from 52% in 2012
to 65% in 2015. During the period of analysis,
protecting water resources KPIs improved from
85% to 96%, and environmental management
and monitoring nearly doubled from 31% to 62%.
Protecting soil resources was stable (36% in 2011 to
35% in 2015) and conserving biodiversity declined
from 89% to 86%.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2015 // 33

20%■ Global average// Key performance indicators analysis:
smallholder
farms■ Economic
accountability• Over 250,000 smallholder farms in the program in2015. Growth of 39% between 2011 and 2015.
• Over 1 million total workers in smallholder farms
in the program in 2015. Growth of 29% in the
period 2011-2015.
Small farms (less than 12 hectares) apply thesmallholder version of the scorecard, which isa subset of indicators included in the Generic
Scorecard. The set of KPIs used to assess
smallholders performance is similar to the medium
and large farm set, contains the same ZT indicators,
but excludes the following KPIs:■ Protecting water resources■ Protecting soil resources■ Conserving biodiversity■ Environmental management and monitoring■ Hiring practices and employment policies■ Working conditions
Fig 27 // Smallholder farms KPIs performance
Smallholder farms decreased global KPIs performance. This behavior is mostly impacted by soil resourcesindicators (environmental), economic accountability indicators and working conditions indicators (social).
100%

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

80%

Social responsibility – 2 KPIs on working conditions(healthcare for permanent and temporary workers).
Environmental responsibility – 1 KPI on protecting
soil resources (formula of nutrients applied), 1 KPI on
conserving biodiversity (conservation set asides), and2 KPIs on environmental management and monitoring*.
It is important to consider that supply chains that
include smallholders are also required to identify
and evaluate a Producer Support Organization (PSO)
responsible for providing support and training to thesmallholders in the C.A.F.E. Practices supply chain.
Analysis of the KPIs related to the PSO is in PSOs
performance section. For several of the KPIs notevaluated for smallholders, the PSO KPIs address
topics such as soil resources and environmental
management and monitoring.
Global performance of KPIs on smallholder farms has
decreased from 83% in 2011 to 77% in 2015, however,recent years have shown an improvement trend from

60%

40%
■ Global average■ Economic accountability■ Hiring practices and employment policies■ Working conditions* Environmental
had only 1 KPI in 2011 and included
2011management and monitoring
2012
2013 an additional KPI in 2012.
2014

100%

34 //

■ Protecting water resources■ Protecting soil resources■ Conserving biodiversity■ Environmental management and monitoring2015

the lowest performance in 2012 (75%). Despite thesignificant growth in number of smallholder farms
in the program (39%), performance has dropped
in a minor scale, so KPIs performance was not
attributable to the number of farms participating, as
no evidence suggested any correlation between thesmallholders performance on KPIs and the numberof small farms participating in the program.
The performance against economic accountability
KPIs declined from 73% in 2011 to 63% in 2015.
This section included two KPIs (receipts and data
included on receipt, EA-IS 1.3 and 1.4) that requested
challenging documentation, especially in Africa andAsia where smallholders have lower performance.
Small farms performance against the social
responsibility KPIs declined from 85% in 2011 to 77%
in 2015.
Smallholders appeared to be particularly struggling
with the requirement to provide benefits forpermanent and temporary workers (SR-HP 1.7
and 1.8). Benefits provision to permanent workers
declined from 73% to 48% across many countries
including Mexico, Colombia, Indonesia and Papua
New Guinea. Other countries performing historically
low on this indicator are Rwanda, Kenya andEthiopia. Provision of benefits to temporary workers

has decreased more dramatically. – from 58% to 10%
and the declining trend covered almost all regions
and countries except for Rwanda.
Use of personal protective equipment (SR-WC 4.2)
has decreased performance from 52% to 48% in thefive-year period, particularly in Africa (Kenya, Rwanda,
Tanzania) and Asian countries (Indonesia and Papua
New Guinea). This is an opposite trend to what has
been evidenced for medium and large farms.
Zero tolerance indicators on minimum wage forpermanent and temporary workers (SR-HP 1.1 and 1.2),
showed high compliance (near 100%). No child labor(SR-HP 4.1) and access to education (SR-WC 2.1) werein full compliance throughout the five-year period.
Smallholders average performance across allenvironmental responsibility KPIs was 84% in 2011 and
83% in 2015. In the interim period, 2012 showed thelowest performance (69%), coinciding with the additionof a new indicator on long term productivity (CG-EM 3.1)
that temporarily decreased performance of small farms.
The analysis looked at one KPI for protecting water
resources (water body buffer zones, CG-WR 1.1) whichshowed a slight decline in performance (80% in2011 to 76% in 2015), which is influenced by Africa’s
growth in participation and lower performance on
this requirement.

This analysis also considered a KPI on soil resources
to understand whether farms are taking action toprevent erosion with the use of shade trees orcover crops on all productive area with slopes lessthan 20% (CG-SR 1.4) and found a declining trend
from 59% in 2011 to 47% in 2015. Asia and Africa
performed low on this requirement as well as Brazil.
Conserving biodiversity was assessed through a KPI
on no forest conversion (CG-CB 3.1), which has been
in full compliance during the five-year period for all
small farms.

Performance on environmental management
and monitoring KPIs have improved from 57% in2012 to 96% in 2015. 2011 is excluded from thistrend analysis of environmental management
and monitoring as it only considered one KPI(CG-EM 1.1, no use of prohibited chemicals), withperformance over 98%. 2012 and the following
years considered a new indicator on longterm productivity (CG-EM 3.1), which revealed
challenges in this area for Brazil’s small farms,
while not significantly impacting the global
average. See detailed data on performance andobserved trends in figure 27.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2015 // 35

■ Global average■ Economic accountability■ Hiring practices and employment policies■ Working conditions■ Protecting water resources■ Protecting soil resources■ Waste management■ Energy use// Key performance indicators analysis: producer support organizations (PSOs)• 385 PSOs were evaluated as supply chains service
providers in 2015. Less than 1% growth rate in the
period 2011-2015.
PSOs are assessed against a set of 42 specific PSO
indicators in the smallholder scorecard. A short listof 14 KPIs has been selected to monitor specificperformance of PSOs. This list includes 3 KPIs on
management and tracking systems, 1 KPI on hiring
practices, 2 on protecting soil resources, 7 onenvironmental management and monitoring, and one
on climate change.
Some of the KPIs represent ZT indicators such as
requiring that the PSOs have a product tracking
system, a current list of participants, ensuring farms
receive receipts, and that they do not distributeprohibited chemicals. Other indicators that areimportant to PSOs include provision of training on
hiring and labor practices including use of PPE, andtraining program on climate change, soil analysis andfertilization programs.
PSOs performed relatively well on the KPIs during theperiod from 2011 to 2015. Average performance in 2011
was 84% and in the last three years it has been 76%.
The main cause of decline in KPIs was the indicator PSSR 2.3 (implementing soil and foliar plan every 2 years)
which performance decreased from 62% in 2011 to arange 40-50% in the subsequent years.
Management and tracking systems KPIs moved
from 99% in the period 2011-2013 to 96% in thesubsequent years.

36 //Fig 28 // Producer Support Organizations KPIs performance
PSOs global performance is particularly good on management and tracking systems indicators, but morechallenging on environmental indicators (soil resources, training on climate change, management and monitoring)and social indicators such as hiring practices and employment policies.
100%

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

80%

60%

40%

20%
■ Global average■ Management and tracking systems■ Hiring practices and employment policies■ Protecting soil resources■ Environmental management and monitoring■ Training program on climate change

PSOs are required to phave written materials to
train smallholders on hiring practices (PS-HP 1.1), withcompliance increasing from 73% in 2013 to 77% in
2015. This indicator was not included in the PSO
scorecard prior to 2013.

The environmental management and monitoring KPIs
performance has remained stable in the range 76%79% in the five-year period. The highest performance
rates were reported in 2011 and 2015.

Protecting soil resources included two KPIs on soil
productivity. One (PS-SR 2.1) requires a management
plan that includes analysis of soil samples, and has
shown a performance between 79% (2011) and 76%(2015). The other indicator (PS-SR 2.3) assessed
wether the analysis occurs every 2 years, and PSOs
performance has declined from 62% in 2011 to 46%
in 2015. Most of the countries performed low on thisrequirement, except for China and Costa Rica.

No distribution of prohibited chemicals (PS-EM 1.1)
improved performance from 95% in 2011 to 100% in
the last three years.

PSOs struggled with achieving training targets forsmallholders in their supply chains. Performanceon existence of training materials (PS-EM 2.6) isover 70% for the period, while indicators PS-EM 2.8(training 25% of farmers) and 2.9 (training 50% of
farmers) have achieved 77% and 60% performance,
respectively.
Training related to procedures for agrochemicals
use and storage, and use of the personal protective
equipment (PS-EM 1.4 and 1.5) were introduced more
recently and there is not enough historical data to
analyze their trends.
The only climate change KPI required that PSOs
provide smallholders with training on climate change(PS-CC 1.2). This indicator has been in use since2013. Performance on this KPI has been relatively
low, but showed improvement from 26% in 2013 to
38% in 2015. See detailed data on performance andobserved trends in figure 28.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2015 // 37

■ Working conditions// Key performance indicators analysis: processors• 15,177 stand alone mills (processors) in the programin 2015. Growth rate of 171% in the period 2011-2015.
Processors (wet and dry mills included in the supply
chains) are assessed against the Coffee Processing
sections of the generic and smallholder scorecards.
The list of 17 KPIs selected for processors include
the same KPIs used for medium and large farms
performance under the economic accountability
and social responsibility sections. Meanwhile, theenvironmental responsibility subject area is uniqueto milling operations and includes one KPI on water
conservation, two KPIs on waste management, andone KPI on energy use. No environmental KPIs havebeen included in the analysis for dry mills.
The KPIs analyzed for processors include ZT
indicators such as minimum wage, child labor, andaccess to education. Others cover managementof receipts, benefits to workers, use of personal
protective equipment. Wet mill indicators include
waste water management and processing wastes.

WET MILLSAs shown in figure 29, wet mills global performance of
KPIs has presented a slight decline (87% in 2011 to 84%
in 2015) but has remained relatively stable. Changes
could be associated to the 77% growth rate in thenumber of participating wet mills in the five-year period.
Wet mills performance on economic accountability
KPIs dropped from 93% to 89% in the five-year
period. Countries such as Brazil, Mexico and Tanzania
presented a declining performance in the indicator
EA-IS 1.4 (receipts including required data).

38 //Fig 29 // Processors: wet mills KPIs performance
Wet mills global performance is affected mostly by social responsibility indicators (working conditions and hiring
practices and employment policies). Water resources indicators have also dropped in the last years.
100%

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

■

90%

80%

70%
■ Protecting water resources■ Protecting soil resources■ Waste management■ Energy use■ Global average■ Economic accountability■ Hiring practices and employment policies■ Working conditions
Wet mills performance on social responsibility
KPIs has dropped slightly from 84% in 2011 to 81%
in 2015. Some challenging KPIs included in hiring
practices and employment policies were benefits to
temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8) and minimum wages
for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.1), while working
conditions showed a declining trend on indicator SRWC 3.5 (employer
contributes to cost
2011
2012of healthcare forall
temporary workers).
100%

Wet mills performance on environmental KPIs haschanged from 94% to 89% in the five-year period.
Despite high KPI performance, there is a clear
decline driven by challenges in Colombia, a country
that represented over 50% of the total number ofparticipant wet mills in the program in the last three
years of analysis.
2013

2014

2015

40%
■ Global average■ Economic accountability■ Hiring practices and employment policies■ Workingconditions
Fig 30 // Processors:drymills KPIs performance■ Protecting water resources■ Protecting soil resources■ Conserving biodiversity■ Environmental management and monitoring

Dry mills global performance presented a peak in 2012 and a later decline in 2014, product of some social
responsibility indicators such as minimum wage exceeded and use of personal protective equipment.
100%

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

As shown in figure 30, dry mills improved
performance from 89% in 2011 to 100% in 2012, butlater presented a drop to 74% in 2014 in the economic
accountability KPIs performance. This decline
resulted from challenges in Brazil in both economic
accountability KPIs (EA-IS 1.3 and 1.4) that require mills
to keep receipts for coffee and ensure they containthe information required.
Dry mills performance on social responsibility KPIs
increased from 86% to 87% in the five-year period
but it peaked in 2012 and 2013 to 93%. Indicator
SR-HP1.11 (minimum wage exceeded for temporary
workers) has presented the lowest performance
under social responsibility KPIs, particularly due toBrazil’s low performance and the large number ofparticipants the country represented. However, othercountries such as Nicaragua, Colombia, Ethiopia and
Rwanda have also had challenges in performance
under this requirement.

90%

80%

In both processor types (wet and dry mills),
performance on zero tolerance social responsibility
KPIs was high. Minimum wage for permanent workers(SR- HP 1.1) and no child labor (SR-HP 4.1) has been infull compliance during the period.

