STARBUCKS C.A.F.E. PRACTICESIMPACT ASSESSMENT
2014–2018
Prepared by Conservation International, 2020

Authors: Dora Samaniego, Lorena Garcia-Bustos

Cover and background photos: Josh Trujillo, Starbucks
2 //Editors: Bambi Semroc, Valerie Beard

Table of Contents
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5
Starbucks Sustainability Journey..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................7
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9
Methods............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11
Participation.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11
A look through the supply chain............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................18
C.A.F.E. Practices: Focus on farms........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................18
Re-verification and attrition......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................23
Global performance analysis.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................25
Approval status and scoring...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................25
Performance changes in re-verified supply chains..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................30
Zero Tolerance incidents.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................32
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) analysis.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................35
KPI: Medium and large farms.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................37
KPI: Smallholder farms..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................40
KPI: Producer Support Organizations (PSOs)................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................42
KPI: Processors.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................44
Climate Efforts.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................47
Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................49

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 3

Photo: Josh Trujillo, Starbucks
4 //Executive Summary// 2014–2018 Performance Highlights
Starbucks and Conservation International haveworked to promote sustainable coffee production
for over 20 years. Since the launch of C.A.F.E.
Practices in 2004, the goal of the program has
been the increased uptake of social, economic,
and environmental best practices over time. These
practices are a key part of improving producer
livelihoods and conserving nature that are imperative
to maintain the well-being of humanity.
This report represents the fifth analysis of the C.A.F.E.
Practices program and focuses on the five-year period
from 2014 to 2018. This analysis covers the resultsof verifications that took place during the period
as well as all suppliers with a valid approval status
enabling them to sell coffee to Starbucks during thistime. As shown in Figure 1, the main trends observedin the program included an exponential growth in
the number of farms in the program (142%), growth incoffee area (76%) and in number of total workers hiredby participating entities (134%).

strategic approval status, which is the highest statusof compliance obtained in the C.A.F.E. Practices
program. Program retention has also grown by 5%in the period. It is important to mention that there
was an increase in the proportion as well as theamount of strategic statuses from 58.9% in 2015 to
83.8% in 2018. A deeper analysis of Key Performance
Indicators also provided a view of where theprogram participants are with regards to key program
requirements. See figure 2 for a selection of social,environmental, and economic highlights from theanalysis.

In a similar way, performance in the program has
demonstrated improvements over time, including thescores obtained via the C.A.F.E. Practices verificationand the proportion of supply chains obtaining a

Fig 1 // Participation and Performance in C.A.F.E. Practices
2018 trend compared to 2014 results*

TOTAL
WORKERSNUMBER OF FARMS

+134%

+142%
461,000 farms
in 2018

COFFEE AREA

+76%
1,311,000 hectares
in 2018

2,206,00 total workers
in 2018 (permanentand temporary)NO RUST INCIDENCE+13%

STRATEGICAPPROVAL STATUS

40% stated“no rust incidence”
in 2018+42%

84% of thevalid supply
chains had
obtained strategic
status in 2018SCORING OF
SUPPLY CHAINS+2%NO FOOD SHORTAGE+33%

81% of farmers reported
that they do not have foodshortages (percentage ofthe farmers that answered
the question, 82%
response rate)

Average scoreof 88% in 2018

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 5

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

SocialEnvironmental

Economic

In 2018, the participating farms and mills in
the program hired 2.2 million permanent andtemporary workers.

In 2018, farmers managed 237,064 hectares of land forconservation, which represented 10% of the total area
managed by farmers participating in the program.

Small farms represented 98% of
the C.A.F.E. Practices program
participants in 2018, managing 61%of the hectares under the program.

MINIMUM WAGE

SOIL

WATER

AT LEAST 96%

50%

95%

of the total farms and mills ensured a minimum
wage for permanent workers in the period
2014–2018is the annual average of
C.A.F.E. Practices farms thatare implementing erosion
prevention practices on allland in the period 2014–2018

is the annual average of C.A.F.E.
Practices large and medium farms
maintaining buffer zones alongside
all water bodies in the period
2014–2018

EDUCATION FOR
CHILDREN

NO CHILD
LABOR

99.7%

99.8%

of C.A.F.E. Practices farms
and mills with school age
children ensured theiraccess to school in the
period 2014–2018

of C.A.F.E. Practices farms
and mills have committed
to no child labor during theperiod 2014–2018

BENEFITS

AT LEAST 78%
of C.A.F.E. Practices mills employers
contribute to cost of healthcare for all
permanent workers in the period 2014–2018

6 //AT LEAST 98%
of C.A.F.E. Practices farms
ensured no prohibited chemicals
have been used in the period
2014–201865.7%
is the annual average of C.A.F.E. Practices
farms and mills ensuring benefits topermanent workers in the period 2014–2018

MEDICALCARE

AGROCHEMICAL USE

WOMEN

AGE

16%

50

is the percentage
of farms owned by
women in 2018 among
sampled farms

is the average ageof farmers in 2018
among sampled farms

BIODIVERSITY

AT LEAST 99.6%
of C.A.F.E. Practices farms havenot converted forest into coffee
production (since 2004) in the
period 2014–2018, which isimportant ensure farmers are notexpanding production at the costof forests

PROCESSING
WASTE

92.5%
is the annual average of
C.A.F.E. Practices wet mills
managing solid wastes in a
way that does not contaminate
the local environment

COMPOSTING

90.1%
is the annual averageof C.A.F.E. Practices wet
mills compost byproduct

FARM TRACEABILITY

AT LEAST 92%
of C.A.F.E. Practices Producer Support
Organizations (PSOs) working withsmall farmers (less than 12 hectares),demonstrated having tracking systems
from point of purchase to point of exportin the period 2014–2018

KEEPING RECEIPTS/INVOICES

98%
is the annual average of C.A.F.E.
Practices Producer Support
Organizations (PSOs) thatprovide receipts to farmers forcoffee transactions in the period
2014–201881%
is the annual average of
C.A.F.E. Practices farms
receiving and maintaining
receipts for their coffee

Starbucks Sustainability Journey
Since achieving the 99% ethical sourcing milestone
in 2015, Starbucks has continued its sustainability
journey by continuing to meet the 99% ethicallysourced coffee threshold each consecutive year.
The company remains invested in programs that
contribute to sustainability. These include:
Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices is athird party verified sourcing program that promotes
continuous improvement of sustainable practices
within the Starbucks coffee supply chain. The
guidelines help farmers grow coffee in a way that’s
better for both people and the planet. Throughongoing monitoring and evaluation of the initiatives,
Starbucks is able to measure program performance,
identify new challenges and opportunities anddetermine how best to expand support for global
coffee growing communities.
Farmer Support Centers are comprised of coffee
and agronomy experts located in nine key coffee
producing countries who share knowledge (opensource) and research with coffee farmers to improve
quality, productivity, and sustainability..
Global Farmer Fund. The Global Farmer Fundwas founded to improve supply chain resilienceand ensure a long-term supply of coffee throughaddressing the unmet financing needs of farmers. The
fund aims to bolster supply chain resilience throughincreasing smallholder farmer productivity, income,and sustainability.

100 Million Tree Commitment is the expansion of
the One Tree for Every Bag campaign that donated40 million disease-resistant coffee trees to become abroader initiative to donate 100 million coffee trees forfarm renovation by 2025.
The Starbucks Foundation. The Starbucks
Foundation supports programs to empower andadvance economic opportunity for women andfamilies. These projects aim to break down barriers
to education, promote clean water and sanitation(WASH), and create economic opportunities for
women and girls. Since 2018, The Starbucks
Foundation has made 18 grants totaling nearly $5
million to organizations working with coffee and tea
communities across Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
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 WITH CONSERVATIONINTERNATIONAL
In 1998, Starbucks and Conservation International (CI)began working together to promote coffee growing
best practices that conserve nature and improve thelives of coffee farmers. We began working with coffee
farmers in Chiapas, Mexico to find opportunities forcoffee production and nature conservation. These

practices became the basis for C.A.F.E. Practices, aninnovative third-party verified ethical sourcing modelthat became the cornerstone of Starbucks ethicalsourcing approach and set a new standard for theindustry and a path to sustainable coffee. Today
coffee sourced through C.A.F.E. Practices represents
99% of Starbucks coffee supply chain. Recognizing
the need for sustainability to become moremainstream in the sector, in 2015, CI and Starbucks
initiated the Sustainable Coffee Challenge together
with 16 partners with the goal of making coffee
the world’s first sustainable agricultural product. A
collaborative effort of companies, governments,
NGOs, research institutions and others, today the
Challenge represents over 150 partners.
Additionally, Starbucks and CI joined forces to explore
how technology and innovative data platforms cangive coffee farmers financial empowerment and sharedata along the journey of coffee beans within the
supply chain. The pilot tested how the technology
solutions will have a positive impact to farmers,
and to assess the viability of scaling the traceability
technology and ensuring positive impact to farmers.
CI and Starbucks have also continued to work
towards a net-positive approach to coffee bycontinuing to work on the ground in coffee
communities, most recently Oaxaca Mexico to deliver
positive environmental and social outcomes forfarmers, communities and water quality.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 7

Photo: Josh Trujillo, Starbucks
8 //Introduction
The C.A.F.E. Practices program was developed byStarbucks and CI in 2004, as a way of leveraging
Starbucks’ supply chain to promote continuous
improvement on quality, economic, social, andenvironmental performance—a holistic approachto sustainability. Moreover, it includes independent,
third-party verification of best practices on farms,
mills and producer support organizations supporting
smallholders.
As shown in figure 3, the program is based on
economic transparency and quality as pre-requisites
for participation. Suppliers must meet Starbucks
quality requirements by having a green coffee sample
approved. Suppliers must also submit evidence of
payments made throughout the coffee supply chain
to demonstrate how much of the price that is paid
for green coffee actually gets to the farmer. Social
responsibility evaluates hiring practices and working
conditions. More specifically, social responsibility
ensures that workers’ rights are protected, safe andhumane conditions that include being paid minimum
wages and that no child and forced labor is present.
The environmental leadership portion evaluates
coffee farms on conservation practices related tosoil, water and biodiversity, and good environmental
management. On mills, the program evaluates waterand energy conservation, waste management andgood labor practices.

CI has been assessing the impacts of Starbucks
C.A.F.E. Practices program since 2008, and as partof this analysis, we are able to understand how the
program participation and performance changes
from year to year. More importantly, this assessment
enables Starbucks to identify strengths andchallenges in the program and to continuously adapt
the program to meet the needs of both the businessand the entire coffee supply chain.
Over one million coffee farmers have participatedin this program to-date. In this fifth assessmentof the C.A.F.E. Practices program, we continue toexplore the impact that the program has had on
its participating farmers, workers, and adoptionof sustainable practices to grow coffee. The mostrecent impact report was published in 2018, which
represented findings from 2011–2015. The previous
report was published in 2013, covering the years of
2011–2012. This new report focuses on the period
between 2014–2018, including observed trends andcorrelations, presented in two sections that include
both global and country level findings.

The global report focuses on global participation andperformance in C.A.F.E Practices. We analyze Key
Performance Indicators to understand performanceand potential impacts of the program. Regional
findings and observations in the program are also
included to understand context differences andassociated challenges.
The country dashboards contain specificparticipation and performance information for eachof the selected countries: Brazil, China, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia,
Kenya, Mexico, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea,
Rwanda, Tanzania, and Vietnam.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 9

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

PRE-REQUISITESQUALITY
Green Coffee
Preparation

Cup
Quality

Ensure that all coffee sold to Starbucks meets its standard of high quality arabica coffee.

PRE-REQUISITES & THIRD-PARTY VERIFIEDECONOMIC TRANSPARENCY
Equitable
Payments

Long-Term
Viability

Receipts/
Invoices

Farm
Traceability

Starbucks suppliers are required to submit evidence of payments made for green coffee
through the coffee supply chain, including receipts to farmers for coffee sold containing
information on quantity, type of coffee, unit of measure, date, name of buyer and seller
and price.

THIRD-PARTY VERIFIEDSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITYENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP

Wages

Benefits

MedicalCare

Education

Living andWorking
Conditions

Human
RightsEnsure fair and non-discriminatory hiring and employment policies. Protect employees fromworkplace hazards. Conform to national laws as well as to international conventions related
to occupational health, safety and living conditions. Strive to improve the quality of life forcoffee farmers and workers.

10 //

Soil

Water
Use &
Conservation

Processing
Waste

AgroChemical
Use

Shade
CanopyEnergyWater
Body
Protection

Wildlife

FarmManagement
and Monitoring

Ensure that all coffee is grown and processed in a manner that not only minimizes
impacts, but also contributes positively to the environment. 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 livelihoods.

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. Supply chains (inclusiveof farms, wet and dry mills) apply for verification andundergo third-party verifications against the scorecard.
Smallholder applications also include verification of theperformance of Producer Support Organizations (PSO)
that provide assistance to the farmers.
In order to maintain consistency, we have used thesame method of the 2015 report, where we include allactive supply chains under C.A.F.E. Practices—meaning
those with a valid status in the given year—as part ofthe population analyzed. This means that a supply
chain that went through verification in a previous year
to the years included in this analysis might still be valid
in 2014 and is included in the analysis of participationand performance trends in this report. Reports prior
to 2015 focused on verifications completed during ayear and did not include those suppliers with an active
status in a given year.

captured in this methodology. Additionally, total scores
reported in this report account for additional points thatare awarded in recognition of efforts made above andbeyond the program’s normal requirement whereas
subject area analysis does not include extra points inscoring calculations.

and Economic Accountability pre-requisites. NonCompliant status is assigned in cases where theapplicant does not satisfactorily complete the Zero
Tolerance Corrective Action Request (ZT-CAR)
process in cases where zero tolerances are identified
through the verification process.

Geographical regions, harvest and shipping cycles
all affect the validity periods of supply chains, but
the date chosen to select data population remains
the same to maintain consistency. The approval
status is assigned based on the results of theverification: Verified, Preferred and Strategic. All
status assignments require supply chains to meet
Zero Tolerance Indicators as well as the Quality

Preferred and Strategic supply chains have longer
validities because through performance they havedemonstrated more mature or advanced practices
as well as management practices are in place.
Additionally, verifications performed during harvest
are eligible for approvals lasting more than two years.
The description of each status is as follows:

Figure4 / Years
inverification
which verification
foryeareach validity year
Figure4 // Years
in whichoccurred foroccurredeach validity
Fiscal Year
2019
2018

This approach normalizes the population across years
regardless of when the supply chain was verified. This
enables us to more effectively compare performanceover time, as well as to recognize that a validity period
for a supply chain varies (1–4 years) and depends
on factors such as scoring and timing of verification(e.g. whether or not the verification occurred during
the harvest). In turn, those applications that are
not undergoing verification on an annual cycle are

2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
VALIDITY YEAR:

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 11Strategic: applicants score at least 80% total
aggregate score. Validity of four years isawarded if the verification occurs during harvest.
Verifications conducted outside of 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: applicants 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.
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 by approval
status levels and scores also consider non-compliant
supply chains, as the interest is understanding
proportion of supply chains according to approval
status and any non-compliance with Zero Tolerance
indicators. Therefore, performance data includes
supply chains completing the verification process,including those that do not receive an active status
in the program.
As in the past report, the only exception to the useof validity time periods is in looking at changes in
performance of those applications whose validity has

Fig 5 // Validity periods across countries/regions
APRIL

GROUP 1 //
JAN

FEB

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

OCT

NOV

DEC

OCT

NOV

DEC

MARCH

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
JULY

GROUP 2 //
JAN

FEB

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

AUG

SEPT

JUNE

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 ///
JAN

FEB

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

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 Guinea, Sulawesi, Java, Vietnam

12 //

JULY

AUG

SEPT

expired and/or those that underwent re-verification.
In these cases, we looked at performance acrossverification dates. Historical data is evaluated based on
the analysis of the original verification against a newverification report for verifications occurring during
2014–2018 (or lack thereof in the case of attrition).

Table 1 // List of Zero Tolerance indicators

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 of participants of the C.A.F.E.
Practices program. Farm level data such as yieldand number of workers, and Key Performance
Indicators compliance, come from supply chains inwhich verification of individual farms was conductedbased on a sampling methodology but has been
extrapolated to the entire population of farms withina particular supply chain. Finally, there are sets offarm level data such as gender, age, food security,and pest incidence, that come from the sampledfarms and describe the farms but are not necessarily
representative of the population of farms in the supply
chain or program.
Compliance with zero tolerance (ZT) indicators istracked as total number of incidents of noncompliancein the sampled farms and the percentage of cases
corrected. Non-complying ZT indicators are thensubject to the ZT Corrective Action (ZT-CAR),
described in further detail on page 32. Since thefull scorecard includes nearly 200 indicators, 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 suchas farm size and geographical location of participating
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

ZERO TOLERANCE INDICATORSCodeZT indicators / Requirement

KPIs

SR-MS 1.1

Transparency to operations, policies, processes and records *SR-MS 1.2

Anti bribery *SR-MS 1.3

Commitment to continuous improvement **SR-HP 1.1

Minimum wage paid (Permanent workers)✓

SR-HP 1.2

Minimum wage paid (Temporary workers)✓

SR-HP 1.3

Wages are paid regularly and in cash or cash equivalent

SR-HP 1.17

Benefits to permanent workers✓

SR-HP 4.1

No child labor✓

SR-HP 4.2

Employment of authorized minors follows legal requirements

SR-HP 4.3

Anti discrimination policy and enforcement

SR-HP 4.4

Anti forced labor policy and enforcement

SR-HP 4.5

Workplace free of harassment and abuse

SR-HP 4.6

No retention of workers’ documents

SR-WC 2.1

School age children attend school✓

CG-CB 3.1

No forest conversion✓

CG-EM 1.1

No WHO chemicals✓

CP-MT 1.1

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

CP-MT 1.2

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

PS-MT 1.1

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

PS-MT 1.2

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

PS-MT 1.3

Each farmer receives a receipt for coffee✓

PS-EM 1.1

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

list of KPIs for farms is composed of 22 indicators,
including 6 ZT indicators. 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.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 13

Photo: Josh Trujillo, Starbucks
14 //Participation in C.A.F.E. Practices
Coffee Farm// A look through the supply chain

Coffee Farm

Fig 6 // Starbucks coffee supply chain

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Total coffee area
1,024,610 hectares

Total coffee area
1,184,468 hectares

Total coffee area
1,311,378 hectares

214 PSOs

252 PSOs

260 PSOs

307 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

116,957 total mills

138,437 total mills

153,099 total mills

182,765 total mills

197,799 total mills*

447 million lbs

595 million lbs

633 million lbs

631 million lbs

679 million lbs

21,366
retail locations

23,043
retail locations

25,085
retail locations

27,339retail locations

29,324
retail locations

Coffee Farm

Coffee production
hectares by farm size

Coffee Farm

SMALL
MEDIUM
LARGE

Producer Support Organization

Total coffee area
745,340 hectares

Total coffee area
842,817 hectares

Producer Support Organization

PSO count by type
ASSOCIATION/ COOPERATIVE

Producer
SupportOrganization

Producer Support Organization

EXPORTER/SUPPLIER
EXTENSION SERVICES
PROCESSOR
OTHER

Stand alone millcount by type

185 PSOs

Processor/ Mill

Processor/ MillWET MILLS

Processor/
Mill

Roaster

RetailDRY MILLSWET/DRY MILLS

Processor/ Mill

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

Number of retail stores

ALL FARMS YIELD (LBS/HA) GLOBAL AND BY REGION* The count of total mills include small farms who wet mill their own coffee, called on premise milling in C.A.F.E. Practices

2011

2012

2013

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 15

ALL
FARMS YIELD (LBS/HA) GLOBAL AND BY REGION
3,500

2014

2015

During this reporting period, there were farmers from29 countries participating in the C.A.F.E. Practices
program, representing a growth of 32% in the
period 2014–2018. In recent years, applications fromcountries such as Uganda (2017), Malawi (2017) and
Thailand (2016) have been received. Zambia entered
C.A.F.E. Practices prior to 2011, had no supply chainsverified during the 2011–2015 period and re-emerged
again in 2018. See figure 7, showing the location ofparticipant countries by sourcing region.