70%■ Global average■ Economic accountability■ Hiring practices and employment policies■ Working conditions

DRY MILLS
Dry mills global performance of KPIs was 85% in
2015, very similar to the 2011 performance level(86%). However, 2012 increased to 94%, which wasmaintained also in 2013, followed by a drop in global
performance in 2014 and 2015. The number of drymills in the
program grew dramatically
20112012 – 268% in
100%five years. The big jump took place in 2012 in Brazil,
where dry milling is not as centralized as in othercountries. In 2014-2015, Brazil represented over 98%
of the global number of dry mills in the program, sothat any change in performance in Brazil had impact
on global numbers.
2013

2014

2015

■
IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2015 // 39

Conclusions
Conservation International’s C.A.F.E. Practices impact
assessment analyzed aspects related to participationand performance of farmers in the program during theperiod 2011 to 2015. The analysis shed light on key
attributes of Starbucks supply chain key strengths inperformance, and areas to consider for prioritization intraining where declining performance or low general
performance were found.
The C.A.F.E. Practices program has experienced
significant growth in the number of farms
participating and the total area in the program.
In 2015, there were 256,000 farms participating, anincrease of 38% since 2011. The coffee area affectedby the program has grown by 11% rate to reach nearly
842,000 hectares. The number of workers hired byprogram participants reached 1.3 million, growing 26%
since 2011, while women participation has grown torepresent 15% of the program participants.
Both C.A.F.E. Practices verified coffee and Starbucks
purchases of verified coffee have grown in accordancewith program expansion. In 2015, 18% of the global
production of Arabica coffee was produced incompliance with the C.A.F.E. Practices requirements.
28% of the approved coffee volume in the program
was purchased by Starbucks, representing 5% of the
global purchases of Arabica coffee. A look ahead
at 2017 figures showed that C.A.F.E. Practices
participation grew to 26%, while Starbucks
purchases continued reaching 5% of the global
Arabica production.
Farm yields generally declined between 2011 and2015 by 15%. This trend in yield during the period
is affected by the increase in number of farms in
the program, many of them entering the programwith low yields (particularly in Africa), and due tothe effect of the coffee rust in North and Central
40 //America. More recent efforts to rehabilitate andrenovate coffee farms could reverse this trend, but theeffect will take several years to be visible.
Small farms had the lowest yields but made up the
majority of participating farms and area in the program,heavily influencing the global yield for the programeach year. Working with small farms to address
productivity issues would have significant impacts
both for smallholder incomes and volume of C.A.F.E.
Practices coffee available for Starbucks.
Africa had significant growth in participation but
tended to have the lowest yields. Africa experienced
a notable growth in the number of participating farms
in 2015 – representing 31% of the total farms and 7%of the total coffee area under the C.A.F.E. Practices
program. African farms also had the lowest yields, 41%
below the global average (1,238 lbs/ha) in 2015.
South America had the greatest number of medium
and large farms in the program, however, the largest
number of farms is still represented by participatingsmallholders. In 2015, South America also
represented 64% of the global coffee area in C.A.F.E.
Practices and had an average yield that was 26%
higher than the global average (2,662 lbs/ha).
Over 75 percent of participating supply chains arestaying in the C.A.F.E. Practices program from year
to year. The proportion of supply chains discontinuing
their participation has declined from 25% to 22% in the
period 2011 to 2013.
Supply chains achieving the highest levels of
performance in the program (i.e. preferred and strategic
status) have had insignificant rates of program attrition.
This suggests a connection between performanceand continued participation.

The number and proportion of supply chainsachieving the highest level of performance haveincreased over the years. The average total score ofparticipants globally rose by 7% between 2011 and2015. Africa – where scores declined from 78% to 75%– was the exception to the trend.
Supply chains that underwent re-verification
between 2011 and 2015 improved their performance.
On average, 46% of the re-verified supply chains
improved their status within C.A.F.E. Practices, withscores increasing by 14% when compared to theprevious cycle of verification.
While medium farms maintained their performanceagainst KPIs, small and large farms showed mixed
results, including a general declining trend in the
period 2011-2015. Smallholder farms also presented
a specific recovery in the last years for KPIs
performance. PSOs presented a slight declining
trend, while processors have maintained similar
performance on KPIs over the years. Environmental
responsibility KPIs was the area with most challenges
and lowest performance across participants in all
regions. Economic accountability KPIs showed the best
performance, except for smallholders and dry mills that
had more difficulties under this area.
The described changes in the C.A.F.E. Practices
Program allowed the identification of trends in thenumber of participating entities and their performance.
Several positive findings demonstrate that more farms
are committed to sustainable practices, including better
conditions to workers and farmers, a more conserved
environment and, more traceability and transparency
along the supply chain. Further trends provide
guidance on areas that require more investment andsupport to ensure a prosperous future of the program.

© stereohype – Coffee cherries.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2011-2015 // 41conservation.org
42 //COUNTRYDASHBOARDS
I1I

CD-2

REGIONSNORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA

SOUTH AMERICA// North & Central America
had over 28,000 farms in
9 countries in the C.A.F.E.
Practices program in
2015, representing 11%of the global number ofparticipating farms. From
the total farms in the region,
96% were small, 2.5%
medium and 1.5% large. The
number of participant farms
in the region has grown 9%in the period 2011-2015.

// South America had over
76,000 farms in 3 countries
in the C.A.F.E. Practices
program in 2015, whichcorresponds to 30% of the
global number of farms.
Over 93% of the farms are
small, while 5% are mediumand 2% large farms. The
number of participant farms
in the region has grown 30%
in the period 2011-2015.

// Total area in the
program in North & Central
America in 2015 was near
242,000 hectares (17% of
the global area), showing adecline of 5% in the period
2011-2015. 58% of the total
area in 2015 corresponds tocoffee area and near 24% isdedicated to conservation.

20% were Preferred, and
2% were Verified status
supply chains. This regionis leading in terms of higher
compliance of supply chainsand lower rate of noncompliant with the C.A.F.E.
Practices program.
// North & Central America
had an average total scoreof 91% in 2015, with scoringof 93% in Strategic supply
chains and over 86% in
Preferred and Verified
supply chains.
// North & Central America
country dashboards
offer a snapshot of
Costa Rica, Guatemala,Mexico and Nicaragua toshow participation andperformance highlights.

// Total area in the
program in South America
in 2015 was near 917,000
hectares (65% of the globalarea). Of that area, 59% isdedicated to coffee andnear 12.5% is dedicated toconservation. Total area
under the program in theregion has grown 17% in the
period 2011-2015.

// South America included
174 supply chains in 2015,
corresponding to 25%of the global number ofsupply chains. Of those
supply chains, in 2015, 54%
were Strategic, 36% werePreferred, 9% Verified and
1% non-compliant status.
// South America had an
average total score of 80%
in 2015, with 85% score in
Strategic supply chains and
74% in those with Preferredand Verified status.
// South America country
dashboards offer asnapshot of Colombia andBrazil to show participationand performance highlights.

// North & Central America
had 430 supply chainsparticipating in 2015,
corresponding to 61% of the
global number of supply
chains. Of those supply
chains in the program, in
2015, 78% were Strategic,

I2I

CD-2
CD-1

REGIONSAFRICA// Africa accounted forover 80,000 farms in 5
countries in the C.A.F.E.
Practices program in 2015,
which corresponded to
31% of the global farms. It
presented a strong increase(225%) since 2011 when
there were less than 25,000
participating farms. It’s
important to highlight thatover 99.5% are small farms.
// Total area in the
program in Africa in 2015
was over 148,000 hectares,
representing 10% of the
global area, while 40% ofthat area is dedicated tocoffee and near 7.5% isdedicated to conservation.
Total area in the region has
grown 69% in the period
2011-2015.

ASIA// Africa had 56 supply
chains in 2015, representing
8% of the global numberof supply chains. Of those
supply chains, in 2015, 64%
were Preferred status, while
22% Strategic. The noncompliant rate was 14%—much higher than the 2%
global average.
// Africa had an average
total score of 75% in 2015,
showing a scoring of 88%
in Strategic supply chainsand 73% in Preferred. Noncompliant supply chainsobtained a score of 68%
that year.
// Africa country
dashboards offer asnapshot of Ethiopia, Kenya,
Rwanda and Tanzania toshow participation andperformance highlights.

// Asia included over
71,000 farms in 6 countries
in the C.A.F.E. Practices
program in 2015, which
represented 28% of the
global farms. It’s importantto highlight that over 99.5%of the participating farms
are smallholders.

// Asia presented 45
supply chains in 2015. It
represents 6% of the global
number of supply chains.
Of those supply chains,
62% were Strategic, 30%
were Preferred, 4% Verified
and 4% received a noncompliant status.

// Total area in the
program in Asia in 2015
was 109,000 hectares,
representing 8% of the
global area. 93% of that
total area is dedicatedto coffee and near 2% isdedicated to conservation.

// Asia had an average
total score of 82% in 2015,
showing scoring of 87% in
Strategic supply chains and
74% in Preferred. Noncompliant supply chainsobtained a score of 67% in
the same period.

// Asia presented a decline
of 7% in the number offarms participating but agrowth of 33% in total area
under the program in the
period 2011-2015.

// Asia country dashboards
offer a snapshot of China,
Indonesia, Papua New
Guinea and Vietnam toshow participation andperformance highlights.

STRUCTURE OF
THE COUNTRYDASHBOARDS// Program participation
Description of C.A.F.E.
Practices participant
entities and land area inthe program in the period
2011-2015.
// Farm level data
Detailed farm information
related to womenparticipation, foodsecurity, rust incidence
and coffee yield for
C.A.F.E. Practices
program participants inthe period 2011-2015.
// C.A.F.E. Practices
general performance
Performance of C.A.F.E.
Practices supply chainsin the period 2011-2015,
including approval status,
scoring, and average
performance of KPIs.
// Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs)
Detailed tables showing
KPI compliance for2015 and the % change
compared to 2011
compliance. This is shown
as +/- x% change.
// Map to identify
regions with C.A.F.E.
Practices farms*(included in the first pageof each country)*Based on sampled farms valid in 2015.

I3I

CD-2
CD-1

COSTA RICANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

n Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Large

FARMS BY SIZE PER YEARn Small n Medium n Large

AREA IN THE PROGRAM BY LAND USE

Food security issues Costa Rican Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other arean Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS

20%

Costa rica Rust

FOOD SECURITY

Food security issues Costa Rican Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

2014

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

2014

17%

Costa rica Rust

2015

15%

No food security issues
88%

No food security issues
88%

No food security issues
78%

N

Food security issues

Food security issues

Food security issues

F

12%# of 2014
months: ■ 2 ■ 3

12%
20 40
60 80 1002014
# of months: ■ 2 ■ 3*No response rate (23%)

22%
0 20
40 60 80 100
2015# of months: ■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3*No response rate (23%)

0*No response rate (23%)
RUST INCIDENCE

15%

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

0

20
#
*

No Rust incidence
6%

No Rust incidence
6%

No Rust incidence
5%

N

Rust incidence

Rust incidence

Rust incidenceRu

94%
20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (68%) ■ <10% (26%)*No response rate (82%)

95%
0 20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (70%) ■ <10% (25%)*No response rate (82%)

94%■ >10% (68%) ■ <10% (26%)*No response rate (82%)

0■ <10% ■ >10%
*No response rate (23%)

0

I4I■ <10% ■ >10%
*No response rate (23%)
CD-2

20
■
*N

COSTA RICANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices
Costarica

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Approval statusof supply
Approval
chainsstatusin of
Costa
Approval
supplyRicachainsstatusinApprovalofCosta
supplyRicastatuschainsofin
supplyCostastatus
chainsRicaofin supply
Costa Rica
chains in Costa Rica
AVERAGEYIELD
IN
C.A.F.E.
PRACTICES(LBSApproval
GREEN
COFFEE/HA)

10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Costa Rica

averageyield

n Global yield rangen North & Central
America yield range
Average yieldn Globaln North & Central
America
Average yieldn Globaln North & Central
America
Average yieldn GlobalnN orth & Central
America
Average yieldn GlobalnN orth & Central
America
Average yield

Figures are based on sampled Farms

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Preferredn Verified
10000■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

8000
6000
4000
2000
0
I5I

CD-2

COSTA RICANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dryn PSO

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
20%
20%
100%
00

80%
ActiveActivesupplysupplychainschains
inin
Costa
Costa
Rica
Rica

60%
GLOBALnnn
40%

COSTA RICAn
Large Farms performancenMedium Farms performancenSmallholder Farms performance

GLOBALnnn

COSTA RICAn
Wet Mills performancen
Dry Mills performancen
PSO’s performance

20%

0%

I6I

CD-2

COSTA RICANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources
Protecting soil
resources
Conserving
biodiversity

LARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

100%

0%

95%

-5%

96%

-1%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

100%

0%

95%

-5%

96%

-3%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP1.1)

100%

0%

92%

-8%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP1.2)

100%

0%

90%

-10%

99%

-1%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

100%

0%

78%

-19%

85%

-6%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

100%

0%

40%

-49%

30%

-70%

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary
workers (SR-HP1.11)

86%

-14%

80%

-6%

98%

0%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school(SR-WC2.1)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

100%

0%

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

100%

3%

85%

-13%

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all temporary workers (SR-WC3.5)

100%

12%

57%

-31%

N/A

N/A

Use of personal protective
equipment (SR-WC4.2)

90%

-7%

85%

-8%

70%

-11%

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR1.1)

100%

6%

100%

1%

93%

0%

Erosion prevention practices (CG-SR1.4)

62%

-15%

93%

0%

78%

3%
N/A

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR2.10)

90%

-10%

71%

-17%

N/A

No forest conversion since 2004 (CG-CB3.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

90%

1%

85%

53%

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

100%

6%

100%

10%

100%

0%

86%

-12%

48%

-50%

N/A

N/A

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

100%

0%

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

C.A.F.E. Practices improvement program
Environmental (CG-EM2.1)
management
Pruning program for long term productivity
and monitoring (CG-EM3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM3.2)

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I7I

CD-2

COSTA RICANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //WET MILLSSECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARD

Economic Accountability

Hiring practices andemployment policies

Working conditions

Protecting water
resources
Waste management

Energy use

DRY MILLS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP1.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP1.2)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

100%

0%

100%

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP1.11)

61%

-24%

100%

0%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

96%

2%

100%

0%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school (SR-WC2.1)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all
permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all temporary
workers (SR-WC3.5)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Use of personal protective equipment (SR-WC4.2)

92%

-8%

100%

0%

Wastewater management (CP-WC2.1)

92%

-8%

N/A

N/A

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment(CP-WM1.1)

96%

1%

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct from processing (CP-WM1.2)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during
processing (CP-EC1.4)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I8I

CD-2

COSTA RICANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //PSOs
SECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARDManagement andtracking systems
Hiring practices andemployment policies
Protecting soil resources

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)All supply chain entities have a tracking system for C.A.F.E. Practices coffee (PS-MT1.1)

100%

0%

Annually updated C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT1.2)

100%

0%

Each farm receives a receipt for coffee sold (PS-MT1.3)

100%

0%

PSO has materials for training its network on legal hiring practices (PS-HP1.1)

77%

Insufficient data

Maintaining soil productivity - soil management plan includes soil analysis from representative
farms (PS-SR2.1)

100%

1%

Maintaining soil productivity - implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR2.3)

86%

-12%

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM1.1)

100%

5%

Trains at least 30% of farmers on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM1.4)

92%

Insufficient data

Trains at least 30% of farmers on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM1.5)

92%

Insufficient data

Planning meeting to develop written annual work plan of C.A.F.E. Practices activities (PS-EM2.5)

59%

-38%

Materials for training network on health and safety and best agronomy practices (PS-EM2.6)

55%

-45%

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM2.6 (PS-EM2.8)

52%

23%

PSO trained 50% of producers on topics on topics (PS-EM2.9)

77%

Insufficient data

Training program to reduce the impacts of climate change (PS-CC1.2)

31%

Insufficient data

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I9I

CD-2

GUATEMALANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

n Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Large

FARMS BY SIZE PER YEARn Small n Medium n Large

AREA IN THE PROGRAM BY LAND USE

Food security issues Guatemalan Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other arean Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS

9%Guatamala Rust
FOOD SECURITY

Food security issues Guatemalan Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

2014

2014

9%
Guatamala Rust

13%n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

2015

12%

No food security issues
65%

No food security issues
65%

No food security issues
78%

N

Food security issues

Food security issues

Food security issues

F

35%

35%
20 40 60 80 100# of months:■ 22014■3 ■4 ■5
*No response rate (33%)

22%
0 20 40 60 80 100# of months:
1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 2015*No response rate (33%)# of months:■ 22014■3 ■4 ■5
*No response rate (33%)
RUST INCIDENCE

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area0

No Rust incidence
14%
Rust incidence
86%■ >10% (25%) ■ <10% (61%)*No response rate (79%)

0

0

20
#
■
*

No Rust incidence
14%

No Rust incidence
15%

N

Rust incidence

Rust incidence

R86%
20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (25%) ■ <10% (61%)*No response rate (79%)

85%
0 20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (31%) ■ <10% (54%)*No response rate (61%)■ <10% ■ >10%
*No response rate (23%)

0

I 10 I■ <10% ■ >10%
*No response rate (23%)
CD-2

20
■
*

GUATEMALANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices
Guatemala

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Approval status of supply
Approval
chainsstatusin of
GuatemalaApproval
supply chainsstatusin
ApprovalofGuatemala
supplystatus
chainsApprovalofinsupply
Guatemalastatuschainsof
in supply
Guatemalachains in Guatemala

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Guatemala

averageyield

n Global yield rangen North & Central
America yield range
Average yieldn Globaln North & Central
America
Average yieldn Globaln North & Central
America
Average yieldn GlobalnN orth & Central
America
Average yieldn GlobalnN orth & Central
America
Average yield

Figures are based on sampled Farms

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Preferredn Verified
10000■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

8000
6000
4000
2000
0

I 11 I

CD-2

GUATEMALANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dryn PSO

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
00
100%

Activesupplychainsin in
GuatemalaActivesupplychainsCosta Rica
80%

60%
GLOBALnnn
40%

GUATEMALAn
Large Farms performancenMedium Farms performancenSmallholder Farms performance

GLOBALnnn

GUATEMALAn
Wet Mills performancen
Dry Mills performancen
PSO’s performance

20%

0%

I 12 I

CD-2

GUATEMALANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources
Protecting soil
resources
Conserving
biodiversity

LARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

100%

1%

95%

0%

91%

4%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

100%

2%

95%

0%

89%

-6%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP1.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP1.2)

100%

0%

100%

0%

99%

-1%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

81%

-17%

64%

16%

53%

10%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

86%

-11%

0%

-100%

66%

123%

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary
workers (SR-HP1.11)

51%

-32%

26%

-67%

93%

14%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school(SR-WC2.1)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

100%

0%

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

95%

-2%

100%

15%

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all temporary workers (SR-WC3.5)

86%

-4%

97%

17%

N/A

N/A

Use of personal protective
equipment (SR-WC4.2)

87%

-2%

74%

1%

54%

19%

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR1.1)

98%

-1%

77%

-22%

83%

0%

Erosion prevention practices (CG-SR1.4)

96%

-3%

74%

-23%

96%

0%

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR2.10)

80%

-9%

73%

-11%

N/A

N/A

No forest conversion since 2004 (CG-CB3.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

75%

-15%

33%

-45%

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

99%

-1%

100%

2%

100%

0%

75%

-19%

90%

220%

N/A

N/A

94%

Insufficient data

95%

Insufficient data

99%

0%

86%

Insufficient data

58%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

C.A.F.E. Practices improvement program
Environmental (CG-EM2.1)
management
Pruning program for long term productivity
and monitoring (CG-EM3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM3.2)

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 13 I

CD-2

GUATEMALANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //WET MILLSSECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARD

Economic Accountability

Hiring practices andemployment policies

Working conditions

Protecting water
resources
Waste management

Energy use

DRY MILLS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

98%

10%

100%

0%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

98%

2%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP1.1)

99%

-1%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP1.2)

99%

-1%

100%

0%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

83%

-15%

100%

0%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

77%

-20%

75%

-17%

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP1.11)

38%

-43%

58%

-3%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

99%

0%

100%

0%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

99%

-1%

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school (SR-WC2.1)

98%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all
permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

95%

-3%

100%

0%

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all temporary
workers (SR-WC3.5)

85%

-5%

83%

-5%

Use of personal protective equipment (SR-WC4.2)

82%

8%

100%

0%

Wastewater management (CP-WC2.1)

94%

0%

N/A

N/A

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment(CP-WM1.1)

97%

0%

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct from processing (CP-WM1.2)

97%

0%

N/A

N/A

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during
processing (CP-EC1.4)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 14 I

CD-2

GUATEMALANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //PSOs
SECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARDManagement andtracking systems
Hiring practices andemployment policies
Protecting soil resources

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)All supply chain entities have a tracking system for C.A.F.E. Practices (PS-MT1.1)

98%

-2%

Annually updated C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT1.2)

98%

1%

Each farm receives a receipt for coffee sold (PS-MT1.3)

98%

-2%

PSO has materials for training its network on legal hiring practices (PS-HP1.1)

94%

Insufficient data

Maintaining soil productivity - soil management plan includes soil analysis from representative
farms (PS-SR2.1)

100%

10%

Maintaining soil productivity - implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR2.3)

28%

9%

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM1.1)

100%

0%

Trains at least 30% of farmers on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM1.4)

76%

Insufficient data

Trains at least 30% of farmers on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM1.5)

76%

Insufficient data

Planning meeting to develop written annual work plan of C.A.F.E. Practices activities (PS-EM2.5)

83%

-4%

Materials for training network on health and safety and best agronomy practices (PS-EM2.6)

98%

14%

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM2.6 (PS-EM2.8)

94%

13%

PSO trained 50% of producers on topics (PS-EM2.9)

65%

Insufficient data

Training program to reduce the impacts of climate change climate change (PS-CC1.2)

29%

Insufficient data

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 15 I

CD-2

MEXICONORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

n Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Large

FARMS BY SIZE PER YEARn Small n Medium n Large

AREA IN THE PROGRAM BY LAND USE

Food security issues Mexicon Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other arean Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS

17%
Mexico Rust
FOOD SECURITY

Food security issues Mexicon Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

2014

2014

17%

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

2015

18%

18%

Mexico RustNo food security issues
42%

No food security issues
42%

No food security issues
29%

N

Food security issues

Food security issues

Food security issues

F58%
20 40 60 80 100# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4■ 52014■7*No response rate (3%)

58%
# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4■ 52014■7*No response rate (3%)
RUST INCIDENCE

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

0

0

71%
20 40 60 80 100# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 20156 ■7 ■8 ■9*No response rate (7%)

0

20
#
■
■
*

No Rust incidence■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■530%■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10

No Rust incidence■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■530%■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10

No Rust incidence■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■517%■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10

N■■

Rust incidence

Rust incidence

Rust incidence

R70%
20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (56%) ■ <10% (14%)*No response rate (76%)

83%
0 20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (73%) ■ <10% (10%)*No response rate (62%)

70%■ >10% (56%) ■ <10% (14%)*No response rate (76%)

00

I 16 I

CD-2

20
■
*

MEXICONORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices
Mexico

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

n GlobalnN orth & Central
America
Average yieldn GlobalnN orth & Central
America
Average yield

Approval statusof supply
Approval
chainsstatusin of
MexicoApproval
supply chainsstatusinApprovalofMexicosupplystatus
chainsofinGREEN
supplyMexicostatuschainsofin supply
Mexicochains in Mexico
AVERAGEYIELD
IN
C.A.F.E.
PRACTICES(LBSApproval
COFFEE/HA)

10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Mexico

averageyield

n Global yield rangen North & Central
America yield range
Average yieldn Globaln North & Central
America
Average yieldn Globaln North & Central
America
Average yield

Figures are based on sampled Farms

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Preferredn Verified
10000■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Verified■ Verified■ Non compliant■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Non compliantn Strategicn Preferredn Verified■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic
compliant■ Preferred n■ Non
Preferred■ Preferred■ Verified■ Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified■ Verified■ Non compliant ■ Non compliant ■ Non compliant

8000
6000
4000
2000
0

I 17 I

CD-2

MEXICONORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dryn PSO

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
20%
20%
100%
00

80%
Activesupplychainsin in
MexicoActivesupplychainsCosta Rica60%
GLOBALnnn
40%

MEXICOnnnLarge Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

GLOBALnnn

MEXICOnnn

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSO’s performance

20%

0%

I 18 I

CD-2

MEXICONORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources
Protecting soil
resources
Conserving
biodiversity

LARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

50%

-47%

53%

-24%

65%

37%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

67%

-29%

74%

7%

61%

29%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP1.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP1.2)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

33%

-58%

0%

-100%

12%

-85%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

0%

-100%

0%

-100%

7%

-93%

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary
workers (SR-HP1.11)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

100%

0%

82%

-18%

99%

-1%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school(SR-WC2.1)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

100%

2%

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

100%

0%

75%

-25%

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all temporary workers (SR-WC3.5)

100%

0%

63%

-35%

N/A

N/A

Use of personal protective
equipment (SR-WC4.2)

83%

30%

57%

Insufficient data

61%

11%

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR1.1)

100%

25%

87%

6%

71%

0%

Erosion prevention practices (CG-SR1.4)

100%

78%

90%

-6%

98%

0%

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR2.10)

67%

44%

39%

29%

N/A

N/A

No forest conversion since 2004 (CG-CB3.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

100%

23%

53%

-31%

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

83%

67%

47%

-25%

N/A

N/A

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

86%

0%

60%

Insufficient data

80%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

C.A.F.E. Practices improvement program
Environmental (CG-EM2.1)
management
Pruning program for long term productivity
and monitoring (CG-EM3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM3.2)

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 19 I

CD-2

MEXICONORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //WET MILLSSECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARD

Economic Accountability

Hiring practices andemployment policies

Working conditions

Protecting water
resources
Waste management

Energy use

DRY MILLS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

53

-47%

100

0%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

68

-11%

100

0%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP1.1)

100

0%

100

0%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP1.2)

100

0%

100

0%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

50

-50%

100

0%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

0

-100%

100

0%

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP1.11)

100

0%

100

0%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

82

-9%

90

-10%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100

0%

100

0%

Children of legal school age attend school (SR-WC2.1)

100

Insufficient data

100

Insufficient data

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all
permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

75

-25%

100

0%

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all temporary
workers (SR-WC3.5)

77

-19%

100

0%

Use of personal protective equipment (SR-WC4.2)

67

33%

100

100%

Wastewater management (CP-WC2.1)

80

0%

N/A

N/A

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment(CP-WM1.1)

88

0%

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct from processing (CP-WM1.2)

80

0%

N/A

N/A

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during
processing (CP-EC1.4)

100

0%

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 20 I

CD-2

MEXICONORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //PSOs
SECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARDManagement andtracking systems
Hiring practices andemployment policies
Protecting soil resources

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)All supply chain entities have a tracking system for C.A.F.E. Practices (PS-MT1.1)

100%

0%

Annually updated C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT1.2)

100%

0%

Each farm receives a receipt for coffee sold (PS-MT1.3)

100%

0%

PSO has materials for training its network on legal hiring practices (PS-HP1.1)

71%

Insufficient data

Maintaining soil productivity - soil management plan includes soil analysis from representative
farms (PS-SR2.1)

58%

367%

Maintaining soil productivity - implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR2.3)

35%

Insufficient data

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM1.1)

100%

0%

Trains at least 30% of farmers on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM1.4)

100%

Insufficient data

Trains at least 30% of farmers on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM1.5)

86%

Insufficient data

Planning meeting to develop written annual work plan of C.A.F.E. Practices activities (PS-EM2.5)

81%

5%

Materials for training network on health and safety and best agronomy practices (PS-EM2.6)

83%

-14%

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM2.6 (PS-EM2.8)

83%

-9%

PSO trained 50% of producers on topics (PS-EM2.9)

57%

Insufficient data

Training program to reduce the impacts of climate change climate change (PS-CC1.2)

71%

Insufficient data

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 21 I

CD-2

NICARAGUANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

n Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Large

FARMS BY SIZE PER YEARn Small n Medium n Large

AREA IN THE PROGRAM BY LAND USE

Food security issues Nicaraguan Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other arean Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS

10%Nicaragua Rust
FOOD SECURITY

Food security issues Nicaraguan Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

2014

2014

11%

Nicaragua Rust

14%n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

2015

14%

No food security issues
51%

No food security issues
51%

No food security issues
66%

N

Food security issues

Food security issues

Food security issues

F49%
20 40 60 80 100# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
2014■6*No response rate (41%)

34%
0 20 40 60 80 100# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
2015■6*No response rate (47%)