LAND AREA

Importantly, the data shows that the total area
included in C.A.F.E. Practices has doubled in the past
five years. The total coffee area also increased 76%
between 2014–2018. As in the previous reporting
periods, growth in total area, coffee area, andconserved area showed a positive correlation with
the increase in number of farms in the program. For
all regions, there was steady growth in total area andcoffee area during this period. Conservation areas
have also increased (43% growth) in most regions.

In 2018, farmers participating in C.A.F.E. Practices
managed 2.4 million hectares of land. Of thisland, 55% (1,311,378 hectares) was used for coffee
production and 10% (237,064 hectares) was underconservation management. Similar to the previous
report, producers in Asia were less likely to haveland under conservation management—only 1%of total area—when compared to other regions.
North & Central America still show that they had, on
average, the largest proportion of land managed forconservation (20%).

Additionally, the analysis showed that gender plays
a role in how many hectares of land is managed.

Fig 7 // Regions and Countries Participating in C.A.F.E. Practices

NORTH &CENTRALAMERICA
UNITED STATESOF AMERICA(HAWAI’I)
MEXICOGUATEMALA
EL SALVADORCOSTA RICA

ASIA
CHINA
INDIA
LAOS
JAMAICAVIETNAMPUERTO RICOTHAILANDHONDURASINDONESIANICARAGUAEAST TIMORPAPUANEW GUINEAPANAMAETHIOPIASOUTH
AMERICAUGANDA

COLOMBIARWANDAPERU

BURUNDIBRAZILTANZANIAKENYA

MALAWIZAMBIA

AFRICA

16 //The data shows that gender influences size of land
but not the percentage of conserved land. For thereporting period, women show an average of 10.7
hectares of land under coffee production and men
have 18.4 hectares of land under coffee production.
With regards to conserved land, women show anaverage of 4.6 hectares of land under conservationand men show an average of 8.6 hectares of land
under conservation.
On average, older farmers in C.A.F.E. Practices
have larger farms with larger conservation areas
than younger growers. Farmers older than 40 years
have farms 75% larger than those under the age of
40. In 2018, farmers older than 40 on average had
conservation hectares equivalent to 30% of the total
area, compared to the younger farmers (under 40)
that have 23%. On average, farmers older than 40
have 135% more hectares dedicated to conservation
when compared to farmers under the age of 40.

NUMBER OF FARMS
Over the last five years, the number of farms in the
C.A.F.E. Practices program has continued to growexponentially, from 190,677 in 2014 to 461,383 in 2018(142% of growth). See figure 8 for detailed changes
in number of farms. As shown in figure 8, the growthin participating farms in the program has been driven
by Africa, with a 476% of growth. South America
also increased number of farms participating by
93% during this period. Asia and North and Central
America increased by 43% and 23%, respectively.

PRODUCER SUPPORTORGANIZATIONS (PSO)
The number of PSOs has continued to increase
through the years. In 2014, there were 186 PSOs andsince then, the growth has been steady, reaching 307
in 2018. In 2018, 52% of the participant PSOs wereidentified as associations and farmer cooperatives,

Fig 8 // Number of farms participating in C.A.F.E. Practices
Africa and South America continue to show more growth in recent years.
500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

2014
TOTAL: 190,677■ Africa■ Asia2015
TOTAL: 256,777

2016
TOTAL: 321,975■ North and Central America■ South America

while 38% were exporters/suppliers, 9% processors,
and the remaining 2% were not identified. This year,
we have maintained the approach of counting PSOs
once even if it supports more than one supply chain.
However, the performance analysis uses the larger
number of PSOs that considers when there areseveral supply chains receiving services from a PSO.
This is because a 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 table 2 withcount differences.

2017
TOTAL: 402,354

Farms bysize-global:

2018
TOTAL: 461,383■ Small■ Medium■ Large

Table 2 // Number of Producer Support
Organizations (PSO) in the program
YEAR

TOTAL PSOs

TOTAL PSOs
(with duplicates)

2014

186

318

2015

215

385

2016

252

441

2017

260

471

2018

307

541

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 17

MILLS
Mills are assigned a validity period based on the resultsof the evaluation of the social responsibility and thewet and/or dry processing sections of the scorecard.
Of these mills there are standalone mills (dry/wet) andon-premise mills. ‘Standalone’ wet mills are processorsthat receive coffee cherry and mill it to the parchment
stage. These mills may be located on a medium orlarge farm, or offsite, and receive cherry from groups of
farmers. Standalone dry mills are processors that dehull parchment coffee received and/or sort, grade, bag,or otherwise prepare the green coffee for export. Onpremise mills refer to wet mills located inside a small
farm. During the validity period assigned to stand alone
mills, the mill only goes through verification once. In
2014, there were 115,000 mills in the program. Of those,
14,500 (13% of the total) were standalone mills and 87%
were considered on premise wet mills. Although there
is an average annual growth of 14% in the total numberof mills, there has been a decrease on the percentage

WORKERSof the stand-alone mills from 13% in 2014 to 8% in 2018.
In 2018, stand-alone mills reached 15,900 becauseof a gradual increase in the number of wet mills in
the program in recent years. 55% of the participant
small farms reported on-premise wet mills in 2014
and 40% in 2018. As shown in previous reports, thistrend depends on the country. Indonesia, Colombia,
Mexico, Nicaragua, and Peru are the countries where
the majority of smallholder farms continue to process
coffee on the farm.

TIMING OF VERIFICATION
Tracking if verifications took place during the harvest
season has continued in this reporting period. Supply
chains are incentivized through a longer validity toundergo verification during harvest since there are
more workers present on farms during this time. It
was found that in 2018, 80% of the valid supply chains
underwent verification during harvest, decreasingslightly from 2014 (82%).

In 2018, 2.2 million workers were employed throughC.A.F.E. Practices supply chains. The number ofworkers is obtained through the verification report ofsampled farms and this proportion is used to estimate
number of workers in all participating farms in the
program. In this reporting period, around 63,000
workers were permanent employees and over 2.14
million were temporary. Farm workers represent atleast 95% of the total number of workers, while asmall percentage were hired by processors. Medium
and large farms represent 3% of the farm size
landscape globally in the program but contribute
52% of the total number of permanent workers.
Overall, during the 2014–2018 period, there was a
134% increase in workers which is in stark contrast to
the 25% increase during the 2011–2015 period. The
increase of workers is higher rate than the increase in
number of farms, as farms grew 75.9% in 2018.

// C.A.F.E. Practices: Focus on Farms
Fig 9 // C.A.F.E Practices Farms In-Depth

Workers*

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

0.95 million
total workers

1.25 million
total workers

1.42 million
total workers

1.96 million
total workers

2.21 million
total workers

16% female owned
farms

15% female owned
farms

16% female owned
farms

16% female owned
farms

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

Gender

MALE OWNED FARMS

Gender**

FEMALE OWNED FARMSNO GENDER SPECIFIED

13% female owned
farms

Lorem ipsum
Food Security

18 //Rust Incidence

Lorem ipsum

Lorem ipsum

2014

Food Security

Food Security

2015 Lorem ipsum
2016

2017

2018

2,853 lbs/ha

2,831 lbs/ha

North andCentral America

South
America

Food Security
NO FOOD SHORTAGE

Food
security**

FOOD SHORTAGE

0.8
70%

Yield*

Rust Incidence

Global average yield(green coffee lbs/ha)

60%
Rust Incidence

2,535 lbs/ha
Rust Incidence

50%
2,491 lbs/ha
40%

2,795 lbs/has

30%

Rust
incidence**

LOW INCIDENCE (<10%)

20%

HIGH INCIDENCE (>10%)

10%NO INCIDENCE

0

Rust incidence 2018
0.8

0.8

70%

70%
0.8
60%
70%
50%
60%
40%
50%
30%
40%
20%
30%
10%
20%
0
10%

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0

AfricaNO RESPONSE

60%

Asia
HIGH RUST

North andCentral America
LOW RUST0

AfricaAsia

No rust percentage
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
South
AfricaAmerica
AfricaNO RUST

Asia
0
Asia

North and2014Central America
2015
North andASIA
AFRICA
Central America

South
America
2016
2017
South
NORTH AND
America
CENTRAL AMERICA

2018
SOUTH
AMERICA60%* Total counts of each worker population and yield are estimates based on sampled farms and extrapolated to the entire population.
50%
50%
60%
** Gender,
food security, and rust incidence 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.

40%

40%
50%

30%

30%
40%

20%

20%
30%

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 19

GENDERAs noted in past reports gender informationis collected only for sampled farms during theverification. While gender is not a required attributeto consider in the sample selection for verification, it
still constitutes one of the elements used to select the
sample. Therefore, the gender analysis is specific tosampled farms and will be used as one attribute in theperformance data. In the sample, women participatingin ownership of farms is increasing but still represents
only a minority. In 2018, women owned 16% of thesampled farms. Results show that women tend tohave smaller farm sizes (15.5 hectares) than theirmale counterparts, who have an average farm sizeof 27 hectares. Yet, the difference in yield between
genders was not large. The average yield for women
producers was 2,189 lbs/ha and for men was 2,137 lbs/
ha. Women’s participation in the program does varyby region, however, with South America having thehighest proportion of women-managed farms in the
program (20%) and Asia having the lowest (11%).

FOOD SECURITY
In 2018, 82% of the valid farms that were sampledprovided information on food security. Of those,
16% reported some level of food insecurity. In past
analyses, farmers in Africa had the highest levelof food insecurity—with 47% of farms reporting
challenges in 2014. That percentage has decreased
significantly to just 9% reporting some level of foodinsecurity in 2018. Similar trends occurred with
farmers in Asia and North & Central America. In Asia,
30% of farms reported periods of food insecurity
in 2014, falling to 21% in 2018. North & Central
America reported 32% of food insecurity in 2014
and 25% in 2018. South America maintained theaverage percentage of food insecurity from 12% in2014 to 13% in 2018. Figure 11 shows the number ofmonths reported of food insecurity by those who
experienced it at some level. Even though the desire
is for all farmers to achieve food security, more

Fig 10 // Number of months with reported food shortages among farms that reported food insecurity
Of farms that 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 foodinsecurity.

■ 2014■ 2015■ 2016■ 2017■ 20185 Months

4 Months

3 Months

2 Months

1 Month
0

20 //

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

research is needed to determine the factors driving
food insecurity for these producers and to develop
effective interventions.

Fig 11 // Green coffee yield (lbs/ha) of farms in C.A.F.E. Practices globally and by region
Global average yield has increased in the period of analysis. South America is the leading region,
FIGAfrica
11 GREEN
COFFEE(LBS/HA)OF FARMS
IN C.A.F.E.
PRACTICES GLOBALLY AND BY REGION
while
continues
to beYIELD
the region
with morechallenges
in productivity.

YIELD
3,500

•	North & Central America / 35,008 farms in 2018 /8% of total farms in 2018 / Average size of coffee
producing hectares in 2018 was 5.27 has.
•	South America / 128,625 farms in 2018 / 28%of total farms in 2018 / Average size of coffee
producing hectares in 2018 was 6.4 has.
•	Africa / 210,994 farms in 2018 / 46% of total farms in2018 / Average size of coffee producing hectares in2018 was 0.7 has.
•	Asia / 86,756 farms in 2018 / 19% of total farms in
2018. Average size of coffee producing hectares in2018 was 1.7 has.

For this reporting period, extrapolated yield values
were used. Extrapolated values are calculated
by determining the average, which is the sum of
all application volumes divided by the sum of all
application coffee producing hectares across all
queried apps. Therefore, the regions with higher
volumes and hectares have greater influence on
the global yield. Subpopulation calculations arecalculated the same way, only using the volumes andcoffee producing hectares for the given entity type
instead of the application. During the reporting period,
the global yield on sampled C.A.F.E. Practices farms
presented a slight increase from 2,535 lbs/ha in 2014
to 2,831 lbs/ha in 2018. During the 2014–2018 period,
both South America and Asia saw increases in yields
at 19% and 52%, respectively. In Africa, yields declined
from 1,484 lbs/ha in 2014 to 1,263 lbs/ha in 2018. Africa
saw an increase of 174,345 new farms during theperiod, representing a growth of more than 5 times
the previous period. This could explain the downward
trend for the African region.

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

2014

2015

■ Global■ South America

As shown in figure 11, yields in South America havecontinued to increase steadily from 2014 to 2018.
With 3,408 lbs/ha in 2018, or 20% above the global
average, South America has shown steady increaseduring this reporting period. Africa remains the region

2016■ North andCentral America

2017

2018

■ Asia■ Africawith the lowest yield during the entire period, with ayield of 1,263 lbs/ha, 55% below the global averagein 2018.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 21

YIELD VARIATIONS

Fig 12 // Green coffee yield (lbs/ha) variability of farms in C.A.F.E. Practices in 2018

Understanding yield variations among farm sizes isimperative to understanding the challenges farmers
face in addressing productivity issues and addressing
the large variability in yield among farm sizes andcountries. Figure 13 shows the range of variability
in more detail. In 2018, North and Central America
presented the highest variability in yield between
countries (from 24 lbs/ha in El Salvador to 10,871 lbs/
ha in Costa Rica). The smallest variability between
countries was from Africa, reporting a minimum yieldof 395 lbs/ha and a maximum yield of 4,515 lbs/ha.
As shown in figure 14, farm size appears to influence
yield. Medium farms outperformed other farm sizes inyields, showing a growing trend and reaching a yieldthat was 34% over the global average in 2018. Largefarms have followed a similar trend, having a yield 31%
over the global yield in 2018. Meanwhile, small farms
have presented different results regards to yield,
maintaining a yield 25% below the global average in2018. In general, global figures have increased from2,535 lbs/ha in 2014 to 2,831 lbs/ha in 2018.

There is large variability in productivity. For instance, North and Central America has the most variability
due to extremely high and low yield farms.
0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,00012,000

Yield range

GlobalAverage yield: 2,831 lbs/ha
Yield range

AfricaAverage yield: 1,263 lbs/ha
Yield range

Asia

Average yield: 1,854 lbs/ha
North andCentralAmericaYield range
Average yield: 2,361 lbs/haSouth
AmericaYield range
Average yield: 3,408 lbs/ha

Fig 13 // Changes in Yield by farm size

Fig 13// Changes
in Yieldmedium
by farmsize
Globalyield
has been increasing,
farms
show better results in yield against global values.
Small farms have reduced the difference since 2016 but are still below the average by -25%.
40%
30%
20%
10%
0
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%

22 //

2014

2015

2016

2017

■ Small Farm

■ Medium Farm

■ Large Farm2018

// Re-verification and attrition
The underlying assumption of the C.A.F.E. Practices
program is that supply chains that remain in the
program should improve their performance over time,
and there are incentives to support this. Thus, it isimportant to track an application’s evolution in termsof continuous improvement or whether they exit the
program. In this reporting period, we have maintained
the methodology implemented in past reports in using
supply chains going through verification during eachyear, instead of considering all valid supply chains
during the same period.
Based on total supply chains verified in 2018,supply chains entering the program for the first time
represented 39% of the applications (representing
24% of the farms in 2018). The proportion of new
supply chains has decreased slightly since 2014—from
42% to 39% in 2018. The lowest percentage was in2016, with 26%. See figure 15 for detailed information
on number of new supply chains. The analysis showsthat in 2018, 63% of the supply chains with a previous
verification record had not changed their composition
significantly, meaning that at least 25% of these
entities (farms, mills, and PSOs) continued to be partof the same supply chain in a new cycle of verification.
36% of the supply chains that underwent reverification
during the 2014–2018 period had changed theircomposition and can no longer be considered thesame supply chain for the purpose of comparing
the change in performance from one verification to
the next. Thus, it is an opportune period to analyze

Fig 14 // C.A.F.E. Practices program legacy—expressed in number of supply chains going throughverification
year Practices program legacy — expressed in number of supply chains
Fig 14 //each
C.A.F.E.
Exceptfor 2016,
thereverification
is a growing trend
in thenumber of new supply chains (no legacy) entering the program,
going
through
each
year
representing at least 26% of the total number each year.
250

200

150

100

50

0

2014

2015

2016
■ No legacy

attrition rates. In 2014, 18.9% of the supply chains thatwere due to undergo re-verification that year, opted
not to renew they participation in the program. In
recent years Verified supply chains—which received
1–2 year validity period—presented no attrition in
2014–2016. Preferred and strategic supply chains

2017

2018

■ With legacy

are rewarded with approval periods of 1–3 and 2–4
years, respectively. This means it is possible to track
attrition up to 2017 for preferred and 2016 for strategic
supply chains. Preferred supply chains had a 30.2%
of attrition rate in 2017. Strategic supply chains had a
21.5% attrition rate in 2016.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 23

Photo: Lance Koudele, Starbucks
24 //Global Performance// Approval status and scoring
APPROVAL STATUS

Fig 15 // Number of supply chains in the C.A.F.E. Practices program—by approval status

An approval status is awarded to a supply chain oncethe verification is complete, based on the total scoreachieved. Approval statuses range from Verified, toPreferred and Strategic. For those supply chains notmeeting the minimum requirements, they are invited
to complete a Zero Tolerance Corrective Action
Request (ZT-CAR) process (page 32) in order tocontinue in the program. If the supply chain is not able
to successfully complete the ZT-CAR or is unwilling,a Non-Compliant status is assigned. In this reporting
period the percentage of Non-Compliance was lessthan 1%, or 0.3% for 2018. Of the analyzed supply
chains in 2018, 83.8% were assigned a strategic level,
15.8% preferred and none received a verified status.