No Rust incidence■ 1 ■22%2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10

No Rust incidence■ 1 ■22%2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10

No Rust incidence■ 1 ■23%
2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10

N■■

Rust incidence

Rust incidence

Rust incidence

R78%
20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (33%) ■ <10% (45%)*No response rate (68%)

77%
0 20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (39%) ■ <10% (38%)*No response rate (37%)

49%# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
2014■6*No response rate (41%)
RUST INCIDENCE

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

078%
■ >10% (33%) ■ <10% (45%)*No response rate (68%)

0

0

20
#
■
■
*

0

I 22 I

CD-2

20
■
*

NICARAGUANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices
Nicaragua

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Approval status of supply
Approval
chainsstatusin ofNicaraguaApproval
supply chainsstatusin
ApprovalofNicaragua
supplystatus
chainsApprovalofinsupply
Nicaragua
statuschainsof
in supply
Nicaraguachains in Nicaragua

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Nicaragua

averageyield

n Global yield rangen North & Central
America yield range
Average yieldn Globaln North & Central
America
Average yieldn Globaln North & Central
America
Average yieldn GlobalnN orth & Central
America
Average yieldn GlobalnN orth & Central
America
Average yield

Figures are based on sampled Farms

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Preferredn Verified
10000■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Strategicn Strategicn Preferredn Preferredn Preferredn Verified
n Verified
n Verified■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic ■■Strategic
Strategic■ Strategic ■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic ■ Strategic■ Strategic ■ Strategic■ Strategicn ■Noncompliantncompliantcompliant■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred ■■PreferredPreferred■ PreferredPreferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Non
Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred n ■Non
Preferred■ Verified ■ Verified■ Verified■ Non compliant■■Verified
Verified■ Verified ■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified ■ Verified■ Verified ■ Verified■ Verified■ Non■compliant
Non compliant■ Non compliant■ Non compliant■ Non compliant■ Non compliant
■ Non
■ Non
compliant■compliant
Non compliant
■ Non
■ Non
compliantcompliant■ Non compliant ■ Non compliant

8000
6000
4000
2000
0

I 23 I

CD-2

NICARAGUANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dryn PSO

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
20%
20%
100%
00

80%
Activesupplychainsin in
Nicaragua
ActivesupplychainsCosta Rica60%
GLOBALnnn40%

NICARAGUAn
Large Farms performancenMedium Farms performancenSmallholder Farms performance

GLOBALnnn

NICARAGUAn
Wet Mills performancen
Dry Mills performancen
PSO’s performance

20%

0%

I 24 I

CD-2

NICARAGUANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARDLARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

97%

-3%

98%

-2%

98%

-2%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

98%

-1%

98%

-2%

97%

-3%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP1.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP1.2)

100%

0%

100%

0%

96%

-4%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

95%

27%

84%

26%

82%

-9%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

97%

7%

87%

-3%

79%

-16%

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary
workers (SR-HP1.11)

69%

43%

73%

142%

81%

40%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

97%

-2%

96%

-1%

99%

-1%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

99%

-1%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school(SR-WC2.1)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

100%

0%

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

98%

0%

97%

15%

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all temporary workers (SR-WC3.5)

93%

9%

96%

27%

N/A

N/A

Use of personal protective
equipment (SR-WC4.2)

87%

26%

90%

42%

81%

-2%

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR1.1)

99%

12%

95%

1%

90%

0%

Protecting soil
resources

Erosion prevention practices (CG-SR1.4)

93%

4%

91%

11%

82%

1%

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR2.10)

68%

18%

59%

21%

N/A

N/A

Conserving
biodiversity

No forest conversion since 2004 (CG-CB3.1)

100%

0%

100%

2%

100%

0%

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

87%

2%

75%

-9%

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

97%

25%

100%

12%

100%

0%

97%

30%

92%

30%

N/A

N/A

96%

Insufficient data

97%

Insufficient data

94%

0%

87%

Insufficient data

92%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources

C.A.F.E. Practices improvement program
Environmental (CG-EM2.1)
management
Pruning program for long term productivity
and monitoring (CG-EM3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM3.2)

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 25 I

CD-2

NICARAGUANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //WET MILLSSECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARD

Economic Accountability

Hiring practices andemployment policies

Working conditions

Protecting water
resources
Waste management

Energy use

DRY MILLS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

98%

-2%

100%

0%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

98%

-2%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP1.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP1.2)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

93%

-3%

95%

-5%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

94%

-1%

100%

13%

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP1.11)

77%

34%

57%

26%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

97%

3%

94%

-6%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school (SR-WC2.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all permanent
workers (SR-WC3.4)

99%

8%

100%

11%

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all temporary
workers (SR-WC3.5)

95%

14%

90%

5%

Use of personal protective equipment (SR-WC4.2)

84%

27%

87%

30%

Wastewater management (CP-WC2.1)

97%

0%

N/A

N/A

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment(CP-WM1.1)

98%

0%

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct from processing (CP-WM1.2)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during processing(CP-EC1.4)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 26 I

CD-2

NICARAGUANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //PSOs
SECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARDManagement andtracking systems
Hiring practices andemployment policies
Protecting soil resources

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)All supply chain entities have a tracking system for C.A.F.E. Practices (PS-MT1.1)

100%

0%

Annually updated C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT1.2)

100%

0%

Each farm receives a receipt for coffee sold (PS-MT1.3)

100%

0%

PSO has materials for training its network on legal hiring practices (PS-HP1.1)

100%

Insufficient data

Maintaining soil productivity - soil management plan includes soil analysis from representative
farms (PS-SR2.1)

96%

19%

Maintaining soil productivity - implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR2.3)

64%

61%

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM1.1)

100%

17%

Trains at least 30% of farmers on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM1.4)

100%

Insufficient data

Trains at least 30% of farmers on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM1.5)

100%

Insufficient data

Planning meeting to develop written annual work plan of C.A.F.E. Practices activities (PS-EM2.5)

98%

-2%

Materials for training network on health and safety and best agronomy practices (PS-EM2.6)

100%

5%

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM2.6 (PS-EM2.8)

100%

11%

PSO trained 50% of producers on topics (PS-EM2.9)

97%

Insufficient data

Training program to reduce the impacts of climate change climate change (PS-CC1.2)

30%

Insufficient data

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 27 I

CD-2

COLOMBIA

SOUTH AMERICA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

n Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Large

FARMS BY SIZE PER YEARn Small n Medium n Large

AREA IN THE PROGRAM BY LAND USE

Food security issues Columbia

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other arean Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS

20%
Columbia
Rust
FOOD SECURITY

Food security issues Columbia

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

2014

2014

18%RustColumbian Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

2015

20%

22%

No food security issues
85%

No food security issues
85%

No food security issues
82%

N

Food security issues

Food security issues

Food security issues

F15%
20 40 60 80 100# of months:■ 1 2014■2 ■3 ■4 ■5*No response rate (35%)

15%# of months:■ 1 2014■2 ■3 ■4 ■5*No response rate (35%)
RUST INCIDENCE

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area0

No Rust incidence50%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
Rust incidence
50%■ >10% (13%) ■ <10% (37%)*No response rate (77%)

0

0

18%
20 40 60 80 100# of months:
1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 2015*No response rate (31%)

0

20
#
■
*

N

No Rust incidence50%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
Rust incidence

No Rust incidence50%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
Rust incidence50%
20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (13%) ■ <10% (37%)*No response rate (77%)

50%
0 20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (17%) ■ <10% (33%)*No response rate (43%)

■
■
R
0

I 28 I

CD-2

20
■
*

COLOMBIA

SOUTH AMERICA //Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices
Columbia

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Approval statusof supply
Approval
chainsstatusin ofColombia
Approval
supply chainsstatusinApprovalofColombia
supplystatus
chainsofin
supplyColombia
statuschainsofin supply
Colombia
chains in Colombia
AVERAGEYIELD
IN
C.A.F.E.
PRACTICES(LBSApproval
GREEN
COFFEE/HA)

10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Colombia

averageyield

n Global yield rangen South America
yield range
Average yieldn Globaln South America
Average yieldn Globaln South America
Average yieldn Globaln South America
Average yieldn Globaln South America
Average yield

Figures are based on sampled Farms

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Preferredn Verified
10000■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified

n Strategicn Strategicn Strategicn Strategicn Preferredn Preferredn Preferredn Preferredn Verified
n Verified
n Verified
n Verified■ Strategic■ Strategic ■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■■Strategic
Strategic■■
Strategic
Strategic■ Strategic■■Strategic
Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic ■ Strategic■ Strategic ■ Strategic■ Strategicn■Nonn ■Noncompliant■ Preferred■ Preferred ■ PreferredPreferred■compliant
Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■■PreferredPreferred■■PreferredPreferredPreferred■■PreferredPreferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred ■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■■Verified
Verified■■
Verified
Verified■ Verified■■Verified
Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified ■ Verified■ Verified ■ Verified■ Non compliant■ Verified■ Non■
compliant
Non compliant■ Non compliant■ Non■compliant
■
Non
Non
compliantcompliant■ Non■
compliant■Non
Noncompliant
compliant■ Non compliant■ Non compliant
■ Non
■ Non
compliant■compliant
Non compliant
■ Non
■ Non
compliantcompliant■ Non compliant ■ Non compliant

8000
6000
4000
2000
0

I 29 I

CD-2

COLOMBIA

SOUTH AMERICA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dry

n PSO

20%
20%
AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
00
100%

Activesupplychainsin in
Colombia
ActivesupplychainsCosta Rica
80%

60%
GLOBALnnn40%

COLOMBIAnnn

Large Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

GLOBALnnn

COLOMBIAnnn

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSO’s performance

20%

0%

I 30 I

CD-2

COLOMBIA

SOUTH AMERICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources
Protecting soil
resources
Conserving
biodiversity

LARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

92%

8%

92%

18%

83%

44%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

92%

12%

92%

13%

83%

29%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP1.1)

97%

-3%

100%

2%

98%

-2%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP1.2)

95%

-3%

99%

3%

96%

-4%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

67%

-8%

48%

-25%

28%

-55%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

1%

-97%

2%

-79%

2%

-97%

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary
workers (SR-HP1.11)

90%

6%

95%

5%

86%

29%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

99%

-1%

96%

-4%

100%

0%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school(SR-WC2.1)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

100%

1%

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

75%

-1%

55%

-32%

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all temporary workers (SR-WC3.5)

13%

-68%

10%

-78%

N/A

N/A

Use of personal protective
equipment (SR-WC4.2)

73%

19%

62%

3%

45%

27%

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR1.1)

96%

-2%

93%

1%

88%

0%

Erosion prevention practices (CG-SR1.4)

66%

11%

69%

43%

68%

2%

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR2.10)

50%

-29%

42%

-36%

N/A

N/A

No forest conversion since 2004 (CG-CB3.1)

100%

0%

100%

2%

100%

0%

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

76%

18%

61%

-11%

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

99%

4%

96%

-1%

98%

0%

33%

15%

24%

-15%

N/A

N/A

97%

Insufficient data

95%

Insufficient data

98%

0%

94%

Insufficient data

97%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

C.A.F.E. Practices improvement program
Environmental (CG-EM2.1)
management
Pruning program for long term productivity
and monitoring (CG-EM3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM3.2)

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 31 I

CD-2

COLOMBIA

SOUTH AMERICA //WET MILLSSECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARD

Economic Accountability

Hiring practices andemployment policies

Working conditions

Protecting water
resources
Waste management

Energy use

DRY MILLS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

92%

270%

100%

0%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

92%

15%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP1.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP1.2)

100%

6%

100%

0%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

55%

-25%

98%

-2%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

13%

-58%

76%

42%

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP1.11)

94%

5%

30%

-50%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

91%

9%

86%

8%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school (SR-WC2.1)

99%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all
permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

55%

-32%

100%

18%

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all temporary
workers (SR-WC3.5)

24%

-43%

86%

47%

Use of personal protective equipment (SR-WC4.2)

74%

11%

90%

2%

Wastewater management (CP-WC2.1)

76%

0%

N/A

N/A

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment(CP-WM1.1)

92%

0%

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct from processing (CP-WM1.2)

81%

0%

N/A

N/A

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during
processing (CP-EC1.4)

89%

0%

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 32 I

CD-2

COLOMBIA

SOUTH AMERICA //PSOs
SECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARDManagement andtracking systems
Hiring practices andemployment policies
Protecting soil resources

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)All supply chain entities have a tracking system for C.A.F.E. Practices (PS-MT1.1)

100%

0%

Annually updated C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT1.2)

100%

0%

Each farm receives a receipt for coffee sold (PS-MT1.3)

100%

2%

PSO has materials for training its network on legal hiring practices (PS-HP1.1)

86%

Insufficient data

Maintaining soil productivity - soil management plan includes soil analysis from representative
farms (PS-SR2.1)

79%

31%

Maintaining soil productivity - implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR2.3)

53%

-33%

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM1.1)

100%

4%

Trains at least 30% of farmers on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM1.4)

87%

Insufficient data

Trains at least 30% of farmers on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM1.5)

79%

Insufficient data

Planning meeting to develop written annual work plan of C.A.F.E. Practices activities (PS-EM2.5)

78%

56%

Materials for training network on health and safety and best agronomy practices (PS-EM2.6)

99%

34%

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM2.6 (PS-EM2.8)

80%

46%

PSO trained 50% of producers on topics (PS-EM2.9)

66%

Insufficient data

Training program to reduce the impacts of climate change climate change (PS-CC1.2)

54%

Insufficient data

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 33 I

CD-2

BRAZIL

SOUTH AMERICA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

n Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Large

FARMS BY SIZE PER YEARn Small n Medium n Large

AREA IN THE PROGRAM BY LAND USE

Food security issues Braziln Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other arean Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other arean Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS

6%FOOD SECURITY

Food security issues Brazil

2014

9%

Brazil Rust

2014

7%

Brazil Rustn Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

2015

8%

8%

No food security issues
100%

No food security issues
100%

No food security issues
100%

N

Food security issues

Food security issues

Food security issues

F

0%
2014

RUST INCIDENCE

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

0%
20 40
201460 80 100

0

0

0%
20
201540 60 80 100

0
20

0

*No response rate (97%)*No response rate (97%)*No response rate (98%)*

No Rust incidence
47%

No Rust incidence
47%

No Rust incidence
47%

N■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
Rust
incidence■6 ■7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 1053%

■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
Rust
incidence■6 ■7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 1053%
20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (5%) ■ <10% (48%)*No response rate (38%)■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
Rust
incidence■6 ■7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 1053%
0 20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (5%) ■ <10% (48%)*No response rate (36%)■
R■■ >10% (5%) ■ <10% (48%)*No response rate (38%)

00I 34 I

CD-2

20
■
*

BRAZIL

SOUTH AMERICA //Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices
Brazil

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Approval status of supply
Approval
chainsstatusin ofBrazilApproval
supply chainsstatusin
ApprovalofBrazil
supplystatus
chainsApprovalofinsupply
Brazil status
chainsof
in supply
Brazil chains in Brazil

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Brazil

averageyield

n Global yield rangen South America
yield range
Average yieldn Globaln South America
Average yieldn Globaln South America
Average yieldn Globaln South America
Average yieldn Globaln South America
Average yield

Figures are based on sampled Farms

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Preferredn Verified
10000■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

8000
6000
4000
2000
0

I 35 I

CD-2

BRAZIL

SOUTH AMERICA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dry

n PSO

00

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
100%
Activesupplychainsin inBrazilActivesupplychainsCosta Rica

80%

60%
GLOBALnnn
40%

BRAZILnnn

Large Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

GLOBALnnn

BRAZILnnn

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSO’s performance

20%

0%

I 36 I

CD-2

BRAZIL

SOUTH AMERICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

LARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

82%

-15%

70%

-22%

69%

-25%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

82%

-14%

70%

-22%

68%

-27%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP1.1)

90%

-10%

86%

-14%

99%

-1%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP1.2)

89%

-11%

50%

-50%

100%

0%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

76%

-15%

76%

-5%

99%

-1%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

80%

-10%

43%

-37%

20%

-2%

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary
workers (SR-HP1.11)

10%

-55%

9%

-66%

7%

-81%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

75%

13%

64%

-24%

93%

27%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school(SR-WC2.1)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

100%

0%

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

89%

-11%

86%

-2%

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all temporary workers (SR-WC3.5)

84%

-9%

43%

-41%

N/A

N/A

Use of personal protective
equipment (SR-WC4.2)

86%

52%

82%

41%

80%

265%

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR1.1)

97%

4%

99%

21%

69%

2%

Protecting soil
resources

Erosion prevention practices (CG-SR1.4)

4%

-58%

2%

-85%

19%

16%

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR2.10)

47%

-11%

34%

-13%

N/A

N/A

Conserving
biodiversity

No forest conversion since 2004 (CG-CB3.1)

99%

2%

100%

1%

100%

0%

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

92%

-8%

83%

-3%

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

99%

68%

95%

24%

94%

0%

2%

47%

1%

772%

N/A

N/A

14%

Insufficient data

14%

Insufficient data

1%

0%

23%

Insufficient data

19%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources

C.A.F.E. Practices improvement program
Environmental (CG-EM2.1)
management
Pruning program for long term productivity
and monitoring (CG-EM3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM3.2)

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 37 I

CD-2

BRAZIL

SOUTH AMERICA //WET MILLSSECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARD

Economic Accountability

Hiring practices andemployment policies

Working conditions

Protecting water
resources
Waste management

Energy use

DRY MILLS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

77%

-23%

72%

-28%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

76%

-19%

72%

-7%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP1.1)

0%

-100%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP1.2)

90%

-10%

92%

-8%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

100%

21%

100%

34%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

76%

-19%

76%

-10%

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP1.11)

37%

16%

43%

12%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

70%

2%

91%

14%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school (SR-WC2.1)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all
permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

100%

12%

80%

-20%

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all temporary
workers (SR-WC3.5)

89%

-6%

92%

-1%

Use of personal protective equipment (SR-WC4.2)

84%

57%

90%

31%

Wastewater management (CP-WC2.1)

75%

0%

N/A

N/A

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment(CP-WM1.1)

80%

0%

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct from processing (CP-WM1.2)

98%

0%

N/A

N/A

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during
processing (CP-EC1.4)

94%

0%

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 38 I

CD-2

BRAZIL

SOUTH AMERICA //PSOs
SECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARDManagement andtracking systems
Hiring practices andemployment policies
Protecting soil resources

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)All supply chain entities have a tracking system for C.A.F.E. Practices (PS-MT1.1)

100%

0%

Annually updated C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT1.2)

100%

0%

Each farm receives a receipt for coffee sold (PS-MT1.3)

100%

0%

PSO has materials for training its network on legal hiring practices (PS-HP1.1)

33%

Insufficient data

Maintaining soil productivity - soil management plan includes soil analysis from representative
farms (PS-SR2.1)

67%

-17%

Maintaining soil productivity - implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR2.3)

33%

-17%

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM1.1)

100%

Insufficient data

Trains at least 30% of farmers on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM1.4)

67%

Insufficient data

Trains at least 30% of farmers on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM1.5)

67%

Insufficient data

Planning meeting to develop written annual work plan of C.A.F.E. Practices activities (PS-EM2.5)

0%Insufficient data

Materials for training network on health and safety and best agronomy practices (PS-EM2.6)

33%

-17%

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM2.6 (PS-EM2.8)

33%

Insufficient data

PSO trained 50% of producers on topics (PS-EM2.9)

33%

Insufficient data

Training program to reduce the impacts of climate change climate change (PS-CC1.2)

0%

Insufficient data

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 39 I

CD-2

ETHIOPIA

AFRICA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

n Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Large

FARMS BY SIZE PER YEARn Small n Medium n Large

AREA IN THE PROGRAM BY LAND USE

Food security issues Ethiopia

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other arean Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other arean Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS

2014

0%

Ethiopia Rust

FOOD SECURITY

Food security issues Ethiopia

2014

0%

Ethiopia Rustn Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

2015

0%

0%

No food security issues
100%

No food security issues
100%

No food security issues
100%

N

Food security issues

Food security issues

Food security issues

F

0%
20 40
201460 80 100

0%
0

2014

RUST INCIDENCE

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

0

0%
20
201540 60 80 100

0
20

0

*No response rate (50%)*No response rate (50%)*No response rate (86%)*

No Rust incidence

No Rust incidence

No Rust incidence
100%

N

■
R
■
0
20

100%

100%

■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
Rust
incidence■6 ■7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
0%

■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
Rust
incidence■6 ■7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 100%20 40 60 80 100■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
Rust
incidence■6 ■7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
0%0 20 40 60 80 100*No response rate (71%)*No response rate (50%)

0*No response rate (71%)

0*I 40 I

CD-2

ETHIOPIA

AFRICA //Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices
Ethiopa

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Approval statusof supply
Approval
chainsstatusin ofEthiopia
Approval
supply chainsstatusinApprovalofEthiopia
supplystatus
chainsofin
supplyEthiopia
statuschainsofin supply
Ethiopia
chains in Ethiopia
AVERAGEYIELD
IN
C.A.F.E.
PRACTICES(LBSApproval
GREEN
COFFEE/HA)

10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Ethiopia

averageyield

n Global yield rangen Africa yield range
Average yieldn Globaln Africa
Average yieldn Globaln Africa
Average yieldn Globaln Africa
Average yieldn Globaln Africa
Average yield

Figures are based on sampled Farms

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Preferredn Verified
10000■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified

n Strategicn Strategicn Strategicn Strategicn Preferredn Preferredn Preferredn Preferredn Verified
n Verified
n Verified
n Verified■ Strategic■ Strategic ■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■■Strategic
Strategic■■
Strategic
Strategic■ Strategic■■Strategic
Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic ■ Strategic■ Strategic ■ Strategic■ Strategicn■Noncompliant■ Preferred■ Preferred ■ PreferredPreferred■compliant
Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■■PreferredPreferred■■PreferredPreferred■ Preferred■■PreferredPreferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred ■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred n ■Non
Preferred■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■■Verified
Verified■■
Verified
Verified■ Verified■■Verified
Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified ■ Verified■ Verified ■ Verified■ Non compliant■ Non compliant■ Verified■ Non compliant
■■
Non
Non
compliantcompliant ■■Non
Noncompliant
compliant■ Non compliant■ Non compliant■ Non■compliant
Non compliant
■ Non
■ Non
compliantcompliant■ Non compliant ■ Non compliant

8000
6000
4000
2000
0

I 41 I

CD-2

ETHIOPIA

AFRICA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dryn PSO

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
20%
20%
100%
00

80%
Activesupplychainsin in
Ethiopia
ActivesupplychainsCosta Rica

60%

40%
GLOBALnnn
20%

ETHIOPIAnnn

Large Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

GLOBALnnn

ETHIOPIAnnn

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSO’s performance0%

I 42 I

CD-2

ETHIOPIA

AFRICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARDLARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP1.1)

92%

-8%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP1.2)

58%

-42%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

0%

-100%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary
workers (SR-HP1.11)

25%

-70%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

50%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Children of legal school age attend school(SR-WC2.1)

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all temporary workers (SR-WC3.5)

92%

10%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Use of personal protective
equipment (SR-WC4.2)

36%

-64%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR1.1)

58%

-42%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Protecting soil
resources

Erosion prevention practices (CG-SR1.4)

83%

400%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR2.10)

67%

-33%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Conserving
biodiversity

No forest conversion since 2004 (CG-CB3.1)

92%

-8%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

92%

450%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

75%

-25%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

70%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources

C.A.F.E. Practices improvement program
Environmental (CG-EM2.1)
management
Pruning program for long term productivity
and monitoring (CG-EM3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM3.2)

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 43 I

CD-2

ETHIOPIA

AFRICA //WET MILLSSECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARD

Economic Accountability

Hiring practices andemployment policies

Working conditions

Protecting water
resources
Waste management

Energy use

DRY MILLS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

100%

2%

100%

#DIV/0!

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP1.1)

95%

-5%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP1.2)

62%

-38%

56%

-44%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

100%

65%

100%

0%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

0%

-100%

0%

-100%

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP1.11)

29%

-70%

44%

-33%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

29%

-59%

67%

100%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school (SR-WC2.1)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all
permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

100%

221%

89%

-11%

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all temporary
workers (SR-WC3.5)

100%

833%

22%

Insufficient data

Use of personal protective equipment (SR-WC4.2)

87%

-13%

57%

71%

Wastewater management (CP-WC2.1)

81%

0%

N/A

N/A

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment(CP-WM1.1)

81%

0%

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct from processing (CP-WM1.2)

90%

0%

N/A

N/A

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during
processing (CP-EC1.4)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 44 I

CD-2

ETHIOPIA

AFRICA //PSOs
SECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARDManagement andtracking systems
Hiring practices andemployment policies
Protecting soil resources

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)All supply chain entities have a tracking system for C.A.F.E. Practices (PS-MT1.1)

N/A

N/A

Annually updated C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT1.2)

N/A

N/A

Each farm receives a receipt for coffee sold (PS-MT1.3)

N/A

N/A

PSO has materials for training its network on legal hiring practices (PS-HP1.1)

N/A

N/A

Maintaining soil productivity - soil management plan includes soil analysis from representative
farms (PS-SR2.1)

N/A

N/A

Maintaining soil productivity - implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR2.3)

N/A

N/A

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM1.1)

N/A

N/A

Trains at least 30% of farmers on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM1.4)

N/A

N/A

Trains at least 30% of farmers on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM1.5)

N/A

N/A

Planning meeting to develop written annual work plan of C.A.F.E. Practices activities (PS-EM2.5)

N/A

N/A

Materials for training network on health and safety and best agronomy practices (PS-EM2.6)

N/A

N/A

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM2.6 (PS-EM2.8)

N/A

N/A

PSO trained 50% of producers on topics (PS-EM2.9)

N/A

N/A

Training program to reduce the impacts of climate change climate change (PS-CC1.2)

N/A

N/A

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 45 I

CD-2

KENYA

AFRICA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

n Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Large

FARMS BY SIZE PER YEAR

AREA IN THE PROGRAM BY LAND USE

Food security issues Kenya

Food security issues Kenyan Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area
PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS

2014
Kenya Rust

FOOD SECURITY

2014

16%
Kenya
Rust

15%

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

2015

18%

No food security issues
34%

No food security issues
34%

No food security issues
58%

N

Food security issues

Food security issues

Food security issues

F

66%

66%
20 40 60 80 100# of months:■ 1 2014■2 ■3 ■442%
0 20 40 60 80 100# of months:
1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■7■ 2015*No response rate (7%)*No response rate (5%)

No Rust incidence
8%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
Rust incidence

No Rust incidence
15%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
Rust incidence

92%
20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (8%) ■ <10% (84%)

85%
0 20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (6%) ■ <10% (79%)# of months:■ 1 2014■2 ■3 ■4
*No response rate (7%)
RUST INCIDENCE

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area0

No Rust incidence
8%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
Rust incidence
92%■ >10% (8%) ■ <10% (84%)

0

0

20
#
■
*

N

■
■
R
0

I 46 I

CD-2

20■

KENYA

AFRICA //Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices
Kenya

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Approval statusof supply
Approval
chainsstatusin Kenya
ofC.A.F.E.
supply chainsinApproval
Kenya
Approval
statusof
supplystatus
chainsofin
supplyKenyastatus
chainsofin supply
Kenya chains in Kenya
AVERAGEYIELDINPRACTICES(LBSApproval
GREEN
COFFEE/HA)

10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Kenyaaverageyield

n Global yield rangen Africa yield range
Average yieldn Globaln Africa
Average yieldn Globaln Africa
Average yieldn Globaln Africa
Average yieldn Globaln Africa
Average yield