Approval status composition has varied in the five-year period. As the previous reporting period, the number
Fig 15 //Numbersupply& farmsin theC.A.F.E.
of strategic
supplychainsof
havegrownchainsand numberof verified
havedeclined.Practices program – by approval status
800
700
600
500
400
300

A significant portion of supply chains in the program
have a strategic status—from 58.9% to 83.8% overthe five years in question. At the same time, theproportion of supply chains in the preferred statuslevel has decreased from 27.8% to 15.8% andthe share of verified supply chains has declined
significantly from 12.2% to 0%.

200

Figure 15 outlines changes in the composition of
supply chains by their approval status and growth inparticipation. These results are also correlated to thenumber of farms participating in the program. The
assessment of the changes in approval status throughtime suggests that participants in the program are
performing at a higher level.

SCORING

100
0

2014

2015
■ Preferred

2016■ Strategic

General performance is measured by average scoresobtained in the assessment. As mentioned in themethodology section, total scores include additional
points that are awarded in recognition of efforts
made above and beyond the program’s normal
requirement. In contrast, subject area analysis does
not include extra points in their scoring calculations

2017■ Verified

2018■ Non Compliant

and performance against extra point indicators areshown below in Fig 19. For the participating supply
chains, total scores have increased slightly from anaverage of 87% to 88% in the period 2014–2018.
Supply chains in the Strategic category saw a slightdecline in their total scores, from 92% in 2014 to 91%
in 2018. Meanwhile, Preferred supply chain scores

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 25

Fig 16 // Supply chains total scoring—by approval status
Average global scoring has slightly increased. However, Strategic supply chains went from 92% in 2014
FIG 16. SUPPLY CHAINS TOTAL SCORING — BY APPROVAL STATUS
to 91% in 2018.

saw a minimal increase from 73% to 74% and Verified
supply chain scores declined until 2017. In 2018, there
are no Verified supply chains.
At the regional level, we see that the North & Central
America regions had the highest scores, which wereover the global average. Africa showed a steady
improvement over the period, with a +6% increase.
Asia experienced no change in total scoring levels.

100%

80%

60%

40%
2014

2015

■ Global

2016■ Preferred

2017■ Strategic

2018■ Verified

Subject area scores continue to be a good indicationof strengths and opportunities for improvement in the
C.A.F.E. Practices program. In 2018, coffee processing(dry) was the subject area with highest scoring (91%).
Environmental accountability and Social Responsibility
also showed a high scoring of 90%. The coffee
growing and coffee processing (wet) subject areascame in with an 81% and 79% score, respectively.
However, in 2018, the subject area that showed thelowest scoring was PSOs, with a score of 71%—a slight
improvement from 68% in 2014.

Fig 17 // Supply chains total scoring—by region
Average global scoring has slightly increased, Africa increased from 76% in 2014 to 82% in 2018.
FIG 17 // SUPPLY CHAINS TOTAL SCORING—BY REGION

Global average score of all supply chains, suggeststhat global performance has slightly increased from
87% to 88% between 2014 and 2018. Strategic
supply chain scores have had the best results, with
91% on average for the period. In general, Preferredand Strategic scores had no significant change andmaintained their total scores. Africa is the continent
with the main increment, changing from 76% in2014 to 82% in 2018.

100%

80%

SUBJECT AREAS SCORES
60%

26 //

1.0

2014

2015

■ Grand Total■ South America

2016

2017

■ North and Central America

2018■ Asia■ Africa

The analysis of subject areas shows that the best
results globally are in Coffee Processing Dry (91%in 2018) and Social Responsibility (90% in 2018).
The results with the lowest scores are in PSOs
(71% in 2018).

Figure 18 // Subject areas scores—Global
FIGURE
18are// SUBJECT
AREAS
Lowestscoresfound in Africa
andSCORES—GLOBAL
the highest in Central and North America.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0.0

Total score

Economic Accountability

Social responsibility■ 2014■ 2015

Coffee growing■ 2016

Coffee Processing wet■ 2017

Coffee Processing dry

PSO■ 2018Figure 19 // Subject areas scores—Africa
Africa has the lowest results globally, however, has been improving its scores from 76% in 2014 to 82% in 2018. The growth is specifically noticed in PSOs’ improvements
19 //toSUBJECT
AREAS SCORES—AFRICA
fromFIGURE
31% in 2014
64% in 2018.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0.0

Total Score

Economic Accountability

Social Responsibility■ 2014■ 2015

Coffee Growing■ 2016

Coffee Processing Wet■ 2017

Coffee Processing Dry

PSO■ 2018IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 27

Figure 20 // Subject areas scores—North and Central America
North and Central America has the best performance among the regions. The overall performance grew from 92% in 2014 to 93% in 2018. However, the performance of
PSOs’ decreased from 76% in 2014 to 74% in 2018.
FIGURE 20 // SUBJECT AREAS SCORES—NORTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0.0

Total Score

Economic Accountability

Social Responsibility■ 2014■ 2015

Coffee Growing■ 2016

Coffee Processing Wet■ 2017

Coffee Processing Dry

PSO■ 2018Figure 21 // Subject areas scores—Asia
Asia’s performance has maintained at 84% in 2018. The largest increment is noticed in Economic Accountability that grew from 74% in 2014 to 84% in 2018.
FIGURE 21 // SUBJECT AREAS SCORES—ASIA
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0.0

Total Score

Economic Accountability

Social Responsibility■ 201428 //■ 2015

Coffee Growing■ 2016

Coffee Processing Wet■ 2017■ 2018Coffee Processing Dry

PSO

Figure 22 // Subject areas score—South America
South America is increasing its performance with improvements in all the subject areas. The global performance grew from 79% in 2014 to 83% in 2018. The highest results
are in Coffee Processing dry that went from 88% in 2014 to 91% in 2018.
FIGURE 22 // SUBJECT AREAS SCORE—SOUTH AMERICA
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0.0

Total Score

Economic Accountability

Social Responsibility■ 2014Extra points are designed to incentivize theimplementation of best practices and not penalize
supply chains for practices that are more advanced.
Each subject area has a different number of extra
points available depending on the type of entity. Of thetotal number of indicators, 39 indicators are classified
as extra points.

■ 2015

Coffee Growing■ 2016

Coffee Processing Wet■ 2017Extra points are then added to the subject area scoring
and then each subject area is weighted to create
the total scoring. With this methodology the program
ensures incorporating the incentive of extra points inthe total score, while balancing the contribution of eacharea of the program.

Coffee Processing Dry

PSO■ 2018As seen in previous years, and shown in figure 23,
the coffee growing indicators still lead the provision of
extra points—with an annual average contribution toscore of 6.59 extra points. Social responsibility area
follows, with 3.46 points on an annual average. In
general, 99.5% of sampled farms received extra points.

Fig 23 // Number of extra points earned by subject area
Coffee Growing and Social Responsibility are the subject areas in which C.A.F.E. Practices participants earned more extra points to improve scoring and consequently theirperformance.
FIG 23 // NUMBER OF EXTRA POINTS EARNED BY SUBJECT AREA
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

2014

■ Social Responsibility

2015■ Coffee Growing

2016■ Coffee Processing Wet

2017■ Coffee Processing Dry

2018

■ PSO
IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 29

// Performance changes in re-verified supply chains
Supply chains are dynamic, and this presents achallenge when they go through several verification
cycles and their performance is analyzed overtime to understand important changes. Changes
in addition or removal of farms, mills or and/or
PSOs and other reasons affect the supply chainscomposition throughout time. Thus, as mentioned in
the past reporting period, this section of the analysis
is focused on the number of supply chains that went
through verification in a particular year and not all
valid supply chains during the same period. It is
important to note that each application is comparedto the earlier legacy application with the highest
percentage of overlapping entities. An overlap of
25.0% or higher is required for an application to beconsidered for this calculation.
In figure 24, we see how validity periods are granted
depending on scores, approval status and verification
timing. It’s important to note that when a comparative
analysis is conducted, we are comparing the mostrecent verification during the period analyzed 2014–2018 to a previous verification. This could date back
1–4 years since an application’s validity can vary from
1–4 years depending on approval status and timing ofverification. In 2018, 61% of the valid supply chains had
a previous verification report on file. Of these, 24%
improved their approval status, 73% had no change,and 3% declined.
Looking at figure 25, we see that the five-year trend
shows a significant growth in the percentage ofsupply chains maintaining (no change) in their statuswhen undergoing reverification—from 43% in 2014
to 79% in 2018. The number of supply chains that30 //Fig 24 // Validity periods granted depending on scores, approval status and verification timing
VERIFICATION SCORESHARVEST CLASSIFICATIONSTATUSVALIDITY≥80%

In-harvest

Strategic

4 years≥60 and <80%

In-harvest

Preferred

3 years<60%

In-harvest

Verified

2 years≥80%

Off-harvest

Strategic

2 years≥60 and <80%

Off-harvest

Preferred

1 year<60%

Off-harvest

Verified

1 yearFig 25 // Changes in approval status observed in re-verified supply chains

improved status in the re-verification declined from
54% in 2014 to 19% in 2018, and those backsliding
to a lower approval status maintained at 2%. On
average across the 2014–2018 period, 40% of the
supply chains have an improved approval status, 3%
have declined, and 56% have maintained the former
status in the program. An important observation inthis reporting period is that there were improvements
in status where supply chains went from preferred to
strategic at a rate of 28.7% in 2016 and 15.7% in 2018.
It is important to note that the trend observed in the
results of this reporting period (2014–2018) differsfrom the previous report (2011–2015). In this reporting
period, the proportion of “improvement” in approval
status declines, while the period analyzed in last
impact report showed the opposite, as it increased.

Fig 25 // Changes in approval status observed in re-verified supply chains

Status improvements that come through scoring
increases are very difficult to accomplish and cantake substantial effort given the 20-point range foreach status level. Changes in total score also offer agood indication of performance changes in the supply
chains going through re-verification. Re-verified supply
chains have a global score of 87.9% in 2014 and 87.6%
in 2018. The majority of supply chains going througha re-verification improved upon their previous scores,as the Figure 26 shows the average percentage
point change in scores. The improvement of scoresin reverified supply chain in the period started with a+10% in 2014 and went to +3% in 2018.

Fig 26 // Changes in score observed in all re-verified supply chains

Re-verified supply chains with no change are the majority representing 79% of supply chains in 2018.

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0

2014

2015

■ Improved

2016

2017

■ No Change■ Declined2018

Fig 26 // Changes in total score observed in all re-verified supply chains
Re-verified supply chains increased their scores by at least +3%.
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Re-verified supply chains increased its scores on at least +3%

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 31

//Zero tolerance incidents
Before a status level or validity is granted, supply
chains must comply with all the Zero Tolerance (ZT)
indicators. When supply chains are not able to comply
with one or more of these indicators, a corrective
action plan (ZT-CAR) needs to be put in place. As
mentioned in the past report, the process consists ofthe submission, implementation and documentation of
the plan and re-verification by a third party to confirm
compliance with ZT indicators. This procedure allows
supply chains to correct non-compliances of zerotolerance indicators encouraging them to correct
the negative practice to have a positive impact. This
analysis used data from supply chains going throughverification during each given year instead of all valid
supply chains during the same period.

For a significant portion of supply chains, this was
the first time being verified against Version 3.0 of the
program in which new zero tolerance indicators wereintroduced. Several of the zero tolerance indicators
included a requirement for medium and large farms

and mills to have written policies in place. Evidence
provided by inspectors indicates lack of written
policies as the reason for the significant number ofzero tolerance non-compliance in 2014.

Fig 27 // Number of ZT incidents and correction in annual verifications
900

7,000

800

6,000

700
5,000

500

4,000

400

3,000

300
2,000
200
1,000

100
0

0

2014
■ Sample Entities

32 //

2015
■ ZT Findings

2016

2017

■ ZT Corrections

2018■ Entitities with ZT

Total Sample

In the analysis of the ZT-CAR data, we are able toobserve that the number of ZT incidents has declined
over time—from 786 incidents in 2014 to 134 in
2018, despite continuous growth in the number ofparticipating entities (see figure 27). The amount of ZT
incidents corrected presented a strong improvement
during the same period, going from 77% in 2014 to
92% in 2018. The sample size is increasing by year,
yet entities with ZT incidents represented 5% of thesample in 2014 and only 1% of the sample in 2018,
clearly stating that the management and complianceis improving.

ZT Findings

600

Minimum wage for temporary employees (SR-HP
1.2): The results show that a significant percentageof the ZT incidents are related to this indicator. From132 (17% of ZT incidents) in 2014 to 45 (34%) in 2018.
Cumulatively over the five years, these results are
the highest of all the ZT indicators analyzed. The 45
incidents in 2018 represent 0.03% of the sampledfarms. This issue was more prevalent in Colombia,
Peru and Honduras, where evidence shows that not
all the workers receive the minimum salary.

No Discrimination (Written policy required for
medium and large farms and mills) (SR-HP 4.3):
Non-compliances with this indicator have declinedin this reporting period. In the program, it is not
permitted to discriminate on the basis of gender, race,
ethnic, age or religion. Findings indicate that there
was a decline in incidents from 187 in 2014 (24% of
ZT) to 7 in 2018 (5% of ZT). Evidence provided byinspectors showed the reason for the non-compliant
evaluation was due to no official policies developedor lack of printed documents referencing the Nodiscrimination policy on-site, rather than cases ofworkers reporting discrimination.

Photo: Jarod Trow, Starbucks

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 33

Forced Labor (Written policy required for medium
and large farms and mills) (SR-HP 4.4): The
program prohibits the use of forced, bonded,indentured, convict or trafficked labor. Results showthat there has be a decline in non-compliance from
190 in 2014 (24% of ZT) to 8 in 2018 (6% of ZT).
Evidence provided by inspectors reported the reason
for the non-compliance was a lack of a written policy
prohibiting forced labor versus evidence of forcedlabor occurring on the farm or mill.

Labor intermediaries (SR-HP 1.17): Labor
Intermediaries are only used when legally permissible
and have the documentation to support evaluationof relevant social indicators. 8 (6%) of 134 total ZT
incidents reported in 2018 were related to thisindicator. This issue was more relevant in Colombia
across the time period, while there were also periodic
issues in Peru. Evidence shows that on the farms
where incidences were found, intermediaries were
hired for some activities, however, no documentation
was available to verify that the workers hired received
payments as established by law.

34 //Employment of authorized minors follows all legal
requirements (SR-HP 4.2): 7 incidents (5%) of 134
total ZT incidents in 2018. Findings indicated thatsome supply chains had minors (15-17 years-old)working on farms or mills, even in countries suchas Colombia that prohibit minors (15-17 years-old)from working on coffee picking after school. These
incidents occurred in South America (Brazil, Colombia
and Peru). In the case of Brazil and Peru, evidenceshows that during inspections, some youth of legal
working age were found working on the farm but
without official or legal permissions from their parents.

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 have 5 incidents (4% of thetotal ZTs) in 2018. Non-compliance was identified
in Rwanda, Peru, Mexico and East Timor. Evidence
provided by inspectors shows that producer listsof all the supply chain entities were not updated.
There were findings where producer lists included
deceased farmers in the roster whose lands were
inherited or transferred by other people who still
deliver in the old names and numbers.

Minimum wage for permanent employees (SR-HP
1.1): A small number of farms failed to pay minimum
wages for permanent employees. In 2017, 31 (14%) ZT
incidents were related to this indicator and declined
to 7 (5%) in 2018. Non-compliance was identified
primarily in El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras
and Peru. Of the incidents found, evidence reported
by inspectors show that not all workers received theminimum wage, or there was a lack of documentation
to support if payments met minimum wage.

Tracking systems (CP-MT 1.2): Mills are required tohave a tracking system for C.A.F.E. Practices coffee
from initial purchase or intake through final sale oroutput. The analysis shows that were 5 ZT incidents(4% of the ZT incidents) of this indicator in 2018.
Evidence shows that of those incidences found, there
was no system in place to track coffee from C.A.F.E
practices producers from initial purchase. In these
instances, the coffee from C.A.F.E. Practices farms
and non-C.A.F.E. Practices farmers was mixed at theprocessing unit.

// Key performance indicator analysis
Starbucks has identified several important practices
that are imperative for a healthy supply chain.
These Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) have beendeveloped so that Starbucks and others may better
understand and monitor where there are gaps inperformance and then address them accordingly via
Suppliers, Producers and PSOs in coordination with

Farmer Support Centers. This analysis explores thetrends in performance against changes in approval
status and scoring systems.
KPIs include several practices from working
conditions expected on farms and mills, to agronomy
and environmental practices most importantfor farmers to implement. It is also important todifferentiate the gaps 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 28 // Detailed list of Key Performance Indicators analyzed
Area

Sections

Medium & large farms

Smallholder farms

Processors

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

Economic Accountability Financial transparency

Social Responsibility

Environmental
Responsibility

Water conservation

1

Waste management

2

Energy use

1

PSOs

Management & Tracking
Management and tracking systems
Systems (PSO)

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

22

15

17

14

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 35

Fig 29 // List of Key Performance Indicators
Economic
Accountability(EA)

Economic
accountability

EA-IS 1.3 (Receipts/invoices maintained)
EA-IS 1.4 (Document requirements)

SR-HP 1.1 (Min wage permanent)

CoffeeProcessing(Wet) (CPw)

SR-HP 1.2 (Min wage temporary)SocialResponsibility(SR)

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

SR-HP 1.8 (Benefits to temporary)
SR-HP 1.11 (More than min wage temporary)

SR-WC 2.1 (Children attend school)
SR-WC 3.4 (Health services - permanent)

CoffeeGrowing (CG)Conserving
biodiversity

CG-WR 1.1 (Buffer zones - water body)
CG-SR 1.4 (Shade, cover crops)
CG-SR 2.10 (Soil amendments arecustomized)

36 //Management
and tracking
systems

PS-MT 1.1 (Tracking systems)

Producer
Support (PS)

CG-CB 3.7 (At least 5% set aside)
CG-EM 2.1 (C.A.F.E. Practices work plan)
CG-EM 3.1 (Pruning program)
CG-EM 3.2 (Farm renovation)

PS-MT 1.2 (Updated producer list)
PS-MT 1.3 (Receipts)

PS-HP 1.1 (Training materials)

PS-SR 2.1 (Soil analysis)
PS-SR 2.3 (Soil/Foliar plan implementation)
PS-CC 1.2 (Training - climate change)
PS-EM 1.1 (Distribute WHO 1A/1B)

Environmental
management
and monitoring

PS-EM 1.4 (Agrochemical training)
PS-EM 1.5 (PPE training)
PS-EM 2.5 (Annual planning meeting)
PS-EM 2.6 (Training materials)

CG-CB 3.1 (Forest conversion)
CG-EM 1.1 (No WHO 1A-1B)

Environmental
management
and monitoring

CP-WM 1.2 (Processing wastes composting)
CP-EC 1.4 (Drying - wood source)

Protecting soil
resources

SR-WC 3.5 (Health services - temporary)
SR-WC 4.2 (Use of PPE)

Protecting soil
resources

CP-WM 1.1 (Processing wastes)

Energy use

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

SR-HP 4.1 (Child labor)

Protecting
water resources

Waste
management

CP-WC 2.1 (Wastewater management)

SR-HP 1.7 (Benefits to permanent)

SR-HP 3.3 (Total work hours)

Working
conditions

Protecting
water resources

PS-EM 2.8 (Training)
Training
program on
climate change

PS-EM 2.9 (Training)// Key performance indicators analysis: medium and large farms
As mentioned in other reports, the C.A.F.E. Practices
program uses a scorecard to assess the adoptionof good practices on coffee farms for both medium
and large farms. A shorter list of practices is used toassess performance of smallholder farms, alongsidea scorecard for the Producer Support Organization.
Farm performance is assessed in three areas:
economic accountability, social responsibility, andenvironmental responsibility. While each subject area
includes several indicators, this section of the reportprovides a snapshot of global performance of medium
and large farms using a set of Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) that have been identified as priorities
within the three subject areas. The indicators
represent important matters such as minimum wage,
no child labor, benefits to workers, use of personal
protective equipment, no forest conversion, no use
of prohibited chemicals, water and soil resourcesmanagement, and others.

LARGE FARMS (>50 HECTARES)

Fig 30 // Large farms KPIs performance
Large farms’ global performance is particularly low in Protecting soil resources. Economic and social indicators
FIG 31 ARGE FARMS KPIS PERFORMANCE
outperform the average.
100

80

60

•	2,467 large farms in the program in 2018.
Growth of 43% between 2014 and 2018.
• 179,762 total workers on large farms in the
program in 2018. Increase of 61% in the period
2014–2018.

During the period of analysis, Brazil represented
74% of the large farms. Nicaragua, Guatemala,and Colombia were also countries with numerous
large farms. See detailed data on performance andobserved trends in figure 30 for large farms.
Large farms performance on social responsibility KPIs
increased from 84% in 2014 to 85% in 2018. The mostnoticeable increase was Environmental management
and monitoring, that went from 70% in 2014 to 81% in

40

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Global■ Protecting water resources■ Environmental management and monitoring
Working conditions■ Conserving biodiversity■ Hiring practices and employment policies■ Protecting soil resources
Economic accountability
2018. Hiring practices and employment policies held
steady at 83% compliance, while performance on
working conditions KPIs increased slightly from 84.7% in2014 to 86.6% in 2018. Large farms have maintained ascore of over 93% on the economic accountability KPIs
between 2014–2018, with an increase to 94.6% in 2018.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 37

A few observations under the Social KPIs were:

Observations under the Environmental KPIs were:•	Zero tolerance indicators such as no child labor (SRHP 4.1) and access to education (SR-WC 2.1), had atleast 99.5% of compliance for the 2014–2018 period.

•	Performance against environmental responsibility
KPIs on large farms has improved from 77.7% in2014 to 81.4% in 2018, with several KPIs reporting
significant improvements.

•	Large farms slightly increased the provision ofrequired benefits to permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7),
with scores increasing from 79.9% to 84.7%.
•	Large farms have one of the lowest resultscompared to other farm sizes (i.e. medium with85.1% and small 94.4% in 2018) on the “exceed theminimum wage for temporary workers” (SR-HP 1.11)
KPI with 57.5% complying with this indicator in 2018.
•	The percentage of large farms providing required
benefits to temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8), declined
from 68.8% to 58.6%. A drop in scoring in Costa
Rica, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Kenya was is thecause of this decline, but in general some othercountries with low performance were Colombia
and Honduras.
•	During the reporting period, use of personal
protective equipment (SR-WC 4.2) has shown
an improvement of 13% in Colombia and 4% in
Guatemala, while globally there is an improvementin scoring from 81% in 2014 to 87% in 2018.
•	There were fewer instances of non-compliancewith the minimum wage zero tolerance indicator forpermanent and temporary workers (SR-HP 1.1 and
1.2), seen through increasing performance, from
96.2.8% and 95.3% in 2014 to 98.8% and 99.5%
in 2018, respectively. This resulted primarily fromthe improvement of the results in Brazil, Colombia,
Ethiopia and Kenya.

38 //•	Zero tolerance indicator on no forest conversion(CG-CB 3.1) is the indicator with the highest
compliance among the five years globally withan average of 99.7%. The indicator on no use ofprohibited chemicals (CG-EM 1.1) maintained a highperformance level, with a 98.4% in 2018.
•	During the five-year period, large farms havemaintained performance on protecting water
resources (95.7%) and performance increase on
the environmental management and monitoring(from 70.2% to 81.1%) was noted.
•	Improvement tracking program KPI (CG-EM 2.1) has
increased from 39.9% in 2014 to 59.3% in 2018.
•	Protecting soil resources has increased from
56.1% in 2014 to 62.0% in 2018•	Conserving biodiversity indicator has declined
from 89.1% in 2014 to 87.4% in 2018.
•	Erosion prevention (CG-SR 1.4) increased from
50.5% to 55.0% in the period 2014–2018.
•	Having a written tracking program and tracking
activities (CG-EM 2.1) changed from 40.0% in 2014
to 59.3% in 2018.
•	Long term productivity indicators (CG-EM 3.1 and3.2) showed improvement (16%) within the reporting
period, reaching performance rates of 80.6% and86.3% in 2018, respectively.

MEDIUM FARMS(12 TO <50 HECTARES)• 6,138 medium farms in the program in 2018.
Growth of 48% between 2014 and 2018.
• 154,873 total workers on medium farms in the
program in 2018. Increase of 78% in the period
2014–2018.

Medium farm performance on social responsibility
KPIs had a scoring range on average of 79% in2014 and 81% in 2018. KPIs around hiring practices
and employment policy showed an increase of
performance, from 79.1% to 81.0% and working
conditions KPIs showed a small increase inperformance from 73.6% to 74.3% in the context
of significant growth in the count of medium farms
participating.
A few observations under the Social KPIs were:•	Medium farms had a high compliance rate for the
Zero tolerance indicator prohibiting child labor (SRHP 4.1) and access to education (SR-WC 2.1), bothscoring at the 99.7% level in 2018.
•	Farms paying minimum wage to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.2) increased from 93.2% in 2014 to 98.6%
in 2018.
•	The provision of benefits to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.8) was the most challenging KPI for medium
farms to comply with during this reporting period.
This KPI has declined performance from 34.3%
to 28.3% in the 2014–2018 period. Benefits topermanent workers presented a slight increase from
62.6% to 65.0%.
•	Employer contribution to costs of healthcare fortemporary workers (SR-WC 3.5) has dropped from

46.5% to 43.6% in the five-year period. It is important
to note that the decline was also noted on theprevious report for period 2011–2015. Additionally,
this decline was observed across many of thecountries with medium farms.
•	Medium farms have improved the ability to exceed
minimum wage for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.11),
moving from 78.5% in 2014 to 85.1% in 2018. This ismostly because Brazil improved performance on
this indicator during this period.
•	Medium farms have improved the use of personal
protective equipment (SR-WC 4.2) from 71.7% to82.6%. Kenya, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico,
Guatemala and Tanzania improved performance on
this requirement.

Fig 31 // Medium farms KPIs performance
Global performance on Medium farms is mostly affected by the environmental responsibility indicators: protecting
water
resources(topFARMS
indicator)
andPERFORMANCE
protecting soil resources (the lowest results with an important increment during
FIG 32// MEDIUM
KPIS
the period).
100

80

Observations under the Environmental KPIs were:•	Medium farms had the highest compliance ratein the implementation the No Forest Conversion(CG-CB 3.1) indicator with 100% full compliance since
2016.

60

•	Performance of medium farms on the environmental
responsibility KPIs improved from 70.5% in 2014 to
77.5% in 2018.
•	During this period, environmental management
and monitoring significantly increased from 72.8%
to 85.0%, driven by improved tracking programs(CG-EM 2.1) from 36.6% in 2014 to 62.1% in 2018.
•	Protecting soil resources increased from 41.3% in2014 to 49.4%.

40

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Global■ Protecting water resources■ Environmental management and monitoring
Working conditions■ Conserving biodiversity■ Hiring practices and employment policies■ Protecting soil resources
Economic accountability•	In 2018, conserving biodiversity slightly declined
from 82.9% to 82.2%, while protecting water
resources KPIs held steady at 94.3%.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 39

// Key performance indicators analysis: smallholder farms
A few observations under the Social KPIs were:• Over 452,000 smallholder farms in the program in
2018. Highest growth category since the start of the
program. Growth of 145% between 2014 and 2018.
• Over 1,870 000 total workers in smallholder farms
in the program in 2018. Growth of 152% in the period
2014–2018.

Using the smallholder version of the scorecard, as
stated in past reports, the set of KPIs used is similar to
the medium and large farm set, containing the same
ZT indicators but excluding the following KPIs (since
they are not included in the smallholder scorecard):
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.

•	Small farms performance against the social
responsibility KPIs increased slightly from 77.9%
in 2014 to 78.8% in 2018.
•	Zero tolerance indicators on minimum wage forpermanent and temporary workers (SR-HP 1.1 and
1.2), showed high compliance (at least 95.6%).
•	No child labor (SR-HP 4.1) and access to education(SR-WC 2.1) indicators had high performancethroughout the five-year period, with at least 99.7%.

•	Benefits provision to permanent workers declined
from 47.1% to 41.5% across many countries,
especially Costa Rica (-11% points).
•	Provision of benefits to temporary workers has
decreased from 19.0% to 12.6% and the declining
trend covered almost all regions and countries
especially Kenya, Brazil, Guatemala, Nicaragua
and Rwanda.
•	Use of personal protective equipment (SR-WC 4.2)
has the highest increase in performance, from 50.1%
to 67.3% in the five-year period, with improvements
in almost all the countries.

•	Smallholders appeared to be particularly struggling
with the requirement to provide benefits forpermanent and temporary workers (SR-HP 1.7 and 1.8).

It is important to note that supply chains that include
smallholders are also required to identify andevaluate a Producer Support Organization (PSO) thathas the task of providing support and training to thesefarmers. An analysis of the KPIs related to the PSOs
are in the PSO section (see page 42). There are othertopics not assessed during the inspection process on
small farms such as plant nutrition and environmental
management and monitoring, because these can befound in the analysis of the PSO KPIs.
Global performance of KPIs on smallholder farms
has increased slightly from 79.6% in 2014 to 80.5%
in 2018.

40 //Photo: Lance Koudele, Starbucks

Observations under the Environmental KPIs were:•	Smallholder performance across all environmental
responsibility KPIs was 85.4% in 2014 and 83.3% in2018.

Fig 32 // Smallholder farms KPIs performance
Smallholder
farms maintained
performanceat the global KPIs level while experiencing 145% growth in small farms
FIG 33 // SMALLHOLDERFARMSKPIS PERFORMANCEin the program.
100•	The analysis looked at one KPI for protecting water
resources (water body buffer zones, CG-WR 1.1),
which showed a slight decrease in performance(80.5% in 2014 to 79.0% in 2018).
•	As explored in the last report, this analysis included
a KPI on soil resources to better understandwhether farms are taking action to prevent erosion
with the use of shade trees or cover crops on all
productive area with slopes less than 20% (CG-SR
1.4). The analysis shows that there is declining trend
among participating farms from 55.6% in 2014 to
43.6% in 2018. The countries that need to improve
are Tanzania (11.5%), Kenya (15.2%), Indonesia (25.7%)
and Vietnam (23.5%), who performed low on thisrequirement in 2018.

80

60•	Biodiversity conservation had high compliancethrough the KPI on no-forest conversion (CG-CB
3.1) throughout the five-year period, from 99.7% to99.9% for small farms.
•	Performance on environmental management andmonitoring KPIs have improved from 99.1% in 2014
to 99.8% in 2018 for no WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)
and from 92.3% in 2014 to 94.2% in 2018 for pruning
program for long term productivity (CG-EM 3.1).

40

2014

2015

2016

■ Global■ Environmental management and monitoring■ Conserving biodiversity■ Protecting soil resources

2017

2018

■ Protecting water resources■ Working conditions■ Hiring practices and employment policies■ Economic accountability

Observations under the Economic KPIs were:•	Economic accountability KPIs increased from 72.7%
in 2014 to 81.1% in 2018.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 41

// Key performance indicators analysis: producer support organizations (PSOs)
Fig 33 // Producer Support Organizations KPIs performance• 307 PSOs were evaluated as supply chains service
providers in 2018. 65% growth rate was seen in the
period 2014–2018.

PSOs are assessed against a set of 42 specific PSO
indicators included in the smallholder scorecard. A
selection of 14 KPIs are chosen to monitor specificperformance of PSOs. The 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. As stated in past reports, someof the KPIs represent ZT indicators such as requiringthat the PSOs have a product tracking system, acurrent list of participants, ensuring farms receive
receipts, and that they do not distribute prohibitedchemicals. Other indicators that are important to
PSOs include provision of training on hiring and labor
practices including use of PPE, and a training programon climate change, soil analysis and fertilization
programs.
During this reporting period (2014–2018), the average
PSO performance against KPIs in 2014 was 70.2%
and in 2018, it increased to 78.5%, experiencing 65%
growth—80 of them are new PSOs.
Management and tracking systems KPIs moved from
89.7% in 2014 to 98.8%. There has been an increasein compliance, from 68.3% in 2014 to 85.8% on theprovision to smallholders with training materials on
hiring practices (PS-HP 1.1). The KPI (PS-SR 2.1) which

42 //PSOs global performance maintained a positive trend in management and tracking systems indicators. However,it shows a challenge/opportunity to improve environmental indicators performance around soil resources and
FIG 34 on// PRODUCER
SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS KPIS PERFORMANCE
training
climate change.

100

80

60

40

20

2014

2015

2016

■ Global Average■ Management and tracking systems■ Hiring practices and employment policies

2017

2018

■ Protecting soil resources■ Environmental management and monitoring■ Training program on climate changerequires a management plan that includes analysis ofsoil samples, has shown an increase in performanceof 61.9% (2014) to 72.1% (2018). The environmental
management and monitoring KPIs performance has
increased from 72.1% in 2014 to 77.1 % in 2018. The
other indicator (PS-SR 2.3) that assesses whether
the soil and or foliar analysis occurs every 2 years
increased from 43.6% in 2014 to 48.5% in 2018.

All PSOs complied with the requirement to
not distribute prohibited chemicals (PS-EM 1.1)
throughout the five-year period (2014–2018).

There has been a slight improvement from past
periods in PSOs achieving training targets forsmallholders in their supply chains. Performanceon existence of training materials (PS-EM 2.6) that
include topics around: health and safety including
use of personal protective equipment (PPE);
shade management; integrated pest control anddisease management including correct pesticidecontainer disposal; pruning, weeding and generalagricultural practices; coffee processing and drying,
have improved from 81.7% in 2014 to 88.2% in2018. Additional indicators such as PS-EM 2.8 and
PS-EM 2.9 have improved from 66.7% in 2014 to74.5% in 2018, and 50.0% in 2014 to 52.4% in 2018,
respectively.
Additionally, training related to procedures for
agrochemicals use and storage, and use of thepersonal protective equipment (PS-EM 1.4 and1.5) increased slightly from a score of 74.8% and68.1% from 2014 respectively to 75.4% and 69.8%.
Performance on the KPI on training on climatechange (PS-CC 1.2) had low results but showed a highimprovement from 35.7% in 2014 to 56.1% in 2018.
See detailed data on performance and observed
trends in figure 33.

Photo: Josh Trujillo, Starbucks

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 43

// Key performance indicators analysis: processors
Fig 34 // Processors: wet mills KPIs performance• 15,900 standalone mills (processors) in the
program in 2018. Growth rate of 9% in the period
2014-2018.

Processors (wet and dry mills included in the supply
chains) are assessed against the Social Responsibility
and Coffee Processing sections of the generic andsmallholder 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, the environmental responsibility
subject area is unique to milling operations andincludes one KPI on water conservation, two KPIs
on waste management, and one KPI on energy
use. No environmental KPIs have been includedin the analysis for dry mills. The KPIs analyzed forprocessors include ZT indicators such as minimum
wage, child labor, and access to education. Others
cover management of receipts, benefits to workers,
use of personal protective equipment. Wet millindicators include wastewater management andprocessing wastes.

WET MILLS
Wet mills during this reporting period have increased
their presence consistently; 58% of increment in2018 compared to 2014 (3,525 in 2014 to 5,587
in 2018). Wet mill KPIs have maintained global
performance (85%) and have remained relatively
stable in this reporting period. Wet mill performanceon economic accountability KPIs increased from
94.1% to 94.9% in the five-year period. Countries

44 //

Wet
performanceWET
is affected
mostlyPERFORMANCE
by Working Conditions and Energy Use.
FIGmill
35 global// PROCESSORS:MILLS KPIS

100

80

60

2014

2015

2016

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

2017■ Protecting water resources■ Waste management■ Energy use

2018such as Brazil, Kenya, Peru and Tanzania improved
performance in the indicators EA-IS 1.4 (receipts
include required information) and EA-IS 1.3 (receipts/
invoices maintained). Wet mill performance on social
responsibility KPIs has dropped slightly from 82.3% in2014 to 81.2% in 2018. The most challenging indicators
were benefits to temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8), which
declined from 48.8% in 2014 to 34.2% in 2018, andcontributions to healthcare costs for all permanent
workers (SR-WC 3.4) that decreased from 88.0% in2014 to 80.0% in 2018 and temporary workers (SR-WC
3.5) from 49.8% in 2014 to 46.2% in 2018. Additionally,
it was observed that there was a small decrease on
performance on “employer contributes to cost ofhealthcare for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)”
indicator with an average of 88% in 2014 to 80%
in 2018.

Fig 35 // Processors: dry mills KPIs performance
Dry mills KPI global performance maintained a stable rate during this reporting period. The results are mostly
FIG 36 // PROCESSORS:DRY MILLS
KPIS PERFORMANCE
influenced
by working conditions
and economic
accountability.

100

Wet mill performance on environmental KPIs haschanged from 89.7% to 91.3% in the five-year period,
mostly due to improvements in in Kenya and Ethiopia.
This can be seen specifically on “composting byproduct” (CP-WM 1.2) indicator that averages anincrease of 88.3% in 2014 to 93.5% in 2018.