Figures are based on sampled Farms

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINS

10000■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Verified■ Verified

n Strategicn Strategicn Strategicn Preferredn Preferredn Preferred■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic n Verified■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategicn Verified
n Verified■ Preferred■ Preferred■ PreferredPreferred■■Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■■Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic
Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic
Strategic■ Strategic ■ Strategic■ Strategic ■ Strategic■ Strategicn ■Noncompliantncompliant■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified
Verified■■
Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■■Preferred■ PreferredPreferredPreferred■ Preferred■ PreferredPreferred■ Non
Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred

Verified■ Verified■■Verified■ compliant
Verified■ Verified
Verified■ Verified■ Verified■
Verified■ Verified ■ Verified■ Verified ■ Verified■ Verified■ Non compliant ■ Verified■ Non■compliant
Non■compliant■ Noncompliant
Non
■■
Non
compliant■ Noncompliant■ Noncompliant■ Non compliant ■ Non compliant■ Non■
compliant
Non compliant■ Non compliant■ Non compliant■ Non compliant■ Non compliant
■ Non
■ Non
compliantcompliant■ Non compliant ■ Non compliant

8000
6000
4000
2000
0

I 47 I

CD-2

KENYA

AFRICA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%
00

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dryn PSO

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
Activesupplychainsin in
Kenya
ActivesupplychainsCosta Rica
100%

80%

60%
GLOBAL
n
n
n
40%

KENYA
n
n
n

Large Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

GLOBAL
n
n
n

KENYA
n
n
n

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSO’s performance

20%

0%

I 48 I

CD-2

KENYA

AFRICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources
Protecting soil
resources
Conserving
biodiversity

LARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2013)Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2013)Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2013)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

100%

0%

100%

0%

74%

17%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

100%

0%

100%

0%

10%

215%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP1.1)

94%

11%

100%

0%

81%

Insufficient data

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP1.2)

97%

5%

100%

0%

97%

10%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

97%

5%

100%

0%

16%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

97%

7%

100%

0%

5%

-92%

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary
workers (SR-HP1.11)

91%

7%

100%

0%

96%

11%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

69%

-1%

75%

-25%

100%

0%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

94%

-6%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school(SR-WC2.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

50%

8%

25%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all temporary workers (SR-WC3.5)

13%

-19%

25%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

Use of personal protective
equipment (SR-WC4.2)

56%

-19%

25%

Insufficient data

56%

-13%

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR1.1)

96%

4%

100%

0%

59%

0%

Erosion prevention practices (CG-SR1.4)

0%

Insufficient data

0%

Insufficient data

18%

0%

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR2.10)

91%

-9%

95%

-5%

N/A

N/A

No forest conversion since 2004 (CG-CB3.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

91%

7%

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

41%

-12%

50%

N/A

N/A

97%

5%

100%

0%

98%

0%

94%

-6%

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

C.A.F.E. Practices improvement program
Environmental (CG-EM2.1)
management
Pruning program for long term productivity
and monitoring (CG-EM3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM3.2)

Insufficient data: Information is incomplete to calculate a trend for the period 2013-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 49 I

CD-2

KENYA

AFRICA //WET MILLSSECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARD

Economic Accountability

Hiring practices andemployment policies

Working conditions

Protecting water
resources
Waste management

Energy use

DRY MILLS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2013)Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2013)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

75%

-15%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP1.1)

95%

8%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP1.2)

76%

12%

100%

0%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

94%

12%

83%

-17%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

67%

-6%

80%

-20%

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP1.11)

69%

7%

100%

0%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

44%

9%

67%

0%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school (SR-WC2.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all
permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

37%

-29%

67%

0%

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all temporary
workers (SR-WC3.5)

8%

-5%

17%

Insufficient data

Use of personal protective equipment (SR-WC4.2)

55%

-30%

50%

-25%

Wastewater management (CP-WC2.1)

86%

0%

N/A

N/A

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment(CP-WM1.1)

91%

0%

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct from processing (CP-WM1.2)

84%

0%

N/A

N/A

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during
processing (CP-EC1.4)

0%

0%

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data: Information is incomplete to calculate a trend for the period 2013-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 50 I

CD-2

KENYA

AFRICA //PSOs
SECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARDManagement andtracking systems
Hiring practices andemployment policies
Protecting soil resources

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2013)All supply chain entities have a tracking system for C.A.F.E. Practices (PS-MT1.1)

100%

0%

Annually updated C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT1.2)

41%

64%

Each farm receives a receipt for coffee sold (PS-MT1.3)

100%

0%

PSO has materials for training its network on legal hiring practices (PS-HP1.1)

32%

Insufficient data

Maintaining soil productivity - soil management plan includes soil analysis from representative
farms (PS-SR2.1)

68%

82%

Maintaining soil productivity - implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR2.3)

14%

Insufficient data

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM1.1)

100%

0%

Trains at least 30% of farmers on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM1.4)

36%

45%

Trains at least 30% of farmers on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM1.5)

32%

28%

Planning meeting to develop written annual work plan of C.A.F.E. Practices activities (PS-EM2.5)

64%

70%

Materials for training network on health and safety and best agronomy practices (PS-EM2.6)

91%

3%

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM2.6 (PS-EM2.8)

41%

64%

PSO trained 50% of producers on topics (PS-EM2.9)

18%

45%

Training program to reduce the impacts of climate change climate change (PS-CC1.2)

18%

44%

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Insufficient data: Information is incomplete to calculate a trend for the period 2013-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 51 I

CD-2

RWANDAAFRICA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

n Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Large

FARMS BY SIZE PER YEARn Small n Medium n Large

AREA IN THE PROGRAM BY LAND USE

Food security issues Rwandan Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other arean Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS

RUST INCIDENCE

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

2014
Rwanda Rust

FOOD SECURITY

Food security issues Rwanda

11%

Rwanda Rustn Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other arean Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

2014

2015

8%

8%

No food security issues
69%

No food security issues
69%

No food security issues
69%

N

Food security issues

Food security issues

Food security issues

F

31%

31%

31%

# of months:■ 1 2014■2 ■6*No response rate (1%)# of months:■ 1 2014■2 ■6*No response rate (1%)# of months:
1 ■2 ■6■ 2015*No response rate (1%)

No Rust incidence42%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
Rust incidence

No Rust incidence42%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
Rust incidence

No Rust incidence42%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
Rust incidence

58%
20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (15%) ■ <10% (43%)*No response rate (37%)

58%
0 20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (15%) ■ <10% (43%)*No response rate (37%)

58%■ >10% (15%) ■ <10% (43%)*No response rate (37%)

0

0

20
#
■
*

N

■
■
R
0

I 52 I

CD-2

20
■
*

RWANDAAFRICA //Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices
Rwanda

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Approval status of supply
Approval
chainsstatusin of
RwandaApproval
supply chainsstatusin
ApprovalofRwanda
supplystatus
chainsApprovalofinsupply
Rwandastatuschainsof
in supply
Rwandachains in Rwanda

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Rwanda

averageyield

n Global yield rangen Africa yield range
Average yieldn Globaln Africa
Average yieldn Globaln Africa
Average yieldn Globaln Africa
Average yieldn Globaln Africa
Average yield

Figures are based on sampled Farms

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Preferredn Verified
10000■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified

n Strategicn Strategicn Preferredn Preferredn Verified
n Verified■ Strategic■ Strategic ■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategicn■Noncompliant■ Preferred■ Preferred ■ PreferredPreferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified ■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Non compliant■ Non compliantn Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified■ Verified■ Non compliant ■ Non compliant ■ Non compliant

8000
6000
4000
2000
0

I 53 I

CD-2

RWANDAAFRICA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dry

n PSO

20%
20%
AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
00
100%

Activesupplychainsin in
RwandaActivesupplychainsCosta Rica
80%

60%

40%

20%
GLOBALnnn0%

RWANDAnnn

Large Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

GLOBALnnn

RWANDAnnn

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSO’s performance

I 54 I

CD-2

RWANDAAFRICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARDLARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

93%

-7%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

93%

-7%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP1.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

Insufficient data

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP1.2)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

3%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0%

Insufficient data

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

0%

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary
workers (SR-HP1.11)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

210%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

0%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school(SR-WC2.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

0%

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all temporary workers (SR-WC3.5)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Use of personal protective
equipment (SR-WC4.2)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

37%

-22%

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR1.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0%

0%

Protecting soil
resources

Erosion prevention practices (CG-SR1.4)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

39%

0%

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR2.10)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Conserving
biodiversity

No forest conversion since 2004 (CG-CB3.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

0%

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

99%

0%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

C.A.F.E. Practices improvement program
Environmental (CG-EM2.1)
management
Pruning program for long term productivity
and monitoring (CG-EM3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM3.2)

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 55 I

CD-2

RWANDAAFRICA //WET MILLSSECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARD

Economic Accountability

Hiring practices andemployment policies

Working conditions

Protecting water
resources
Waste management

Energy use

DRY MILLS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

100%

0%

100%

Insufficient data

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

100%

0%

100%

Insufficient data

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP1.1)

100%

0%

100%

Insufficient data

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP1.2)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

100%

0%

100%

Insufficient data

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP1.11)

55%

Insufficient data

0%

Insufficient data

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

64%

-36%

100%

Insufficient data

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

0%

100%

Insufficient data

Children of legal school age attend school (SR-WC2.1)

100%

Insufficient data

0%

Insufficient data

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all
permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

100%

0%

100%

Insufficient data

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all temporary
workers (SR-WC3.5)

9%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

Use of personal protective equipment (SR-WC4.2)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

Wastewater management (CP-WC2.1)

73%

0%

N/A

N/A

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment(CP-WM1.1)

82%

0%

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct from processing (CP-WM1.2)

82%

0%

N/A

N/A

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during
processing (CP-EC1.4)

0%

0%

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 56 I

CD-2

RWANDAAFRICA //PSOs
SECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARDManagement andtracking systems
Hiring practices andemployment policies
Protecting soil resources

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)All supply chain entities have a tracking system for C.A.F.E. Practices (PS-MT1.1)

27%

-73%

Annually updated C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT1.2)

9%

-91%

Each farm receives a receipt for coffee sold (PS-MT1.3)

82%

-18%

PSO has materials for training its network on legal hiring practices (PS-HP1.1)

9%

Insufficient data

Maintaining soil productivity - soil management plan includes soil analysis from representative
farms (PS-SR2.1)

9%

Insufficient data

Maintaining soil productivity - implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR2.3)

13%

Insufficient data

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM1.1)

100%

Insufficient data

Trains at least 30% of farmers on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM1.4)

45%

Insufficient data

Trains at least 30% of farmers on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM1.5)

45%

Insufficient data

Planning meeting to develop written annual work plan of C.A.F.E. Practices activities (PS-EM2.5)

9%

-91%

Materials for training network on health and safety and best agronomy practices (PS-EM2.6)

9%

-91%

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM2.6 (PS-EM2.8)

36%

-64%

PSO trained 50% of producers on topics (PS-EM2.9)9%

Insufficient data

Training program to reduce the impacts of climate change climate change (PS-CC1.2)

0%

Insufficient data

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 57 I

CD-2

TANZANIAAFRICA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

n Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Large

FARMS BY SIZE PER YEARn Small n Medium n Large

AREA IN THE PROGRAM BY LAND USE

3155

1

23155

13155

3155
21

1 33155 3155 2 1

13155
3 315521

13155 3

2

1

31553

1

3

■ Small ■ Medium■■Small
Large■ Medium■ Small■ Large■ Medium■ Small■ Large■ Medium■ Small■ Large■ Medium ■ Large

Food security issues Tanzanian Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other arean Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS

0%n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

2014

Tanzania Rust
FOOD SECURITY

Food security issues Tanzania

2014

0%

Tanzania Rustn Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

2015

5%

11%

No food security issues
98%

No food security issues
98%

No food security issues
85%

N

Food security issues

Food security issues

Food security issues

F2%# of months:■ 22014*No response rate (7%)
RUST INCIDENCE

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area2%
20 40 60 80 100# of months:■ 22014*No response rate (7%)

0No Rust incidence
21%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
Rust incidence
79%■ >10% (22%) ■ <10% (57%)*No response rate (2%)

0

0

15%
20 40 60 80 100# of months:
1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 2015*No response rate (2%)

0No Rust incidence
21%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
Rust incidence

No Rust incidence
31%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
Rust incidence

79%
20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (22%) ■ <10% (57%)*No response rate (2%)

69%
0 20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (27%) ■ <10% (42%)*No response rate (4%)

20
#
■
*

N

■
■
R
0

I 58 I

CD-2

20
■
*

TANZANIAAFRICA //Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices
Tanzania

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Approval status of supply
Approval
chainsstatusin of
Tanzania
Approval
supply chainsstatusin
ApprovalofTanzania
supplystatus
chainsApprovalofinsupply
Tanzania
statuschainsof
in supply
Tanzania
chains in Tanzania

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Tanzania

averageyield

n Global yield rangen Africa yield range
Average yieldn Globaln Africa
Average yieldn Globaln Africa
Average yieldn Globaln Africa
Average yieldn Globaln Africa
Average yield

Figures are based on sampled Farms

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Preferredn Verified
10000■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Verified■ Verified■ Non compliant■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Non compliantn Strategicn Preferredn Verified■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic
compliant■ Preferred n■ Non
Preferred■ Preferred■ Verified■ Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified■ Verified■ Non compliant ■ Non compliant ■ Non compliant

8000
6000
4000
2000
0

I 59 I

CD-2

TANZANIAAFRICA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%
00

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dryn PSO

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
100%
Activesupplychainsin in
Tanzania
ActivesupplychainsCosta Rica

80%

60%

40%
GLOBALnnn
20%

AFRICAnnnLarge Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

GLOBALnnn

AFRICAnnn

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSO’s performance0%
I 60 I

CD-2

TANZANIAAFRICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources
Protecting soil
resources
Conserving
biodiversity

LARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

100%

0%

100%

Insufficient data

76%

1%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

100%

0%

0%

Insufficient data

27%

-73%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP1.1)