DRY MILLS
Dry mills have decreased their presence; 3% ofdecline in 2018 compared to 2014 (11,699 in 2014 to
11,370 in 2018). Dry mills global performance against
KPIs went from 90% in 2014 to 86% in 2018. From thetotal number of dry mills on the program, the ones
from Brazil represented over 97%, so that any change
in performance in Brazil would significantly impact
global results of dry mills. In economic accountability
KPIs (EA-IS 1.3) that requires mills to keep receipts
for coffee the maintained performance at 94% and
the indicator asking mills to ensure the receipts
contain the information required (EA-IS 1.4) increased
from 89% to 92%. Dry mill performance on social
responsibility KPIs decreased from 86.5% to 84.1 %

80

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

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

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 45

in the five-year period. Indicator SR-HP 1.11 (minimum
wage exceeded for temporary workers) has thehighest improvement, from 57.1% in 2014 to 70.1% in2018. The indicator requiring benefits for temporary
workers (SR-HP 1.8) had the lowest performance
under social responsibility KPIs with 67.5% in 2018.
The indicator for the employer to contribute to cost ofhealthcare for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5) has
the most significant decline going from 78.9% in 2014
to 65.8%, particularly due to low performance anddecreases in Honduras, Tanzania, Indonesia, Mexico,
Vietnam and Tanzania. In both processor types (wetand dry mills), performance on zero tolerance social
responsibility KPIs was high. No child labor (SR-HP
4.1) has been in full compliance since 2015. Dry mills
achieved full compliance in access to education (SRWC 2.1) during the period.

Figure 36 // Processors: wet/dry mills KPIs performance
FIGUREmills
37 //global
PROCESSORS:WET/DRYKPIS PERFORMANCE
Wet/Dry
performanceis slightlyMILLS
increasing,driven by performance of some economic
accountability indicators.
100

WET AND DRY MILLS
During this reporting period we also explored theperformance of wet/dry mills against KPIs. Some
processing units host both wet and dry processing
facilities to conduct washing, removal of skin, fruit andparchment and bean sorting. These operations arecommon in a subset of countries participating in the
program: Brazil, Indonesia and Costa Rica.
Wet/Dry mills are increasing their participationconsistently; 53% of increment in 2018 compared to2014 (962 in 2014 to 1474 in 2018). The result of KPIs
analysis shows that globally the compliance rate
went from 88% in 2014 to 90% in 2018. The biggest
increment was in Economic Accountability indicators,
for example Receipt includes data (EA-IS 1.4) wentfrom 83% in 2014 to 94% in 2018. The biggest
decrease was in Employer contributes to cost ofhealthcare for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4) thatwent from 97% in 2014 to 87% in 2018.

46 //

80

2014

2015

■ Global■ Energy use■ Waste management■ Protecting water resources

2016

2017

2018

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

Climate Efforts
Through the C.A.F.E. Practices Program, Starbucks has
been implementing a climate change strategy since2004 that focuses on energy conservation, renewableenergy, and environmental indicators that support
climate adaptation and mitigation efforts. During thisreporting period, the C.A.F.E. Practices program hasmonitored several specific climate change indicators
included in the program. As figure 37 shows, we haveobserved that large farms are more likely to haveaddressed their climate risks and put together plans.
There is significant growth in plans in 2018 compared
to previous years. Examining the figure further there
is a low likelihood shown for Medium and Large farms
to be calculating GHG emissions (less than 6%). It is
important to note that dedicated criterion on climatechange awareness and tracking the reduction ofgreenhouse gas emissions was introduced in Version
3.0 of the scorecard and represent extra points.
Additional climate focused indicators have been
observed as follows:
Large Farms•	Compliance with 3 key climate indicators is moving
in a positive trend. More farmers are keeping
written records of climate change risks (CG-CC
1.1) with scores of 28% in 2014 to 33% in 2018. The
highest increase can be seen in developing andimplementing written plans to minimize impactsof climate change (CG-CC1.2), with scores of 16%
in 2014 to 35% in 2018. Calculating GHG reductions(CG-CC1.3) had a slow increment in performancewith 2% in 2014 to 5% in 2018.

Fig 37 // Scores of climate related KPIs
35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Climatechangerisks (CG-CC 1.1)
LARGE

Plan climatechange(CG-CC 1.2)
LARGE

■ 2014

Project greenhosue
gas emissions(CG-CC 1.3)
LARGE

■ 2015

Climatechange risks(CG-CC 1.1)
MEDIUM■ 2016

Medium Farms•	Medium farms have shown a steady increase inperformance on average from 8% compliance in2014 to 17% in 2018. As their large counterparts,
more farmers are keeping written records of climatechange risks (CG-CC 1.1) with scores of 13% in 2014
to 23% in 2018. As large farms, the highest increase■ 2017

Plan climatechange(CG-CC 1.2)
MEDIUM

Project greenhosue
gas emissions(CG-CC 1.3)
MEDIUM■ 2018can be seen in developing and implementing
written plans to minimize impacts of climate change(CG-CC1.2), with scores of 7% in 2014 to 23% in2018. Calculating GHG reductions (CG-CC1.3) has
also had a slow increment in performance with 2%
in 2014 to 5% in 2018.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 47

Photo: Josh Trujillo, Starbucks
48 //Conclusions
This report marks the 5th assessment of the C.A.F.E. Practices program. Overall, performance during this reporting has improved from previous years throughout the supply
chain based on data from farms, mills and PSOs’. The program has greatly expanded its reach and influence since the last report. It has reached 461,383 farms across 28
countries and covers a total of 2,397,748 hectares. The number of farms in the program has dramatically increased by 142% during this period, leading to a 76% increase incoffee area from 2014 to 2018.
Participating farms and mills employed approximately 2,206,212 million workers were hired in 2018 by farms and mills operating under the program—with 2,143,008
million temporary workers earning more than the minimum wage in 2018. The number of workers represents a 134% increase since 2014 to 2018. Total workers hired
increased by 134% yet did not result in increased incidents of child labor or children working and not attending school (both had 99.7% compliance rates).
The sample indicates that women are increasing their presence in the supply chain by incrementing the ownership of farms from 13% in 2014 to 16% in 2018. Small farms
continued to represent the overwhelming majority of farms participating in the program (98%), managing 61% of the total area influenced via the program. Of all of the
managed area of small farms, 12% is set aside as conservation areas.
Participating farmers have conserved 237,064 hectares of which 47% is conserved by small farms, 44% by large farms, and 9% by medium farms. This demonstrates thatcoffee communities have an important role to play in conserving nature and biodiversity. The analysis of subject area scores indicates that globally the coffee processing dry
subject area has the highest average score with 91% in 2018. The score with the lowest performance is PSOs, which is increasing but is still low compared to other subject
areas, especially in Africa. However, it should be noted that there has been significant efforts made on PSO performance in Africa as it has increased its performance from
31% in 2014 to 64% 2018. Scores indicate that the subjects with the highest score differ by region—in Africa, the best performance is in Economic Accountability and Social
Responsibility (90% in 2018, both), in Asia, Coffee processing dry (90% in 2018), in North and Central America, Coffee Processing Dry and Economic Accountability (both 93%
in 2018), and in South America, Coffee Processing Dry, with 91% in 2018.
Fewer applications had Zero Tolerance indicator issues. All Zero Tolerance indicators decreased their incidences in general. Especially indicators like Forced Labor Policy(SR-HP 4.4) have decreased their incidences of ZT’s with values from 190 incidences in 2014 to 8 incidences in 2018.
Performance in the program has moved in the direction of higher approval status for applications, which is also a positive trend. In 2018, there were only 3 supply chainswith a status of non-compliant and 0 of verified status applications. This occurred at a time when there were significantly more farms participating in the program. Other
results of particular note include:
The C.A.F.E. Practices program has continued toexperience tremendous growth in the numberof farms participating and in the total land area
influenced by the program. The coffee area affectedby the program has grown by 76% to reach nearly
1,311,000 hectares.

In this reporting period, global farm yields have had an
important increase, with large farms increasing yields
by 29%, medium farms increasing yields by 14%, andsmall farms increasing yields by 2%. Small farms had
the lowest yields but made up the majority of participating
farms and area in the program, this heavily influences theglobal yield for the program each year.

Africa had significant growth in participation but
tended to have the lowest yields. Africa experienced
a prominent growth in the number of participating
farms in 2018 (476% increase over the number in2014)—representing 46% of the total farms and 16%of the total coffee area under the C.A.F.E. Practices

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 49program. African farms also had the lowest yields,
39% below the global average (1,380 lbs/ha) in 2018.
South America had the greatest number of medium
and large farms in the program. In 2018, SouthAmerica represented 66% of the global coffee area in
C.A.F.E. Practices and had an average yield that was
20% higher than the global average (3,408 lbs/ha in2018). Countries like Brazil had highest improvements
around environmental management with an increaseof compliance of 54% for large farms and 72% formedium large. Additionally, Brazil has shown highcompliance towards the minimum wage for temporary
and permanent workers with at least 96.8% in2018 for all farm sizes. Colombia showed improved
performance on environmental management
indicators with an average increase of 11% for large
farms and 29% for medium farms.
The majority of suppliers participating in
the program are choosing to continue their
participation. For supply chains whose status expired
during 2014–2016, over 71% of participating supply
chains stayed in the C.A.F.E. Practices program.
The proportion of supply chains discontinuing their
participation has increased from 18.9% to 26.3% in
the period 2014–2016. Supply chains achieving thehighest levels of performance in the program (i.e.
preferred and strategic status) have had low rates
of program attrition. The number and proportionof supply chains achieving the highest level of
performance have increased over the years. At
the same time, the proportion of supply chainsachieving the lowest approved level in the program
has declined. The average total score of participants
globally increased from 86.8% in 2014 to 88.2%
in 2018. The improvement was global, all regions
increased their total scores during this period.

50 //In 2018, male farmers tended to have larger farms
than women, with farm sizes ranging from 14.8
hectares for women and 24.4 hectares for men.
However, the yield of female farmers (2,264 lbs/ha) have shown a tendency to be almost the same
compared to their male counterparts (2,277 lbs/ha),despite the difference of farm sizes. Age is also anapparent factor that impacts the size of farms. Farmers
older than 40 years tend to have larger farms. On
average, these farms were 75% bigger than thosemanaged by those under 40. Older farmers were also
more likely to have larger areas under conservation
management—on average 31% more than younger
farmers who tend to conserve approximately 25% of
their land.
Zero Tolerance incidents have decreased
significantly—a 83% decline from 2014. In 2014,
there were 786 cases reported, in comparison to the
314 findings in 2018 among sampled farms, while thesample increased by 134%. This drastic and positive
trend can be the result of supply chains successfully
implementing good agricultural and labor practices
and training that led to lower Zero Tolerance
incidences. It also is an indicator of farms adapting to
the demands of the program.
Farmers continue to face some challenges incomplying with important social and environmental
indicators. While total score performance showed
a positive trend, similar to the last reporting period,
there were social and environmental shifts seen in
the results found with specific indicators. In large
and medium sized farms, the biggest decline incompliance was in provision of benefits for temporary
workers (SR-HP 1.8) that went from 69% in 2014 to
59% in 2018 for large farms, from 34% in 2014 to 28%
in 2018 for medium farms and from 19% in 2014 to 13%
in 2018 for small farms.

Additionally, the data shows that some indicators arestill low in scoring with minimal improvement, withsome declining slightly. Indicators such as Minimum
wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.11)
for large farms went from 57% in 2014 to 58% in
2018; Erosion prevention (CG-SR 1.4) for large farms
went from 51% in 2014 to 55% in 2018; and Employer
contributes to cost of healthcare for all temporary
workers (SR-WC 3.5) for medium farms went from 47%
in 2014 to 44% in 2018.
The largest improvements in performance weremade around indicators in the environmental
management and monitoring category. Amongthe indicators, the is an observed increase in the“improvement of tracking programs” (CG-EM 2.1)
where in large farms went from 40% in 2014 to 59% in
2018, and in medium farms from 37% in 2014 to 62%
in 2018. There was also an improvement in the useof personal protective equipment (SR-WC 4.2), which
went from 81% in 2014 to 87% in 2018 for large farms,
and 72% in 2014 to 83% in 2018 for medium farms.
Additionally, PSOs showed improvements aroundtraining programs on climate change (PS-CC 1.2) from
36% in 2014 to 56% in 2018.
By subject area, environmental responsibility KPIs
was the area with the lowest performance acrossparticipants in all regions. Economic accountability
KPIs showed the best performance.
In general, all farm sizes improved theirperformance against KPIs. Large farms increased
from 81% in 2014 to 84% in 2018, medium farms
increased from 76% in 2014 to 79% in 2018 andsmall farms increased from 80% in 2014 to 81%
in 2018. Even though this is a small increase, theincrease occurred in the context of significant
growth in smallholder participation.

Photo: Jarod Trow, Starbucks

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FY 2014 –2018 // 51

conservation.org
52 //COUNTRYDASHBOARDS
I1I

CD-2

REGIONSSTRUCTURE OF
THE COUNTRYDASHBOARDS// Program participation
Description of C.A.F.E.
Practices participant
entities and land area inthe program in the period
2014-2018// Farm level data
Detailed farm information
related to womenparticipation, food security,
rust incidence and coffee
yield for C.A.F.E. Practices
program participants in the
period 2014-2018.
// C.A.F.E. Practices
general performance
Performance of C.A.F.E.
Practices supply chainsin the period 2014-2018,
including approval status,
scoring, and average
performance of KPIs.
// Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs)
Detailed tables showing KPI
compliance for 2018 and the% change compared to 2014
compliance. This is shown
as +/- x% change.
*Based on sampled farms valid in 2015.

NORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA

SOUTH AMERICA// North & Central
America had over 35,000
farms participating in the
C.A.F.E. Practices programin 2018, representing 8%of the global number offarms. From total farms in
the region, 95.7% were
small, 3.1% medium and 1.1%
large farms. The numberof participant farms in the
program has grown 32% in
the period 2014–2018.

// South America hadover 128,000 farms
participating in the C.A.F.E.
Practices program in 2018,
which corresponds to 28%of the global number offarms. 94.8% of the farms
are small, while 3.7% aremedium and 1.5% arelarge farms. The numberof participant farms in the
program has grown 93%
in the period 2014–2018.
It showed an increase of
97% in the number of small,
43% of medium farms andan increase of 37% in large
farms participating in the
program.

// Total area in the
program in North & Central
America in 2015 was near
306,000 hectares (13% of
the global area), showing
an increase of 44% in the
period 2014–2018. 60%of the total area under
the program in 2018
corresponds to coffee areaand nearly 16% is dedicatedto conservation. The
average size of farms forNorth and Central America
was 5.3 hectares in 2018.
The average yield in 2018
was 2,361 lbs/ha.

// North & Central
America had 473
supply chains in 2018,
corresponding to 53%
of the global number ofsupply chains. Of those
supply chains, in 2018,
97.3% were Strategic,
2.3% were Preferred, 0.4%
were Non-Complaint and
0% were Verified supply
chains. This region leads interms of better complianceof supply chains and lower
rate of non-complianceacross the entire suite ofindicators in the C.A.F.E.
Practices program.
// In terms of scoring,North & Central America
had an average total scoreof 93% in 2018, with scoringof 94% in Strategic supply
chains and over 75% in
Preferred supply chains.
// North & Central
America country
dashboards offer asnapshot of Costa Rica,
Guatemala, Mexico,
Honduras and Nicaragua
to show participation andperformance highlights.

// Total area in the
program in South America
in 2018 was nearly 550,000
hectares (65% of the globalarea). Of that area, 53% isdedicated to coffee andnearly 10.9% is dedicatedto conservation. Total area
under the program has
grown 87% in the period
2014–2018. In 2018, theaverage size of farms
for South America was
6.4 hectares of coffee
production area. The
average yield in 2018 was
3,408 lbs/ha.

// South America’schanges in participation
are driven by Colombia’s
growth in the number offarms (+118%).
// South America had
239 supply chains in 2018,
corresponding to 27%of the global number ofsupply chains. Of those
supply chains, in 2018, 73%
were Strategic, 27% werePreferred and 0% Verified// In terms of scoring,South America had an
average total score of 83%
in 2018, with 86% score in
Strategic supply chains and
74% in Preferred ones.
// South America
country dashboards offer
a snapshot of Colombia,
Brazil and Peru toshow participation andperformance highlights.

I2I

CD-2

REGIONSAFRICA// Africa had nearly
211,000 farms participatingin the C.A.F.E. Practices
program in 2018, whichcorresponded to 45.7%of the global farms. It is
important to highlight thatover 99.9% are small farms.
Total area in the programin Africa in 2018 was over
382,000 hectares (16% of
the global area), while 41%of that area is dedicatedto coffee and near 4.2% isdedicated to conservation.
// Total area has
grown 580% in the
period 2014–2018 of theparticipating countries
adding more farms during
the period. In 2018, theaverage size of farms for
Africa was 0.74 hectares ofcoffee production area on
average, the smallest sizeof all regions. The average
yield in 2018 was 1,263 lbs/
ha. Uganda returned to theprogram in 2017.

ASIA// Africa had 103
supply chains in 2018,
representing 12% of the
global number of supply
chains. Of those supply
chains, in 2018, 62%
Strategic, while 38%
were Preferred status.
Additionally, it wasobserved that during thisperiod the Strategic statusincreased dramatically in
Africa, from 25% in 2014
to 62% in 2018.
// In terms of scoring,
Africa had an average
total score of 82% in2018, showing an averagescore of 86% in Strategic
supply chains and 74% in
Preferred.
// Africa country
dashboards offer asnapshot of Ethiopia,
Kenya, Rwanda, andTanzania to show
participation andperformance highlights.

// Asia had over 86,700
farms participating in
the C.A.F.E. Practices
program in 2018, which
represented 19% of the
global farms. It is importantto highlight that over 99.7%of the participating farms
correspond to smallholders.
// Total area in the
program in Asia in 2018
was over 159,000 hectares,
representing 7% of the
global area. 93.2% of that
total area is dedicatedto coffee and 1.3% isdedicated to conservation.
In 2018, the average sizeof farms for Asia was
1.7 hectares of coffee
production. The average
yield for 2018 was 1,854
lbs/ha.

// Asia presented 72
supply chains in 2018. It
represents 8% of the global
number of supply chains.
Of those supply chains, in
2018, 64% were Strategic,
36% were Preferred and
0% Verified.
// In terms of scoring,
Asia had an average total
score of 84% in 2018,
showing scoring of 90% in
Strategic supply chains and
72% in Preferred ones.
// Asia country
dashboards offer asnapshot of China,
Indonesia, Papua New
Guinea, and Vietnam toshow participation andperformance highlights.

// Asia presented anincrement of 42% in
the number of farms
participating and a growthof 65% in total area under
the program in the period
2014–2018.

I 3I I3 I

CD-2

COSTA RICANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

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

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

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS*

15%

15%

14%

17%

17%

* Figures are based on sampled farms

I4I

CD-2

COSTA RICANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

FOOD SECURITY*
No food security issues
88%

No food security issues
78%

No food security issues
53%

No food security issues
68%

No food security issues
74%

Food security issues
12%# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4
No response rate (23%)

Food security issues
22%# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4
No response rate (23%)

Food security issues
47%# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4
No response rate (45%)

Food security issues
32%# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4
No response rate (29%)

Food security issues
26%# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4
No response rate (33%)

RUST INCIDENCE*
No Rust incidence

No Rust incidence

No Rust incidence

No Rust incidence

No Rust incidence

Food security issues
Rust
incidence
Costa
Rica

6%

5%

6%

Rust incidence
Rust incidence
94%
95%
94%
■ >10% (68%) ■ <10% (26%)■ >10% (70%) ■ <10% (25%)■ >10% (44%) ■ <10% (51%)# ofresponsemonths: rate (80%)# ofresponsemonths: rate (69%)# ofresponsemonths: rate (82%)
No
No
No■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
AVERAGEYIELD
C.A.F.E. PRACTICES(LBSrate
GREEN*No response(x%) COFFEE/HA)**No response rate (x%)*No response
rateIN
(23%)

10%

11%

Rust incidence

Rust incidence

90%■ >10% (22%) ■ <10% (68%)# ofresponsemonths: rate (11%)
No■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
*No response rate (x%)

89%
■ >10% (15%) ■ <10% (74%)# ofresponsemonths: rate (8%)
No
■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
*No response rate (x%)

12,000

Rust Incidence
10,000
Costa rica
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Costa Rican Global yield range
averagen North & Central
yield
America yield range● Average
yield
Average yield in
C.A.F.E. Practices
costa rica

* Figures are based on sampled farms

n Globaln North & Central
America● Average yieldn Globaln North & Central
America● Average yieldn GlobalnN orth & Central
America● Average yieldn GlobalnN orth & Central
America● Average yield

I5I

CD-2

COSTA RICANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS** Figures are based on sampled farms

100%
80%
60%
40%
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
0
100%

80%

60%
Global
n
n
40%n

20%

Costa Ricannn

Large Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

Globalnnn

Costa Ricannn

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSOs performance

I6I

CD-2

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

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources

2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–FARM SIZELARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

100

0

100

3

99

1

Receipt includes data product (EA-IS 1.4)

100

0

100

3

99

1

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP 1.1)

100

0

88

-7

80

-20

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.2)

100

0

91

-3

98

-1

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

89

-11

74

-11

81

-8

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

69

-22

37

-53

21

-76

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers(SR-HP 1.11)

100

0

83

17

96

53

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

96

-4

100

0

100

0

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

95

-5

100

0

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

92

-8

81

-8

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

87

-13

76

6

N/A

N/A

Use of Personal protective equipment (SR-WC 4.2)

96

-4

100

13

95

18

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR 1.1)

96

-4

98

-2

91

-5

Protecting soil
resources

Erosion prevention (CG-SR 1.4)

78

19

92

13

92

18

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR 2.10)

93

1

67

-3

N/A

N/A

Conserving
biodiversity

No forest conversion (CG-CB 3.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

96

5

72

-11

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Improvement tracking program (CG-EM 2.1)
Environmental
Pruning program for long term productivity
management
and monitoring (CG-EM 3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM 3.2)

85

10

65

5

N/A

N/A

100

0

100

0

100

0

87

-13

71

-29

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity
I7I

CD-2

COSTA RICANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //SECTIONS OFTHE
SCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources
Waste
management

Energy use

WET MILLS
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–MILLSDRY MILLS

WET/ DRY MILLS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

100

N/A

100

0

100

0

Receipt includes data (EA-IS 1.4)

100

N/A

100

0

100

0

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP 1.1)

100

N/A

100

0

100

0

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.2)

100

N/A

100

0

100

0

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

100

N/A

100

0

100

0

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

100

N/A

100

0

100

0

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers(SR-HP 1.11)

100

N/A

100

0

78

1

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

100

N/A

100

0

93

-1

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

N/A

100

0

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

N/A

100

0

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

100

N/A

100

0

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

100

N/A

100

0

100

0

Use of Personal protective equipment/PEE(SR-WC 4.2)

100

N/A

100

0

100

18

Wastewater management (CP-WC 2.1)

100

N/A

N/A

N/A

100

12

Processing waste does not contaminate local
environment (CP-WM 1.1)

100

N/A

N/A

N/A

100

6

Insufficient
data

N/A

N/A

N/A

100

0

100

N/A

N/A

N/A

100

0

Composting byproduct (CP-WM 1.2)
Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee
during processing (CP-EC 1.4)

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I8I

CD-2

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

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

PSOs
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–PSOs

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Product Tracking systems all entities (PS-MT 1.1)

100

0

C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT 1.2)1000Receipts for farmers (PS-MT 1.3)

100

0Hiring practices for PSOs (PS-HP 1.1)75

0Maintaining soil productivity—soil plan includes soil analysis (PS-SR 2.1)

94

-6

Maintaining soil productivity—implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR 2.3)

100

17

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM 1.1)

1000Trains 30% on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM 1.4)

94

2

Trains 30% on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM 1.5)

94

2

Annual meeting and Written management plan (PS-EM 2.5)1000Training materials (PS-EM 2.6)

94

2

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM 2.6 (PS-EM 2.8)

94

10

PSO trained 50% of producers (PS-EM 2.9)

81

6

Training program on climate change (PS-CC 1.2)

50

25

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I9I

CD-2

GUATEMALANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

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

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

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS*

13%

12%

12%

13%

10%

* Figures are based on sampled farms

I 10 I

CD-2

GUATEMALANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

FOOD SECURITY*
No food security issues
65%

No food security issues
78%

No food security issues
82%

No food security issues
84%

No food security issues

Food security issues
35%

Food security issues
22%

Food security issues
18%

Food security issues
16%

Food security issues
7%# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5*No response rate (33%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5*No response rate (33%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5*No response rate (27%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5*No response rate (29%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5*No response rate (29%)

RUST INCIDENCE*
Food security issues
No Rust incidence
Guatemala14%

No Rust incidence
15%

No Rust incidence
8%

No Rust incidence
9%

No Rust incidence
14%

Rust incidence# of months:
86%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (25%) ■ <10% (60%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (79%)*No response rate (23%)

Rust incidence# of months:
85%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (31%) ■ <10% (54%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (61%)*No response rate (x%)

Rust incidence# of months:
92%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (39%) ■ <10% (53%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (13%)*No response rate (x%)

Rust incidence# of months:
91%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (43%) ■ <10% (49%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (2%)
*No response rate (x%)

Rust incidence# of months:
86%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (32%) ■ <10% (54%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (2%)
*No response rate (x%)

93%

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)*
12,00010,000
Rust
Incidence
Guatemala
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Guatemalan Global yield range
averagen North & Central
yield
America yield range
Average yield ●in Average
C.A.F.E. Practices
yield
Guatemalan 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

I 11 I

CD-2

GUATEMALANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS** Figures are based on sampled farms

100%
80%
60%
40%

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dry

n PSO

20%

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
0
100%

80%

60%
Globalnnn40%

GuatemalannnLarge Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

GlobalnnnGuatemalannn

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSOs performance20%
I 12 I

CD-2

GUATEMALANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–FARM SIZELARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

100

0

92

-8

96

4

Receipt includes data product (EA-IS 1.4)

100

0

92

-8

92

0

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP 1.1)

99

-1

100

0

100

0

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.2)

99

-1

100

0

99

-1

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

78

-6

68

28

67

47

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

55

-35

9

9

33

-7

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers(SR-HP 1.11)

25

-16

44

-3

87

4

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

100

0

92

-8

100

1

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

98

-1

94

-6

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

98

16

71

-29

N/A

N/A

Use of Personal protective equipment (SR-WC 4.2)

92

4

73

3

85

25

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR 1.1)

98

0

89

5

84

-2

Protecting soil
resources

Erosion prevention (CG-SR 1.4)

98

1

97

3

95

-5

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR 2.10)

92

14

63

23

N/A

N/A

Conserving
biodiversity

No forest conversion (CG-CB 3.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

76

4

59

5

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

99

-1

100

0

99

-1

Improvement tracking program (CG-EM 2.1)
Environmental
Pruning program for long term productivity
management
and monitoring (CG-EM 3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM 3.2)

97

20

90

-10

N/A

N/A

99

2

100

20

98

1

95

3

94

7

N/A

N/A

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity
I 13 I

CD-2

GUATEMALANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //SECTIONS OFTHE
SCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions
Protecting
water
resources

WET MILLS
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–MILLSDRY MILLS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

100

0

100

0

Receipt includes data (EA-IS 1.4)

99

-1

100

0

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP 1.1)

100

0

100

0

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP 1.2)

100

0

100

0

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

83

1

95

-5

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

59

-12

56

-4

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.11)

33

1

41

-9

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

98

-2

95

-5

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

0

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

100

0

79

-21

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

99

22

71

-9

Use of Personal protective equipment/PEE (SR-WC 4.2)

96

12

95

-5

Wastewater management (CP-WC 2.1)

98

4

N/A

N/A

Waste
management

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment (CP-WM 1.1)

99

3

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct (CP-WM 1.2)

100

2

N/A

N/A

Energy use

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during processing (CP-EC 1.4)

100

0

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 14 I

CD-2

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

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

PSOs
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–PSOs

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Product Tracking systems all entities (PS-MT 1.1)

98

-2

C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT 1.2)1000Receipts for farmers (PS-MT 1.3)

98

-2

Hiring practices for PSOs (PS-HP 1.1)

72

-28

Maintaining soil productivity—soil plan includes soil analysis (PS-SR 2.1)

74

-17

Maintaining soil productivity—implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR 2.3)

54

12

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM 1.1)

1000Trains 30% on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM 1.4)

85

27

Trains 30% on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM 1.5)

85

27

Annual meeting and Written management plan (PS-EM 2.5)83

0Training materials (PS-EM 2.6)

91

0

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM 2.6 (PS-EM 2.8)

81

-11

PSO trained 50% of producers (PS-EM 2.9)

55

-28

Training program on climate change (PS-CC 1.2)

49

16

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 15 I

CD-2

HONDURAS

NORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

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

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

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS*

13%

12%

15%

14%

13%

* Figures are based on sampled farms

I 16 I

CD-2

HONDURAS

NORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

FOOD SECURITY*
No food security issues
61%

No food security issues
69%

No food security issues
79%

No food security issues
81%

No food security issues
80%

Food security issues
39%

Food security issues
31%

Food security issues
21%

Food security issues
19%

Food security issues
20%# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5*No response rate (12%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5*No response rate (16%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5*No response rate (23%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5*No response rate (25%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5*No response rate (19%)

RUST INCIDENCE*
Food
issuesNo
Rustsecurity
incidence
12%
Honduras

No Rust incidence
17%

No Rust incidence
33%

Rust incidence
Rust incidence
Rust incidence
88%
83%# of months:# of months:# of months: 67%
■
>10%
(58%)
■
<10%
(31%)
■
>10%
(42%)
■
<10%
(42%)
■
>10%
■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 1 ■(18%)
2 ■■3 <10%
■ 4 (49%)
■5
No
(69%)
No
No■response(11%)■ response
6 ■ 7 ■ rate
8 ■(32%)9 ■ 106 ■ 7 ■rate
8 ■9 ■ 10■ 6response■ 7 ■ 8rate■9■ 10*No response rate (23%)*No response rate (x%)*No response rate (x%)
AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)*

No Rust incidence
31%

No Rust incidence
27%

Rust incidence# of months: 69%■ >10%■ 3<10%■ 1 (14%)■2 ■■ 4(55%)■5No ■responserate
6 ■7 ■
8 (4%)■ 9 ■ 10
*No response rate (x%)

Rust incidence# of months: 73%■ >10%■ 1 (13%)■ 2 ■■<10%
3 ■(60%)4 ■5No response■ 6 ■ 7 rate
■ 8(0%)■ 9 ■ 10
*No response rate (x%)

12,00010,000
Rust Incidence
Honduras
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Hondurasn Global yield range
averagen North & Central
yield
America yield range● Average
yield
Average yield in
C.A.F.E. Practices
Hondurasn 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

I 17 I

CD-2

HONDURAS

NORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS** Figures are based on sampled farms

100%
80%
60%
40%

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dry

n PSO

20%

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
100%
0

80%

60%
Globalnnn
40%

HondurasnnnLarge Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

Globalnnn

Hondurasnnn

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSOs performance20%
I 18 I

CD-2

HONDURAS

NORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–FARM SIZELARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

100

0

100

0

99

-1

Receipt includes data product (EA-IS 1.4)

100

0

100

0

99

-1

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP 1.1)

100

0

100

0

100

100

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.2)

100

0

100

3

98

-1

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

67

67

50

17

100

100

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

0

0

67

3

83

17

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers(SR-HP 1.11)

57

7

90

1

94

-2

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

86

-14

100

3

100

0

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

100

0

67

-33

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

86

-14

61

-26

N/A

N/A

Use of Personal protective equipment (SR-WC 4.2)

86

-14

96

4

94

4

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR 1.1)

100

33

100

4

94

2

Erosion prevention (CG-SR 1.4)

67

67

76

66

74

39

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR 2.10)

14

-11

15

0

N/A

N/A

No forest conversion (CG-CB 3.1)

100

0

100

0

100

1

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

57

57

40

-2

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Improvement tracking program (CG-EM 2.1)
Environmental
Pruning program for long term productivity
management
and monitoring (CG-EM 3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM 3.2)

71

21

87

59

N/A

N/A

100

0

98

3

99

4

86

11

93

-1

N/A

N/A

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources
Protecting soil
resources
Conserving
biodiversity

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have a greater decrease in performancen Indicators that have a greater increase in performance
I 19 I

CD-2

HONDURAS

NORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //SECTIONS OFTHE
SCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources

WET MILLS
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–MILLSDRY MILLS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

100

0

100

0

Receipt includes data (EA-IS 1.4)

100

0

100

0

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP 1.1)

92

-8

93

-7

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP 1.2)

98

1

87

-13

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

85

18

100

0

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

48

-14

92

-8

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.11)

79

0

43

-7

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

98

4

87

-13

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0
Insufficientdata

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

1000Insufficient
data

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

83

-17

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

67

-16

80

-20

Use of Personal protective equipment/PEE (SR-WC 4.2)

88

0

73

-27

Wastewater management (CP-WC 2.1)

100

3

N/A

N/A

Waste
management

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment (CP-WM 1.1)

100

0

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct (CP-WM 1.2)

97

-3

N/A

N/A

Energy use

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during processing (CP-EC 1.4)

86

-14

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 20 I

CD-2

HONDURAS

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

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

PSOs
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–PSOs

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Product Tracking systems all entities (PS-MT 1.1)

100

0

C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT 1.2)1000Receipts for farmers (PS-MT 1.3)

100

0Hiring practices for PSOs (PS-HP 1.1)

78

-11

Maintaining soil productivity—soil plan includes soil analysis (PS-SR 2.1)

93

-7

Maintaining soil productivity—implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR 2.3)

33

0

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM 1.1)

1000Trains 30% on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM 1.4)

77

-6

Trains 30% on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM 1.5)

48

-38

Annual meeting and Written management plan (PS-EM 2.5)

26

4

Training materials (PS-EM 2.6)

67

0

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM 2.6 (PS-EM 2.8)

52

-48

PSO trained 50% of producers (PS-EM 2.9)

41

-37

Training program on climate change (PS-CC 1.2)

33

11

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 21 I

CD-2

MEXICONORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

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

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

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS*

18%

18%

23%

22%

23%

* Figures are based on sampled farms

I 22 I

CD-2

MEXICONORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

FOOD SECURITY*
No food security issues
42%

No food security issues
29%

No food security issues
15%

No food security issues
19%

No food security issues
13%

Food security issues
58%

Food security issues
71%

Food security issues

Food security issues

Food security issues# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10 ■ 11 ■ 12
No response rate (3%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10 ■ 11 ■ 12
No response rate (7%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10 ■ 11 ■ 12
No response rate (5%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10 ■ 11 ■ 12
No response rate (6%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10 ■ 11 ■ 12
No response rate (5%)

Food security
issuesRUST
INCIDENCE*
MexicoNo
Rust incidence30%

No Rust incidence
17%

No Rust incidence
4%

No Rust incidence
6%

No Rust incidence
6%# of months:
Rust
incidence■5■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 470%
■ >10%
6 ■ 7(56%)
■8 ■
■<10%
9 ■ (13%)
10■*Noresponse
responseraterate(76%)(23%)
No# of months:
Rust
incidence■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■83%
5
■ >10%
6 ■ 7(73%)■ 8 ■■<10%
9 ■ (10%)
10■*Noresponse
responseraterate(62%)(x%)
No# of months:
Rust
incidence■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 96%■ >10%
6 ■ 7(92%)■ 8 ■■<10%
9 ■ (4%)10■*Noresponse
responseraterate(0%)(x%)
No# of months:
Rust
incidence■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 94%■ >10%
6 ■ 7(80%)■ 8 ■■<10%
9 ■ (14%)
10■*Noresponse
responseraterate(0%)(x%)
No# of incidencemonths:Rust■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 594%
■ >10%
6 ■ 7(61%)■ 8 ■■<10%
9 ■(32%)
10■*Noresponse
responseraterate(0%)
(x%)
No

85%

81%

87%

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)*
12,000

Rust Incidence
10,000
Mexico
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Mexicon Global yield range
averagen North & Central
yield
America yield range● Average
yield
Average yield in
C.A.F.E. Practices
Mexicon 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

I 23 I

CD-2

MEXICONORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS*
100%* Figures are based on sampled farms

80%
60%
40%

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dry

n PSO

20%
AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL

100%
0

80%

60%

40%
Globalnnn
20%

MexiconnnLarge Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

Globalnnn

Mexiconnn

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSOs performance
I 24 I

CD-2

MEXICONORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD

2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–FARM SIZELARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

67

-33

53

-47

45

-8

Receipt includes data product (EA-IS 1.4)

78

-22

63

-37

50

-2

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP 1.1)

100

0

100

100

100

0

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.2)

100

0

89

-11

100

0

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

56

56

0

Insufficient
data

0

0

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

0Insufficient
data

0

0

1

-3

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers(SR-HP 1.11)

100

0

89

-11

100

0

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

100

0

100

100

100

0

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

89

-11

89

89

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

89

-11

74

74

N/A

N/A

Use of Personal protective equipment (SR-WC 4.2)

89

89

94

94

61

-6

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR 1.1)

100

0

45

-5

70

6

Protecting soil
resources

Erosion prevention (CG-SR 1.4)

100

0

94

94

98

-1

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR 2.10)

67

-33

26

26

N/A

N/A

Conserving
biodiversity

No forest conversion (CG-CB 3.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

89

-11

37

37

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Improvement tracking program (CG-EM 2.1)

89

89

89

89

N/A

N/A

100

0

100

0

94

14

78

78

100

33

N/A

N/A

Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources

Environmental
Pruning program for long term productivity
management
and monitoring (CG-EM 3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM 3.2)

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 25 I

CD-2

MEXICONORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //SECTIONS OFTHE
SCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources

WET MILLS
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–MILLSDRY MILLS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

55

-45

100

0

Receipt includes data (EA-IS 1.4)

64

-36

100

0

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP 1.1)

100

100

100

0

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP 1.2)