100%

0%

100%

Insufficient data

0%

Insufficient data

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP1.2)

100%

0%

100%

Insufficient data

100%

47%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

100%

0%

0%

Insufficient data

0%

Insufficient data

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

0%

Insufficient data

0%

Insufficient data

0%

Insufficient data

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary
workers (SR-HP1.11)

100%

0%

100%

Insufficient data

100%

47%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

100%

0%

0%

Insufficient data

100%

0%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

0%

100%

Insufficient data

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school(SR-WC2.1)

50%

Insufficient data

0%

Insufficient data

100%

0%

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

67%

-33%

0%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all temporary workers (SR-WC3.5)

67%

Insufficient data

0%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

Use of personal protective
equipment (SR-WC4.2)

100%

0%

0%

Insufficient data

45%

-59%

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR1.1)

100%

0%

0%

Insufficient data

59%

0%

Erosion prevention practices (CG-SR1.4)

50%

Insufficient data

0%

Insufficient data

21%

1%

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR2.10)

100%

0%

50%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

No forest conversion since 2004 (CG-CB3.1)

100%

0%

100%

Insufficient data

100%

0%

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

67%

-33%

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

100%

0%

100%

Insufficient data

100%

0%

67%

-33%

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

97%

0%

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

C.A.F.E. Practices improvement program
Environmental (CG-EM2.1)
management
Pruning program for long term productivity
and monitoring (CG-EM3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM3.2)

Insufficient data: Information is incomplete to calculate a trend for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 61 I

CD-2

TANZANIAAFRICA //WET MILLSSECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARD

Economic Accountability

Hiring practices andemployment policies

Working conditions

Protecting water
resources
Waste management

Energy use

DRY MILLS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

99%

0%

100%

0%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

59%

-41%

86%

-14%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP1.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP1.2)

81%

39%

71%

-29%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

100%

0%

71%

-29%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

13%

Insufficient data

33%

-67%

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP1.11)

52%

236%

57%

-43%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

53%

34%

57%

-43%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school (SR-WC2.1)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all
permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all temporary
workers (SR-WC3.5)

31%

42%

43%

-36%

Use of personal protective equipment (SR-WC4.2)

57%

30%

83%

25%

Wastewater management (CP-WC2.1)

84%

0%

N/A

N/A

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment(CP-WM1.1)

91%

0%

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct from processing (CP-WM1.2)

97%

0%

N/A

N/A

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during
processing (CP-EC1.4)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 62 I

CD-2

TANZANIAAFRICA //SECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARDManagement andtracking systems
Hiring practices andemployment policies
Protecting soil resources

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

PSOs
2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)

Trends
(2011-2015)

All supply chain entities have a tracking system for C.A.F.E. Practices (PS-MT1.1)

100%

0%

Annually updated C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT1.2)

80%

Insufficient data

Each farm receives a receipt for coffee sold (PS-MT1.3)

100%

0%

PSO has materials for training its network on legal hiring practices (PS-HP1.1)

100%

Insufficient data

Maintaining soil productivity - soil management plan includes soil analysis from representative
farms (PS-SR2.1)

80%

-20%

Maintaining soil productivity - implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR2.3)

40%

-60%

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM1.1)

100%

Insufficient data

Trains at least 30% of farmers on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM1.4)

60%

Insufficient data

Trains at least 30% of farmers on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM1.5)

60%

Insufficient data

Planning meeting to develop written annual work plan of C.A.F.E. Practices activities (PS-EM2.5)

60%

Insufficient data

Materials for training network on health and safety and best agronomy practices (PS-EM2.6)

100%

Insufficient data

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM2.6 (PS-EM2.8)

80%

-20%

PSO trained 50% of producers on topics (PS-EM2.9)

60%

Insufficient data

Training program to reduce the impacts of climate change climate change (PS-CC1.2)

80%

Insufficient data

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 63 I

CD-2

CHINAASIA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

n Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Large

FARMS BY SIZE PER YEARn Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Large

AREA IN THE PROGRAM BY LAND USE

Food security issues Chinan Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other arean Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other arean Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS

2014

0%

China Rust

FOOD SECURITY

Food security issues China

2014

0%

China Rustn Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

2015

14%

14%

No food security issues
100%

No food security issues
100%

No food security issues
100%

N

Food security issues

Food security issues

Food security issues

F

0%

0%
20 40
201460 80 100

0

2014

RUST INCIDENCE

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

0

0%
20
201540 60 80 100

0
20

0

*No response rate (45%)*No response rate (45%)*No response rate (45%)*

No Rust incidence

No Rust incidence

No Rust incidence

N

78%

78%

■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
Rust
incidence■6 ■7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 1022%

■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
Rust
incidence■6 ■7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 1022%20 40 60 80 100■ <10% (22%)■ <10% (22%)

078%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
Rust
incidence■6 ■7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 1022%
0 20 40 60 80 100■ <10% (22%)

■
R
■
0

I 64 I

CD-2

20■

CHINAASIA //

Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices
China

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Approval statusof supply
Approval
chainsstatusin of
China
Approval
supply chainsstatusinApprovalofChinasupplystatus
chainsofin
supplyChinastatus
chainsofin supply
China chains in China
AVERAGEYIELD
IN
C.A.F.E.
PRACTICES(LBSApproval
GREEN
COFFEE/HA)

10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● China

averageyield

n Global yield rangen Asia yield range
Average yieldn Globaln AsiaAverage yieldn Globaln AsiaAverage yieldn Globaln AsiaAverage yieldn Globaln AsiaAverage yield

Figures are based on sampled Farms

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINS

10000

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified■ Strategic■ Strategicn■NonCompliant■ PreferredPreferred■ Verified■ Non compliant■ Verified■ Non compliantn Strategicn Preferredn Verified■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Verified■ Verified■ Verified■ Non compliant ■ Non compliant ■ Non compliantn Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

8000
6000
4000
2000
0

I 65 I

CD-2

CHINAASIA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dryn PSO

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
Active supply chains in China
100%

80%

60%

40%
GLOBAL
n
n
n
20%

0%

CHINA
n
n
n

Large Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

GLOBAL
n
n
n

CHINA
n
n
n

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSO’s performance

I 66 I

CD-2

CHINAASIA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

LARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)

Trends
(2012-2015)

Compliance(2015)

Trends
(2012-2015)

Compliance(2015)

Trends
(2012-2015)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP1.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

0%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP1.2)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

0%

-100%

0%

Insufficient data

0%

Insufficient data

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

0%

Insufficient data

0%

Insufficient data

0%

Insufficient data

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary
workers (SR-HP1.11)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

90%

-10%

96%

68%

100%

100%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school(SR-WC2.1)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

100%

0%

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

0%

Insufficient data

15%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all temporary workers (SR-WC3.5)

63%

Insufficient data

58%

102%

N/A

N/A

Use of personal protective
equipment (SR-WC4.2)

100%

0%

100%

75%

100%

-55%

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR1.1)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

40%

64%

86%

Protecting soil
resources

Erosion prevention practices (CG-SR1.4)

40%

Insufficient data

31%

7%

35%

496%

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR2.10)

90%

Insufficient data

88%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

Conserving
biodiversity

No forest conversion since 2004 (CG-CB3.1)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

0%

100%

0%

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

20%

Insufficient data

21%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

75%

100%

0%

80%

Insufficient data

96%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

100%

0%

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources

C.A.F.E. Practices improvement program
Environmental (CG-EM2.1)
management
Pruning program for long term productivity
and monitoring (CG-EM3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM3.2)

Insufficient data: Information is incomplete to calculate a trend for the period 2012-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard
I 67 I

CD-2

CHINAASIA //SECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARD
Economic Accountability

Hiring practices andemployment policies

Working conditions

Protecting water
resources
Waste management

Energy use

WET MILLSDRY MILLS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)

Trends
(2012-2015)

Compliance(2015)

Trends
(2012-2015)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP1.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP1.2)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

0%

Insufficient data

83%

-17%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

0%

Insufficient data

75%

Insufficient data

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP1.11)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

95%

-5%

60%

-40%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school (SR-WC2.1)

100%

Insufficient data

0%

Insufficient data

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all
permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

50%

Insufficient data

100%

0%

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all temporary
workers (SR-WC3.5)

17%

Insufficient data

100%

0%

Use of personal protective equipment (SR-WC4.2)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

Wastewater management (CP-WC2.1)

86%

0%

N/A

N/A

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment(CP-WM1.1)

94%

0%

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct from processing (CP-WM1.2)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during
processing (CP-EC1.4)

0%

0%

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data: Information is incomplete to calculate a trend for the period 2012-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 68 I

CD-2

CHINAASIA //SECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARDManagement andtracking systems
Hiring practices andemployment policies
Protecting soil resources

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

PSOs
2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)

Trends
(2012-2015)

All supply chain entities have a tracking system for C.A.F.E. Practices (PS-MT1.1)

100%

0%

Annually updated C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT1.2)

100%

0%

Each farm receives a receipt for coffee sold (PS-MT1.3)

100%

0%

PSO has materials for training its network on legal hiring practices (PS-HP1.1)

100%

Insufficient data

Maintaining soil productivity - soil management plan includes soil analysis from representative
farms (PS-SR2.1)

100%

0%

Maintaining soil productivity - implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR2.3)

100%

0%

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM1.1)

100%

Insufficient data

Trains at least 30% of farmers on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM1.4)

60%

Insufficient data

Trains at least 30% of farmers on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM1.5)

60%

Insufficient data

Planning meeting to develop written annual work plan of C.A.F.E. Practices activities (PS-EM2.5)

100%

Insufficient data

Materials for training network on health and safety and best agronomy practices (PS-EM2.6)

100%

0%

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM2.6 (PS-EM2.8)

100%

0%

PSO trained 50% of producers on topics (PS-EM2.9)

60%

Insufficient data

Training program to reduce the impacts of climate change climate change (PS-CC1.2)

80%

Insufficient data

Insufficient data: Information is incomplete to calculate a trend for the period 2012-2015
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 69 I

CD-2

INDONESIA

ASIA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

n Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Large

FARMS BY SIZE PER YEARn Small n Medium n Large

AREA IN THE PROGRAM BY LAND USE

Food security issues indonesia

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other arean Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS

16%FOOD SECURITY

7%

Indonesia Rust

Food security issues indonesia

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

2014

2014

10%

Indonesia Rustn Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

2015

10%

13%

No food security issues
52%

No food security issues
52%

No food security issues
66%

N

Food security issues

Food security issues

Food security issues

F48%# of months:■ 1 2014■2 ■3 ■4 ■5*No response rate (9%)
RUST INCIDENCE

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area48%
20 40 60 80 100# of months:■ 1 2014■2 ■3 ■4 ■5*No response rate (9%)

0No Rust incidence
16%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
Rust incidence
84%■ >10% (3%) ■ <10% (82%)*No response rate (85%)

0

0

34%
20 40 60 80 100# of months:■ 20151 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5*No response rate (5%)

0

20
#
■
*

N

No Rust incidence
16%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
Rust incidence

No Rust incidence
16%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
Rust incidence

84%
20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (3%) ■ <10% (82%)*No response rate (85%)

84%
0 20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (1%) ■ <10% (80%)*No response rate (53%)

■
■
R
0

I 70 I

CD-2

20
■
*

INDONESIA

ASIA //

Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices
Indonesia

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Approval status of supply
Approval
chainsstatusin ofIndonesia
Approval
supply chainsstatusin
ApprovalofIndonesia
supplystatus
chainsApprovalofinsupply
Indonesia
statuschainsof
in supply
Indonesia
chains in Indonesia

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Indonesia

averageyield

n Global yield rangen Asia yield range
Average yieldn Globaln AsiaAverage yieldn Globaln AsiaAverage yieldn Globaln AsiaAverage yieldn Globaln AsiaAverage yield

Figures are based on sampled Farms

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Preferredn Verified
10000■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified■ Strategic■ Strategic■ Strategic ■■Strategic
Strategic■ Strategic■ StrategicNoncompliant■ Preferred■ Preferred■ Preferred ■■PreferredPreferred n ■Preferred■ Preferred■ Verified ■ Verified■ Verified■ Non compliant■ Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■■Verified
Verified■ Verified■ Non compliant■ Non compliant ■ Non compliant ■ Non compliantn Strategicn Preferredn Verified

8000
6000
4000
2000
0

I 71 I

CD-2

INDONESIA

ASIA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dry

n PSO

00

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
100%
Activesupplychainsin inIndonesia
ActivesupplychainsCosta Rica

80%

60%
GLOBALnnn
40%

INDONESIAnnn

Large Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

GLOBALnnn

INDONESIAnnn

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSO’s performance

20%

0%

I 72 I

CD-2

INDONESIA

ASIA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARDLARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

47%

-35%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

69%

-15%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP1.1)

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

100%

Insufficient data

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP1.2)

0%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

99%

-1%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

0%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

0%

-100%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

0%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

9%

-91%

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary
workers (SR-HP1.11)

0%Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

99%

13%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

98%

-2%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school(SR-WC2.1)

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

100%

0%

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

0%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all temporary workers (SR-WC3.5)

0%Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Use of personal protective
equipment (SR-WC4.2)

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

35%

-17%

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR1.1)

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

44%

1%

Protecting soil
resources

Erosion prevention practices (CG-SR1.4)

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

45%

0%

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR2.10)

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Conserving
biodiversity

No forest conversion since 2004 (CG-CB3.1)

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

100%

0%

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

100%

0%

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

92%

0%

0%

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources

C.A.F.E. Practices improvement program (CGEnvironmental EM2.1)
management
Pruning program for long term productivity
and monitoring (CG-EM3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM3.2)

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 73 I

CD-2

INDONESIA

ASIA //WET MILLSSECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARD

Economic Accountability

Hiring practices andemployment policies

Working conditions

Protecting water
resources
Waste management

Energy use

DRY MILLS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

75%

-25%

95%

-5%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

95%

-5%

93%

0%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP1.1)