95

-5

100

0

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

78

78

83

-17

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

80

80

83

-17

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.11)

95

-5

100

0

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

95

95

67

-17

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0
Insufficient
data
-33

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

1000Insufficient
data

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

78

78

67

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

77

77

67

-33

Use of Personal protective equipment/PEE (SR-WC 4.2)

84

84

50

-50

Wastewater management (CP-WC 2.1)

64

-36

N/A

N/A

Waste
management

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment (CP-WM 1.1)

82

-18

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct (CP-WM 1.2)

86

86

N/A

N/A

Energy use

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during processing (CP-EC 1.4)

100

100

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 26 I

CD-2

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

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

PSOs
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–PSOs

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Product Tracking systems all entities (PS-MT 1.1)

100

0

C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT 1.2)

93

-7

Receipts for farmers (PS-MT 1.3)

100

0Hiring practices for PSOs (PS-HP 1.1)

93

50

Maintaining soil productivity—soil plan includes soil analysis (PS-SR 2.1)

64

-21

Maintaining soil productivity—implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR 2.3)

39

-61

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM 1.1)

1000Trains 30% on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM 1.4)

95

-5Trains 30% on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM 1.5)

91

91

Annual meeting and Written management plan (PS-EM 2.5)

43

-43

Training materials (PS-EM 2.6)

86

43

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM 2.6 (PS-EM 2.8)

79

36

PSO trained 50% of producers (PS-EM 2.9)

61

32

Training program on climate change (PS-CC 1.2)

39

-4

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 27 I

CD-2

NICARAGUANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

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

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

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS*

14%

14%

14%

15%

14%

* Figures are based on sampled farms

I 28 I

CD-2

NICARAGUANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

FOOD SECURITY*
No food security issues
51%

No food security issues
66%

No food security issues
71%

No food security issues
80%

No food security issues
84%

Food security issues
49%

Food security issues
34%

Food security issues
29%

Food security issues
20%

Food security issues
16%# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6*No response rate (41%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6*No response rate (47%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6*No response rate (50%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6*No response rate (49%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6*No response rate (51%)

RUST INCIDENCE*
Food security issues
No Rust incidence
Nicaragua
22%

No Rust incidence
23%

No Rust incidence
24%

No Rust incidence
24%

No Rust incidence
24%

Rust incidence# of months:
78%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (45%) ■ <10% (33%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (68%)*No response rate (23%)

Rust incidence# of months:
77%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (39%) ■ <10% (38%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (37%)*No response rate (x%)

Rust incidence# of months:
76%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (29%) ■ <10% (47%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (20%)*No response rate (x%)

Rust incidence# of months:
76%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (20%) ■ <10% (56%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (8%)*No response rate (x%)

Rust incidence# of months:
76%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (15%) ■ <10% (62%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (0%)*No response rate (x%)

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)*
12,00010,000
Rust Incidence
Nicaragua
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Nicaraguan Global yield range
averagen North & Central
yield
America yield range● Average
yield
Average yield in
C.A.F.E. Practices
Nicaraguan 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

I 29 I

CD-2

NICARAGUANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS** Figures are based on sampled farms

100%
80%
60%
40%

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dry

n PSO

20%

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
0
100%

80%

60%
Globalnn
40%n

NicaraguannnLarge Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

GlobalnnnNicaraguannn

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSOs performance20%
I 30 I

CD-2

NICARAGUANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources
Protecting soil
resources

2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–FARM SIZELARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

100

0

96

-3

92

-6

Receipt includes data product (EA-IS 1.4)

96

-2

96

-3

92

-6

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP 1.1)

100

0

99

-1

100

0

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.2)

100

0

100

0

99

3

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

93

0

77

-8

74

2

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

87

-13

84

-9

67

-31

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers(SR-HP 1.11)

84

-5

94

23

96

27

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

96

-4

97

-2

100

0

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

2

100

0

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

99

4

95

2

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

93

0

89

-2

N/A

N/A

Use of Personal protective equipment (SR-WC 4.2)

93

0

96

5

96

9

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR 1.1)

96

-2

92

9

89

-4

Erosion prevention (CG-SR 1.4)

83

-14

86

-8

89

-5

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR 2.10)

84

25

65

42

N/A

N/A

No forest conversion (CG-CB 3.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

84

-11

72

-6

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

98

-2

100

0

100

1

Improvement tracking program (CG-EM 2.1)
Environmental
Pruning program for long term productivity
management
and monitoring (CG-EM 3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM 3.2)

97

3

94

-5

N/A

N/A

99

11

97

5

100

11

100

29

95

14

N/A

N/A

Conserving
biodiversity

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity
I 31 I

CD-2

NICARAGUANORTH & CENTRAL AMERICA //SECTIONS OFTHE
SCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions
Protecting
water
resources

WET MILLS
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–MILLSDRY MILLS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

97

-3

100

0

Receipt includes data (EA-IS 1.4)

95

-4

100

0

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP 1.1)

99

-1

100

0

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP 1.2)

100

0

100

0

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

85

-8

100

9

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

82

-16

100

0

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.11)

91

9

93

39

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

94

-5

100

0

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

0

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

97

2

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

92

9

100

9

Use of Personal protective equipment/PEE (SR-WC 4.2)

95

20

100

22

Wastewater management (CP-WC 2.1)

97

3

N/A

N/A

Waste
management

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment (CP-WM 1.1)

97

-1

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct (CP-WM 1.2)

99

-1

N/A

N/A

Energy use

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during processing (CP-EC 1.4)

78

-22

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 32 I

CD-2

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

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

PSOs
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–PSOs

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Product Tracking systems all entities (PS-MT 1.1)

100

0

C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT 1.2)1000Receipts for farmers (PS-MT 1.3)

100

0Hiring practices for PSOs (PS-HP 1.1)

100

0Maintaining soil productivity—soil plan includes soil analysis (PS-SR 2.1)

97

6

Maintaining soil productivity—implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR 2.3)

95

34

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM 1.1)

1000Trains 30% on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM 1.4)

100

0Trains 30% on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM 1.5)

92

-8

Annual meeting and Written management plan (PS-EM 2.5)

95

-1

Training materials (PS-EM 2.6)

100

0

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM 2.6 (PS-EM 2.8)

100

0

PSO trained 50% of producers (PS-EM 2.9)

100

4Training program on climate change (PS-CC 1.2)

74

53

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 33 I

CD-2

BRAZIL

SOUTH AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

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

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

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS*

8%

8%

9%

9%

8%

* Figures are based on sampled farms

I 34 I

CD-2

BRAZIL

SOUTH AMERICA //

2014

2015

FOOD SECURITY*
No food security issues

No food security issues
100%

100%

# ofresponsemonths: rate (38%)
No■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
*No response rate (23%)

No Rust incidence

201 7

100%

# ofresponsemonths: rate (36%)
No■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
*No response rate (x%)

No Rust incidence

No food security issues

100%# ofresponsemonths: rate (2%)
No
■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
*No response rate (x%)

100%

100%
No response rate (81%)

No response rate (79%)

100%

201 8

No food security issues

No food security issues
100%

No response rate (98%)

No response rate (97%)

RUST INCIDENCE*
Food security issues
No Rust incidence
Brazil2016

No Rust incidence

No response rate (81%)

100%# ofresponsemonths: rate (1%)
No
■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
*No response rate (x%)

No Rust incidence

100%# ofresponsemonths: rate (0%)
No
■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
*No response rate (x%)

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)*
12,00010,000
Rust Incidence
Brazil
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Braziln Global yield range
averagen South America
yield
yield range● Average
yield
Average yield in
C.A.F.E. Practices
Braziln 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

I 35 I

CD-2

BRAZIL

SOUTH AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategic n Verified
n Preferredn Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS*n Strategicn Preferredn Verified* Figures are based on sampled farms

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%

Total n Economic Accountability n Social Responsibility n Coffee Growing
0
AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBALn Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dry

n PSO

100%

80%

60%

40%
Globalnn
20%n

BrazilnnnLarge Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

GlobalnnnBrazilnnn

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSOs performance

I 36 I

CD-2

BRAZIL

SOUTH AMERICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources

2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–FARM SIZELARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

87

4

91

22

88

18

Receipt includes data product (EA-IS 1.4)

87

4

90

21

88

18

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP 1.1)

100

8

100

14

100

14

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.2)

100

13

100

51

100

0

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

95

18

96

21

100

14

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

89

7

60

17

15

-3

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers(SR-HP 1.11)

32

18

25

17

38

32

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

69

-5

68

6

100

5

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

91

0

94

8

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

87

4

59

17

N/A

N/A

Use of Personal protective equipment (SR-WC 4.2)

85

1

87

7

91

12

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR 1.1)

98

1

98

0

99

27

Protecting soil
resources

Erosion prevention (CG-SR 1.4)

10

7

4

0

10

-7

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR 2.10)

65

11

36

13

N/A

N/A

Conserving
biodiversity

No forest conversion (CG-CB 3.1)

100

1

100

0

100

0

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

88

-5

84

1

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

99

1

100

8

100

6

Improvement tracking program (CG-EM 2.1)
Environmental
Pruning program for long term productivity
management
and monitoring (CG-EM 3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM 3.2)

5

1

2

1

N/A

N/A

42

25

40

29

31

28

57

22

51

29

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity
I 37 I

CD-2

BRAZIL

SOUTH AMERICA //SECTIONS OFTHE
SCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources
Waste
management
Energy use

WET MILLS
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–MILLSDRY MILLS

WET/ DRY MILLS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

100

41

86

-3

92

13

Receipt includes data (EA-IS 1.4)

100

41

86

-3

92

13

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP 1.1)

100

100

100

0

100

100

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.2)

100

38

100

5

100

6

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

83

83

100

0

98

-2

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

91

45

95

11

98

17

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers(SR-HP 1.11)

50

19

46

7

42

3

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

53

-24

80

-5

70

-5

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

100

100

89

-8

72

-28

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

92

30

93

-2

95

2

Use of Personal protective equipment/PEE(SR-WC 4.2)

67

-10

90

0

88

2

Wastewater management (CP-WC 2.1)

80

-14

N/A

N/A

79

3

Processing waste does not contaminate local
environment (CP-WM 1.1)

100

0

N/A

N/A

94

14

Composting byproduct (CP-WM 1.2)

100

0

N/A

N/A

96

-2

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee
during processing (CP-EC 1.4)

100

50

N/A

N/A

97

0

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 38 I

CD-2

BRAZIL

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

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

PSOs
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–PSOs

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Product Tracking systems all entities (PS-MT 1.1)

100

0

C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT 1.2)1000Receipts for farmers (PS-MT 1.3)

100

0Hiring practices for PSOs (PS-HP 1.1)

80

47

Maintaining soil productivity—soil plan includes soil analysis (PS-SR 2.1)

40

-27

Maintaining soil productivity—implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR 2.3)

40

7

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM 1.1)

1000Trains 30% on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM 1.4)

80

13Trains 30% on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM 1.5)80

13Annual meeting and Written management plan (PS-EM 2.5)4040Training materials (PS-EM 2.6)

80

47

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM 2.6 (PS-EM 2.8)

80

47

PSO trained 50% of producers (PS-EM 2.9)8047

Training program on climate change (PS-CC 1.2)

20

20

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 39 I

CD-2

COLOMBIA

SOUTH AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

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

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

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS*

20%

22%

22%

22%

22%

* Figures are based on sampled farms

I 40 I

CD-2

COLOMBIA

SOUTH AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

FOOD SECURITY*
No food security issues
85%

No food security issues
82%

No food security issues
84%

No food security issues
85%

No food security issues
88%

Food security issues
15%

Food security issues
18%

Food security issues
16%

Food security issues
15%

Food security issues
12%# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■6 ■7No response rate (35%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■6 ■7No response rate (30%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■6 ■7No response rate (27%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■6 ■7No response rate (24%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■6 ■7No response rate (22%)

Food INCIDENCE*
security issues
RUST
Colombia
No
Rust incidence

x50%# of months:
Rust
incidence■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 50%■ >10%
6 ■ 7(13%)■ 8■■<10%
9 ■(37%)
10■*Noresponse
responseraterate(77%)(23%)
No

No Rust incidence

50%# ofincidencemonths:Rust■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 5 50%
6 ■ (17%)7 ■ 8■ <10%■9 ■10■■>10%(32%)*No
response
rate
(x%)
No
response
rate
(43%)

No Rust incidence

53%# ofincidencemonths:Rust■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 547%
6 ■(15%)7 ■■8 <10%■ 9 (33%)
■ 10
■■
>10%
response(x%)
No*No
responseraterate(18%)

No Rust incidence

201 8

58%

No Rust incidence

61%

# of
months:Rust
incidence■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 42%5■6 ■7 ■■8<10%■ 9(30%)■ 10■ >10%(12%)
response
No*No
response
rate rate(10%)(x%)

of months:
Rust#incidence■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■39%5
■ 6 (11%)■7 ■■ <10%
8 ■ (28%)
9 ■ 10■ >10%*No response
rate (x%)
No response
rate (5%)

n Globaln South America● Average yieldn Globaln South America● Average yield

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)*
12,00010,000
Rust Incidence
Colombia
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Colombia

n Global yield range
averagen South America
yield
yield range● Average
yield
Average yield in
C.A.F.E. Practices
Colombian Globaln South America● Average yieldn Globaln South America● Average yield* Figures are based on sampled farms

I 41 I

CD-2

COLOMBIA

SOUTH AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS** Figures are based on sampled farms

100%
80%
60%
40%

Total n Economic Accountability n Social Responsibility n Coffee Growing
20%
AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBALn Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dry

n PSO

0
100%

80%

60%
Global
n
n
n
40%

20%

ColombiannnLarge Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

GlobalnnnColombiannn

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSOs performance

I 42 I

CD-2

COLOMBIA

SOUTH AMERICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources

2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–FARM SIZELARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

97

5

93

-1

83

0

Receipt includes data product (EA-IS 1.4)

97

5

92

-1

83

0

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP 1.1)

100

2

99

1

99

1

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.2)

99

2

99

2

98

1

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

72

-3

55

3

42

10

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

5

3

4

2

1

0

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers(SR-HP 1.11)

95

6

98

7

97

8

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

97

5

94

4

99

0

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

99

-1

99

-1

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

98

0

99

0

99

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

72

-7

56

-7

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

25

13

14

2

N/A

N/A

Use of Personal protective equipment (SR-WC 4.2)

78

9

72

17

66

23

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR 1.1)

97

-1

96

-1

93

4

Protecting soil
resources

Erosion prevention (CG-SR 1.4)

53

-8

49

-15

47

-16

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR 2.10)

55

17

36

13

N/A

N/A

Conserving
biodiversity

No forest conversion (CG-CB 3.1)

100

0

100

2

100

0

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

72

-5

66

2

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

99

2

99

5

100

2

Improvement tracking program (CG-EM 2.1)
Environmental
Pruning program for long term productivity
management
and monitoring (CG-EM 3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM 3.2)

65

27

60

41

N/A

N/A

100

2

100

4

99

2

99

3

99

1

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity
I 43 I

CD-2

COLOMBIA

SOUTH AMERICA //SECTIONS OFTHE
SCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions
Protecting
water
resources

WET MILLS
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–MILLSDRY MILLS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

94

1

100

0

Receipt includes data (EA-IS 1.4)

94

1

100

0

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP 1.1)

99

-1

100

0

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP 1.2)

100

0

98

-2

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

78

0

100

3

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

8

-7

84

10

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.11)

98

3

64

30

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

94

9

84

-8

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

2

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

75

0

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

21

-9

84

-1

Use of Personal protective equipment/PEE (SR-WC 4.2)

88

15

89

3

Wastewater management (CP-WC 2.1)

78

2

N/A

N/A

Waste
management

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment (CP-WM 1.1)

92

2

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct (CP-WM 1.2)

86

7

N/A

N/A

Energy use

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during processing (CP-EC 1.4)

71

-15

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 44 I

CD-2

COLOMBIA

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

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

PSOs
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–PSOs

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Product Tracking systems all entities (PS-MT 1.1)

100

0

C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT 1.2)1000Receipts for farmers (PS-MT 1.3)

99

-1

Hiring practices for PSOs (PS-HP 1.1)

93

1

Maintaining soil productivity—soil plan includes soil analysis (PS-SR 2.1)

81

-2

Maintaining soil productivity—implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR 2.3)

65

13

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM 1.1)

1000Trains 30% on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM 1.4)

85

-12

Trains 30% on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM 1.5)74

-9Annual meeting and Written management plan (PS-EM 2.5)

92

16

Training materials (PS-EM 2.6)

97

-1

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM 2.6 (PS-EM 2.8)82

2

PSO trained 50% of producers (PS-EM 2.9)

59

-2Training program on climate change (PS-CC 1.2)

74

23

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 45 I

CD-2

PERU

SOUTH AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

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

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

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS*

15%

17%

21%

21%

20%

* Figures are based on sampled farms

I 46 I

CD-2

PERU

SOUTH AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

FOOD SECURITY*
No food security issues
69%

No food security issues
61%

No food security issues
61%

No food security issues
66%

No food security issues
62%

Food security issues
31%

Food security issues
39%

Food security issues
39%

Food security issues
34%

Food security issues
38%# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■6 ■7 ■8 ■9No response rate (7%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■6 ■7 ■8 ■9No response rate (5%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■6 ■7 ■8 ■9No response rate (4%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■6 ■7 ■8 ■9No response rate (5%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■6 ■7 ■8 ■9No response rate (4%)

Food security issues
RUST
Peru INCIDENCE*
No Rust incidence
5%# of months:
Rust incidence■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■595%■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■
>10%
(72%)
■
<10%
(22%)
*No response rate (23%)
No response rate (59%)

No Rust incidence
14%# of months:
Rust incidence■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■586%■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■
>10%
(63%)
■
<10%
(23%)
*No response rate (x%)
No response rate (52%)

No Rust incidence
19%# of months:
Rust incidence■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■581%■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■
>10%
(41%)
■
<10%
(41%)
*No response rate (x%)
No response rate (24%)

No Rust incidence
19%# of months:
Rust incidence■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■581%■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■
>10%
(36%)
■
<10%
*No response rate (x%)(45%)
No response rate (9%)

No Rust incidence
26%# of months:
Rust incidence■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■574%■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■
>10%
(23%)
■
<10%
*No response rate (x%)(51%)
No response rate (0%)

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)*
12,00010,000
Rust Incidence
Peru
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Perun Global yield range
averagen South America
yield
yield range● Average
yield
Average yield in
C.A.F.E. Practices
Perun Globaln South America● Average yieldn Globaln South America● Average yieldn GlobalnS outh America● Average yieldn Globaln South America● Average yield* Figures are based on sampled farms

I 47 I

CD-2

PERU

SOUTH AMERICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS** Figures are based on sampled farms