100%

Insufficient data

99%

-1%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP1.2)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

50%

Insufficient data

43%

-31%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

15%

Insufficient data

25%

-75%

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP1.11)

93%

-7%

95%

0%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

100%

0%

86%

1%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school (SR-WC2.1)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

Insufficient data

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all
permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

50%

Insufficient data

100%

0%

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all temporary
workers (SR-WC3.5)

13%

-87%

60%

-31%

Use of personal protective equipment (SR-WC4.2)

19%

-79%

77%

9%

Wastewater management (CP-WC2.1)

57%

0%

N/A

N/A

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment(CP-WM1.1)

57%

0%

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct from processing (CP-WM1.2)

95%

0%

N/A

N/A

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during
processing (CP-EC1.4)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 74 I

CD-2

INDONESIA

ASIA //PSOs
SECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARDManagement and tracking
systems
Hiring practices andemployment policies
Protecting soil resources

Environmental management
and monitoring

Training programon climate change

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)All supply chain entities have a tracking system for C.A.F.E. Practices (PS-MT1.1)

96%

-4%

Annually updated C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT1.2)

96%

-4%

Each farm receives a receipt for coffee sold (PS-MT1.3)

96%

-1%

PSO has materials for training its network on legal hiring practices (PS-HP1.1)

84%

Insufficient data

Maintaining soil productivity - soil management plan includes soil analysis from
representative farms (PS-SR2.1)

27%

-49%

Maintaining soil productivity - implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR2.3)

27%

14%

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM1.1)

100%

0%

Trains at least 30% of farmers on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM1.4)

55%

Insufficient data

Trains at least 30% of farmers on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM1.5)

57%

Insufficient data

Planning meeting to develop written annual work plan of C.A.F.E. Practices activities (PSEM2.5)

68%

83%

Materials for training network on health and safety and best agronomy practices (PS-EM2.6)

75%

35%

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM2.6 (PS-EM2.8)

61%

-3%

PSO trained 50% of producers on topics (PS-EM2.9)

32%

Insufficient data

Training program to reduce the impacts of climate change climate change (PS-CC1.2)

20%

Insufficient data

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 75 I

CD-2

PAPUA NEW GUINEAASIA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

n Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Large

FARMS BY SIZE PER YEARn Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Large

AREA IN THE PROGRAM BY LAND USE

Food security issues Papua NGn Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other arean Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other arean Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS

2014

Papua NG Rust

FOOD SECURITY

Food security issues Papua NG

2014

Papua NG Rust

2015

2%

2%

No food security issues
100%

No food security issues
100%

No food security issues
100%

N

Food security issues

Food security issues

Food security issues

F

0%
2014

RUST INCIDENCE

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

0%
20 40
201460 80 100

0

0

0%
20
201540 60 80 100

0
20

0

*No response rate (4%)*No response rate (4%)*No response rate (4%)*

No Rust incidence
15%

No Rust incidence
15%

No Rust incidence
15%

N■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
Rust
incidence■6 ■7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 1085%

■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
Rust
incidence■6 ■7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 1085%
20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (9%) ■ <10% (77%)■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
Rust
incidence■6 ■7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 1085%
0 20 40 60 80 100■ >10% (9%) ■ <10% (77%)■
R■■ >10% (9%) ■ <10% (77%)

00I 76 I

CD-2

20■

PAPUA NEW GUINEAASIA //

Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices
Papua New Guinea

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Approval status of supply
Approval
chainsstatusin of
Papua
Approval
supplyNew
chainsstatusGuineain
Approval
ofPapua
supplyNew
statuschainsGuineaApprovalofinsupply
Papuastatus
chainsNew Guineaofin supply
Papua chains
New Guinea
in Papua New Guinea

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Papua New

Guineaaverageyield

n Global yield rangen Asia yield range
Average yieldn Globaln AsiaAverage yieldn Globaln AsiaAverage yieldn Globaln AsiaAverage yieldn Globaln AsiaAverage yield

Figures are based on sampled Farms

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINS

10000

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified■ Strategic■ Strategicn■Noncompliant■ PreferredPreferred■ Verified■ Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified
n Non compliantn Strategicn Preferredn Verified

8000
6000
4000
2000
0

I 77 I

CD-2

PAPUA NEW GUINEAASIA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dry

n PSO

20%
20%
AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
00
100%

Activesupplychainsin in
Papua
ActivesupplychainsCostaNew
RicaGuinea
80%

60%

40%
		
PAPUA
GLOBAL NEW GUINEAnn
Large Farms performancennMedium Farms performance
20%nn
Smallholder Farms performance

		
PAPUA
GLOBAL NEW GUINEAnn
Wet Mills performancenn
Dry Mills performancenn
PSO’s performance0%

I 78 I

CD-2

PAPUA NEW GUINEAASIA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARDLARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

100%

100%

N/A

Insufficient data

15%

-67%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

100%

20%

N/A

Insufficient data

15%

-84%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP1.1)

100%

0%

N/A

Insufficient data

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP1.2)

100%

0%

N/A

Insufficient data

0%

-100%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

0%

-100%

N/A

Insufficient data

0%

-100%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

0%

-100%

N/A

Insufficient data

0%

Insufficient data

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary
workers (SR-HP1.11)

100%

14%

N/A

Insufficient data

0%

-100%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

100%

0%

N/A

Insufficient data

100%

0%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

0%

N/A

Insufficient data

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school(SR-WC2.1)

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

Insufficient data

99%

-1%

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

100%

0%

N/A

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all temporary workers (SR-WC3.5)

0%

-100%

N/A

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

Use of personal protective
equipment (SR-WC4.2)

0%

-100%

N/A

Insufficient data

41%

38%

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR1.1)

50%

-30%

N/A

Insufficient data

79%

0%

Protecting soil
resources

Erosion prevention practices (CG-SR1.4)

100%

40%

N/A

Insufficient data

100%

0%

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR2.10)

0%Insufficient data

N/A

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

Conserving
biodiversity

No forest conversion since 2004 (CG-CB3.1)

100%

0%

N/A

Insufficient data

100%

0%

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

50%

Insufficient data

N/A

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

100%

0%

N/A

Insufficient data

100%

0%

0%

-100%

N/A

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

Insufficient data

83%

0%

100%

Insufficient data

N/A

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources

C.A.F.E. Practices improvement program (CGEnvironmental EM2.1)
management
Pruning program for long term productivity
and monitoring (CG-EM3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM3.2)

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 79 I

CD-2

PAPUA NEW GUINEAASIA //WET MILLSSECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARD

Economic Accountability

Hiring practices andemployment policies

Working conditions

Protecting water
resources
Waste management

Energy use

DRY MILLS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP1.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP1.2)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

0%

Insufficient data

0%

Insufficient data

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP1.11)

0%

-100%

0%

-100%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

100%

0%

100%

100%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school (SR-WC2.1)

0%

Insufficient data

0%

Insufficient data

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all
permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all temporary
workers (SR-WC3.5)

50%

-25%

50%

-50%

Use of personal protective equipment (SR-WC4.2)

100%

33%

100%

0%

Wastewater management (CP-WC2.1)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment(CP-WM1.1)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct from processing (CP-WM1.2)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during
processing (CP-EC1.4)

0%

0%

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 80 I

CD-2

PAPUA NEW GUINEAASIA //SECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARDManagement andtracking systems
Hiring practices andemployment policies
Protecting soil resources

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

PSOs
2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)

Trends
(2011-2015)

All supply chain entities have a tracking system for C.A.F.E. Practices (PS-MT1.1)

100%

0%

Annually updated C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT1.2)

100%

0%

Each farm receives a receipt for coffee sold (PS-MT1.3)

100%

0%

PSO has materials for training its network on legal hiring practices (PS-HP1.1)

0%

Insufficient data

Maintaining soil productivity - soil management plan includes soil analysis from representative
farms (PS-SR2.1)

0%

Insufficient data

Maintaining soil productivity - implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR2.3)

0%

Insufficient data

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM1.1)

100%

0%

Trains at least 30% of farmers on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM1.4)

100%

Insufficient data

Trains at least 30% of farmers on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM1.5)

100%

Insufficient data

Planning meeting to develop written annual work plan of C.A.F.E. Practices activities (PS-EM2.5)

100%

0%

Materials for training network on health and safety and best agronomy practices (PS-EM2.6)

100%

0%

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM2.6 (PS-EM2.8)

100%

0%

PSO trained 50% of producers on topics (PS-EM2.9)

100%

Insufficient data

Training program to reduce the impacts of climate change climate change (PS-CC1.2)

100%

Insufficient data

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 81 I

CD-2

VIETNAM

ASIA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

n Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Small n Medium n Largen Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other arean Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other arean Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

FARMS BY SIZE PER YEARn Small n Medium n Large

AREA IN THE PROGRAM BY LAND USE

Food security issues Vietnam

n Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other arean Coffee producing arean Conserved arean Other area

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS

2014

26%

Vietnam Rust

FOOD SECURITY

48%

36%

Vietnam Rust

2015

32%

No food security issues
100%

No food security issues
100%

Food security issues

Food security issues

0%0*No response rate (100%)
RUST INCIDENCE

20 40 60 80 100

0%
2015

0

20

*Response rate (100%)

N

No Rust incidence74%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10

■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
Rust
incidence■6 ■7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
26%

R■ >10% (4%) ■ <10% (22%)*No response rate (71%)

0I 82 I

CD-2

20
■
*

VIETNAM

ASIA //

Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices
Vietnam

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Approval statusof supply
Approval
chainsstatusin ofVietnamApproval
supply chainsstatusinApprovalofVietnam
supplystatus
chainsofin
supplyVietnamstatuschainsofin supply
Vietnamchains in Vietnam
AVERAGEYIELD
IN
C.A.F.E.
PRACTICES(LBSApproval
GREEN
COFFEE/HA)

10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Vietnam

averageyield

n Global yield rangen Asia yield range
Average yieldn Globaln AsiaAverage yieldn Globaln AsiaAverage yieldn Globaln AsiaAverage yieldn Globaln AsiaAverage yield

Figures are based on sampled Farms

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Preferredn Verified
10000■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified■ Strategic■ Preferred■ Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

8000
6000
4000
2000
0

I 83 I

CD-2

VIETNAM

ASIA //

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dry

n PSO

00

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
100%
Activesupplychainsin in
Vietnam
ActivesupplychainsCosta Rica

80%

60%

40%
GLOBALnnn
20%

VIETNAMnnnLarge Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

GLOBALnnn

VIETNAMnnn

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSO’s performance0%

I 84 I

CD-2

VIETNAM

ASIA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARDLARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

71%

Insufficient data

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

77%

Insufficient data

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP1.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

Insufficient data

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP1.2)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

0%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

Insufficient data

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0%

Insufficient data

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary
workers (SR-HP1.11)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

0%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

0%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school(SR-WC2.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

0%

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthservices for all temporary workers (SR-WC3.5)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Use of personal protective
equipment (SR-WC4.2)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

85%

121%

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR1.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

27%

0%

Protecting soil
resources

Erosion prevention practices (CG-SR1.4)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

75%

0%

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR2.10)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Conserving
biodiversity

No forest conversion since 2004 (CG-CB3.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

0%

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

C.A.F.E. Practices improvement program
Environmental (CG-EM2.1)
management
Pruning program for long term productivity
and monitoring (CG-EM3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM3.2)

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 85 I

CD-2

VIETNAM

ASIA //WET MILLSSECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARD

Economic Accountability

Hiring practices andemployment policies

Working conditions

Protecting water
resources
Waste management

Energy use

DRY MILLS

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS1.3)

100%

Insufficient data

100%

0%

Receipt includes required data (EA-IS1.4)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP1.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP1.2)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP1.7)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP1.8)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP1.11)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Total hours of work (SR-HP3.3)

100%

0%

100%

0%

No child labor (SR-HP4.1)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Children of legal school age attend school (SR-WC2.1)

0%

Insufficient data

0%

Insufficient data

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all
permanent workers (SR-WC3.4)

100%

0%

100%

0%

Employer contributes to cost of health services for all temporary
workers (SR-WC3.5)

67%

-33%

100%

0%

Use of personal protective equipment (SR-WC4.2)

100%

Insufficient data

75%

Insufficient data

Wastewater management (CP-WC2.1)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment(CP-WM1.1)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct from processing (CP-WM1.2)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during
processing (CP-EC1.4)

100%

0%

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 86 I

CD-2

VIETNAM

ASIA //PSOs
SECTIONS OF THE
SCORECARDManagement andtracking systems
Hiring practices andemployment policies
Protecting soil resources

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

Compliance(2015)% Change(compared
to 2011)All supply chain entities have a tracking system for C.A.F.E. Practices (PS-MT1.1)

100%

0%

Annually updated C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT1.2)

100%

0%

Each farm receives a receipt for coffee sold (PS-MT1.3)

100%

Insufficient data

PSO has materials for training its network on legal hiring practices (PS-HP1.1)

100%

Insufficient data

Maintaining soil productivity - soil management plan includes soil analysis from representative
farms (PS-SR2.1)

100%

Insufficient data

Maintaining soil productivity - implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR2.3)

67%

Insufficient data

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM1.1)

100%

Insufficient data

Trains at least 30% of farmers on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM1.4)

100%

Insufficient data

Trains at least 30% of farmers on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM1.5)

100%

Insufficient data

Planning meeting to develop written annual work plan of C.A.F.E. Practices activities (PS-EM2.5)

100%

Insufficient data

Materials for training network on health and safety and best agronomy practices (PS-EM2.6)

100%

0%

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM2.6 (PS-EM2.8)

100%

0%

PSO trained 50% of producers on topics (PS-EM2.9)

100%

Insufficient data

Training program to reduce the impacts of climate change climate change (PS-CC1.2)

50%

Insufficient data

2015 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Insufficient data: Due to scorecard changes, sufficient data is unavailable for the period 2011-2015. N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard

I 87 I

CD-2

conservation.org/starbucks

I 88 I

CD-2