100%
80%
60%
40%

Total n Economic Accountability n Social Responsibility n Coffee Growing
20%
AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBALn Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dry

n PSO

0
100%

80%

60%
Global
n
n
40%n

Peru
n
n
n

Large Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

Global
n
n
n

Peru
n
n
n

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSOs performance20%
I 48 I

CD-2

PERU

SOUTH AMERICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources
Protecting soil
resources
Conserving
biodiversity

2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–FARM SIZELARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

Compliance% (2018)% Point 2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

100

Insufficient data

94

9

65

-19

Receipt includes data product (EA-IS 1.4)

100

Insufficient data

94

9

65

-19

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP 1.1)

100

Insufficient data

100

0

100

0

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.2)

100

Insufficient data

97

1

100

2

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

100

Insufficient data

67

67

25

0

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

50

Insufficient data

0

-100

13

-81

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary
workers (SR-HP 1.11)

100

Insufficient data

97

5

96

4

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

50

Insufficient data

85

-2

100

3

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

Insufficient data

100

0

100

1

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

Insufficient data

100

0

99

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

100

Insufficient data

100

0

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)0Insufficient data

52

2

N/A

N/A

Use of Personal protective equipment(SR-WC 4.2)

100

Insufficient data

75

50

71

21

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR 1.1)

100

Insufficient data

91

-4

79

10

Erosion prevention (CG-SR 1.4)

100

Insufficient data

27

-28

42

-13

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR 2.10)

0Insufficient data

22

-1

N/A

N/A

No forest conversion (CG-CB 3.1)

100

Insufficient data

100

4

99

1

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

100

Insufficient data

84

15

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

100

Insufficient data

100

0

100

0

0

Insufficient data

75

56

N/A

N/A

100

Insufficient data

97

5

94

0

100

Insufficient data

100

14

N/A

N/A

Improvement tracking program (CG-EM 2.1)
Environmental
Pruning
program for long term productivity
management(CG-EM
3.1)
and monitoring
Renovation program for long term
productivity (CG-EM 3.2)

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity
I 49 I

CD-2

PERU

SOUTH AMERICA //SECTIONS OFTHE
SCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions
Protecting
water
resources

WET MILLS
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–MILLSDRY MILLS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

94

17

96

-4

Receipt includes data (EA-IS 1.4)

91

14

93

1

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP 1.1)

100

0

100

0

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP 1.2)

95

-5

100

0

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

100

0

97

-3

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

10

-90

80

-20

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.11)

95

9

92

26

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

65

3

80

3

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

0

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

100

0

100

8

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

37

-49

64

1

Use of Personal protective equipment/PEE (SR-WC 4.2)

38

4

79

22

Wastewater management (CP-WC 2.1)

86

16

N/A

N/A

Waste
management

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment (CP-WM 1.1)

94

4

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct (CP-WM 1.2)

91

-4

N/A

N/A

Energy use

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during processing (CP-EC 1.4)

100

100

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 50 I

CD-2

PERU

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

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

PSOs
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–PSOs

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Product Tracking systems all entities (PS-MT 1.1)

100

0

C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT 1.2)

98

14

Receipts for farmers (PS-MT 1.3)

100

0Hiring practices for PSOs (PS-HP 1.1)

64

-10

Maintaining soil productivity—soil plan includes soil analysis (PS-SR 2.1)

78

15

Maintaining soil productivity—implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR 2.3)

47

-3

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM 1.1)

1000Trains 30% on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM 1.4)

39

-4

Trains 30% on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM 1.5)

57

3

Annual meeting and Written management plan (PS-EM 2.5)58

-5

Training materials (PS-EM 2.6)

81

8

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM 2.6 (PS-EM 2.8)

69

-5

PSO trained 50% of producers (PS-EM 2.9)

45

-7

Training program on climate change (PS-CC 1.2)

23

-8

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 51 I

CD-2

ETHIOPIA

AFRICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

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

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

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS*

0%

0%

2%

2%

3%

* Figures are based on sampled farms

I 52 I

CD-2

ETHIOPIA

AFRICA //

2014

2015

FOOD SECURITY*
No food security issues

2016

No food security issues
100%

100%

201 7

201 8

No food security issues
71%

No food security issues
73%

No food security issues
80%

Food security issues
0%Food security issues
0%Food security issues
29%

Food security issues
27%

Food security issues
20%# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■6 ■7 ■8 ■9No response rate (50%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■6 ■7 ■8 ■9No response rate (86%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■6 ■7 ■8 ■9No response rate (8%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■6 ■7 ■8 ■9No response rate (11%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■6 ■7 ■8 ■9No response rate (11%)

Food security issues
RUST INCIDENCE*
Ethiopia
No Rust incidence# of months:
Rust
incidence■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■50%■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■ >10% (0%) ■ <10% (0%)*No response rate (23%)
No response rate (71%)

100%

No Rust incidence

100%# of months:
Rust
incidence■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■50%■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■ >10% (0%) ■ <10% (0%)*No response rate (x%)
No response rate (50%)

No Rust incidence

100%# of months:
Rust
incidence■4%
1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■ >10% (0%) ■ <10% (4%)*No response rate (x%)
No response rate (7%)

No Rust incidence

100%# of months:
Rust
incidence■4%
1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■ >10% (0%) ■ <10% (4%)*No response rate (x%)
No response rate (5%)

No Rust incidence

100%# of months:
Rust
incidence■3%
1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■ >10% (0%) ■ <10% (2%)
*No response rate (x%)
No response rate (4%)

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)*
12,00010,000
Rust Incidence
Ethiopia
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Ethiopia

n Global yield range
averagen Africa yield range
yield● Average yield
Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices* Figures are based on sampled farms
Africa template
Ethiopian Globaln Africa● Average yieldn Globaln Africa● Average yieldn Globaln Africa● Average yieldn Globaln Africa● Average yield

I 53 I

CD-2

ETHIOPIA

AFRICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS** Figures are based on sampled farms

100%
80%
60%
40%

Total n Economic Accountability n Social Responsibility n Coffee Growing
20%
AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBALn Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dry

n PSO

0
100%

80%

60%
Globalnn
40%n

EthiopiannnLarge Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

GlobalnnnEthiopiannn

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSOs performance20%
I 54 I

CD-2

ETHIOPIA

AFRICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources
Protecting soil
resources
Conserving
biodiversity

2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–FARM SIZELARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point 2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

100

0

100

Insufficient data

85

Insufficient data

Receipt includes data product (EA-IS 1.4)

100

0

100

Insufficient data

63

Insufficient data

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP 1.1)

100

0

100

Insufficient data

100

Insufficient data

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.2)

100

43

100

Insufficient data

100

Insufficient data

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

100

0

25

Insufficient data

Insufficientdata

Insufficient data

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

100

100

Insufficient data

100

Insufficient data

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary
workers (SR-HP 1.11)

44

16

Insufficient data

100

Insufficient data

100

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

59

2

100

Insufficient data

100

Insufficient data

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

Insufficient data

100

Insufficient data

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

0

100

Insufficient data

100

Insufficient data

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

100

0

100

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

88

-12

65

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

Use of Personal protective equipment(SR-WC 4.2)

27

-6

100

Insufficient data

83

Insufficient data

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR 1.1)

83

12

86

Insufficient data

49

Insufficient data

Erosion prevention (CG-SR 1.4)

78

-22

79

Insufficient data

57

Insufficient data

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR 2.10)

63

6

42

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

No forest conversion (CG-CB 3.1)

100

0

100

Insufficient data

100

Insufficient data

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

74

-26

32

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

100

0

100

Insufficient data

100

Insufficient data

Improvement tracking program (CG-EM 2.1)

100

14

95

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

100

0

79

Insufficient data

72

Insufficient data

95

45

100

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

Environmental
Pruning program for long term productivity
management
and monitoring (CG-EM 3.1)
Renovation program for long term
productivity (CG-EM 3.2)

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 55 I

CD-2

ETHIOPIA

AFRICA //SECTIONS OFTHE
SCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions
Protecting
water
resources

WET MILLS
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–MILLSDRY MILLS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

100

0

100

0

Receipt includes data (EA-IS 1.4)

100

0

95

-5

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP 1.1)

99

-1

100

0

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP 1.2)

99

57

95

15

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

98

-3

95

-5

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

100

100

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.11)

58

33

94

34

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

63

21

89

29

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

0

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

78

-23

74

-6

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

72

-28

47

47

Use of Personal protective equipment/PEE (SR-WC 4.2)

68

-32

78

28

Wastewater management (CP-WC 2.1)

91

8

N/A

N/A

0

Waste
management

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment (CP-WM 1.1)

96

13

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct (CP-WM 1.2)

99

15

N/A

N/A

Energy use

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during processing (CP-EC 1.4)

100

0

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 56 I

CD-2

ETHIOPIA

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

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

PSOs
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–PSOs

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Product Tracking systems all entities (PS-MT 1.1)

100

100

C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT 1.2)

100

100

Receipts for farmers (PS-MT 1.3)

100

100

Hiring practices for PSOs (PS-HP 1.1)85

85

Maintaining soil productivity—soil plan includes soil analysis (PS-SR 2.1)

48

48

Maintaining soil productivity—implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR 2.3)

23

23

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM 1.1)

100

100

Trains 30% on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM 1.4)

100

100

Trains 30% on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM 1.5)8080Annual meeting and Written management plan (PS-EM 2.5)96

96

Training materials (PS-EM 2.6)

81

81

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM 2.6 (PS-EM 2.8)

89

89

PSO trained 50% of producers (PS-EM 2.9)48

48

Training program on climate change (PS-CC 1.2)

59

59

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 57 I

CD-2

KENYA

AFRICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

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

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

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS*

15%

18%

20%

20%

18%

* Figures are based on sampled farms

I 58 I

CD-2

KENYA

AFRICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

FOOD SECURITY*
No food security issues
34%

No food security issues
58%

No food security issues
67%

No food security issues

Food security issues
66%

Food security issues
42%

Food security issues
33%

Food security issues
7%

Food security issues
5%# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10 ■ 11 ■ 12
No response rate (7%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10 ■ 11 ■ 12
No response rate (5%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10 ■ 11 ■ 12
No response rate (5%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10 ■ 11 ■ 12
No response rate (3%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10 ■ 11 ■ 12
No response rate (4%)

Food security issues
RUST INCIDENCE*
Kenya
No Rust incidence
8%#ofRust months:
incidence■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 592%
■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■ >10% (8%) ■ <10% (83%)*No response rate (23%)
No response rate (0%)

No Rust incidence
15%#ofmonths:Rust incidence■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■85%
5
■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■ >10% (6%) ■ <10% (79%)*No response rate (x%)
No response rate (8%)

No Rust incidence
11%#ofRust months:
incidence■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■ 4 ■ 589%
■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■ >10% (10%) ■ <10% (79%)*No response rate (x%)
No response rate (2%)

No Rust incidence
39%#ofmonths:Rust incidence■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 ■61%4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■ >10% (11%) ■ <10% (50%)*No response rate (x%)
No response rate (1%)

No Rust incidence
47%#
ofmonths:Rust incidence■ 1 ■ 2 ■ 3 53%■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■ >10% (12%) ■ <10% (41%)*No response rate (x%)
No response rate (0%)

No food security issues
93%

95%

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)*
12,00010,000
Rust Incidence
Kenya
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Kenyan Global yield range
averagen Africa yield range
yield● Average yield
Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices* Figures
based on sampled farms
Africaare
templateKenya

n Globaln Africa● Average yieldn Globaln Africa● Average yieldn Globaln Africa● Average yieldn Globaln Africa● Average yield

I 59 I

CD-2

KENYA

AFRICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS** Figures are based on sampled farms

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%

Total n Economic Accountability n Social Responsibility n Coffee Growing
0
TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINSn Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dry

n PSO

100%

80%

60%

40%
Global
n
n
n
20%

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
PSOs performance

I 60 I

CD-2

KENYA

AFRICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–FARM SIZELARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

100

0

100

0

99

35

Receipt includes data product (EA-IS 1.4)

100

0

100

0

94

91

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP 1.1)

100

10

100

0

88

88

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.2)

100

5

100

0

99

11

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

100

5

100

0

5

5

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

65

-30

80

-20

2

-62

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers(SR-HP 1.11)

79

-11

100

0

99

13

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

62

-19

80

-20

99

-1

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0

100

1

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

62

-5

67

67

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

35

26

60

60

N/A

N/A

Use of Personal protective equipment (SR-WC 4.2)

74

-7

80

80

67

34

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR 1.1)

100

5

100

0

55

-14

Erosion prevention (CG-SR 1.4)

3

3

0

0

15

-5

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR 2.10)

100

0

100

0

N/A

N/A

No forest conversion (CG-CB 3.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

94

4

100

0

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Improvement tracking program (CG-EM 2.1)
Environmental
Pruning program for long term productivity
management
and monitoring (CG-EM 3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM 3.2)

53

24

100

100

N/A

N/A

100

5

100

0

98

-1

79

-21

75

-25

N/A

N/A

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources
Protecting soil
resources
Conserving
biodiversity

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity
I 61 I

CD-2

KENYA

AFRICA //SECTIONS OFTHE
SCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions
Protecting
water
resources

WET MILLS
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–MILLSDRY MILLS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

100

0

100

0

Receipt includes data (EA-IS 1.4)

99

7

100

0

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP 1.1)

100

8

100

0

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP 1.2)

100

25

100

0

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

99

13

100

0

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

49

-29

100

0

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.11)

82

10

75

-25

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

46

-4

60

-15

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

0

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

40

-24

80

5

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

11

5

75

50

Use of Personal protective equipment/PEE (SR-WC 4.2)

67

-16

67

-8

Wastewater management (CP-WC 2.1)

92

92

N/A

N/A

Waste
management

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment (CP-WM 1.1)

94

11

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct (CP-WM 1.2)

95

20

N/A

N/A

Energy use

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during processing (CP-EC 1.4)

100

17

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 62 I

CD-2

KENYA

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

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

PSOs
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–PSOs

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Product Tracking systems all entities (PS-MT 1.1)

100

0

C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT 1.2)

94

74

Receipts for farmers (PS-MT 1.3)

100

0Hiring practices for PSOs (PS-HP 1.1)

61

61

Maintaining soil productivity—soil plan includes soil analysis (PS-SR 2.1)

89

49

Maintaining soil productivity—implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR 2.3)

47

47

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM 1.1)

1000Trains 30% on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM 1.4)

39

9

Trains 30% on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM 1.5)

33

3

Annual meeting and Written management plan (PS-EM 2.5)

33

-7

Training materials (PS-EM 2.6)

94

4

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM 2.6 (PS-EM 2.8)

39

19

PSO trained 50% of producers (PS-EM 2.9)

17

7

Training program on climate change (PS-CC 1.2)

44

34

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 63 I

CD-2

RWANDAAFRICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

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

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

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS*

8%

8%

9%

13%

13%

* Figures are based on sampled farms

I 64 I

CD-2

RWANDAAFRICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

FOOD SECURITY*
No food security issues
69%

No food security issues
69%

No food security issues
65%

No food security issues
88%

No food security issues

Food security issues
31%

Food security issues
31%

Food security issues
35%

Food security issues
12%

Food security issues
4%# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6
No response rate (1%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6
No response rate (1%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6
No response rate (0%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6
No response rate (0%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6
No response rate (0%)

RUST INCIDENCE*
Food security issues
No Rust incidence
Rwanda42%

No Rust incidence
42%

No Rust incidence
34%

No Rust incidence
35%

No Rust incidence
43%

Rust incidence# of months: 58%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (15%) ■ <10% (43%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (37%)*No response rate (23%)

Rust incidence# of months: 58%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (15%) ■ <10% (43%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (37%)*No response rate (x%)

Rust incidence# of months:
66%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (11%) ■ <10% (55%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (21%)*No response rate (x%)

Rust incidence# of months:
65%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (20%) ■ <10% (44%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (0%)*No response rate (x%)

Rust incidence# of months: 57%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (24%) ■ <10% (33%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (0%)*No response rate (x%)

96%

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)*
12,00010,000
Rust Incidence
Rwanda
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Rwandan Global yield range
averagen Africa yield range
yield● Average yield
Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices
Africa template* Figures are based on sampled farms
Rwandan Globaln Africa● Average yieldn Globaln Africa● Average yieldn Globaln Africa● Average yieldn Globaln Africa● Average yield

I 65 I

CD-2

RWANDAAFRICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS** Figures are based on sampled farms

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dry

n PSO

0

I 66 I

CD-2

RWANDAAFRICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
100%

80%

60%

40%

20%
Globalnn
0%n

RwandannnLarge Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

Globalnnn

Rwandannn

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSOs performance

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
RwandaI 67 I

CD-2

RWANDAAFRICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources

2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–FARM SIZELARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

96

2

Receipt includes data product (EA-IS 1.4)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

85

-9

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP 1.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

50

-50

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.2)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100

0

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

60

60

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

91

-9

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers(SR-HP 1.11)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

77

-23

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100

0

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Use of Personal protective equipment (SR-WC 4.2)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

68

36

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR 1.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

67

67

Protecting soil
resources

Erosion prevention (CG-SR 1.4)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

35

-4

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR 2.10)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Conserving
biodiversity

No forest conversion (CG-CB 3.1)

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

Improvement tracking program (CG-EM 2.1)
Environmental
Pruning program for long term productivity
management
and monitoring (CG-EM 3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM 3.2)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

96

-4

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity
I 68 I

CD-2

RWANDAAFRICA //SECTIONS OFTHE
SCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

WET MILLS
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–MILLS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

98

-2

100

0

Receipt includes data (EA-IS 1.4)

90

-10

100

0

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP 1.1)

98

-2

100

0

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP 1.2)

100

0

100

0

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

98

-2

100

0

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

66

-34

100

0

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.11)

58

4

50

50

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

53

-10

50

-50

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)
Working
conditions
Protecting
water
resources

DRY MILLS-100

0Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

84

-16

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

35

26

0

-100

Use of Personal protective equipment/PEE (SR-WC 4.2)

86

-14

100

0

Wastewater management (CP-WC 2.1)

81

9

N/A

N/A

Waste
management

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment (CP-WM 1.1)

98

16

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct (CP-WM 1.2)

98

16

N/A

N/A

Energy use

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during processing (CP-EC 1.4)

100

100

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 69 I

CD-2

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

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

PSOs
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–PSOs

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Product Tracking systems all entities (PS-MT 1.1)

98

70

C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT 1.2)

90

81

Receipts for farmers (PS-MT 1.3)

100

18

Hiring practices for PSOs (PS-HP 1.1)

93

84

Maintaining soil productivity—soil plan includes soil analysis (PS-SR 2.1)

76

67

Maintaining soil productivity—implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR 2.3)

33

21

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM 1.1)

1000Trains 30% on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM 1.4)

82

36

Trains 30% on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM 1.5)

79

33

Annual meeting and Written management plan (PS-EM 2.5)

66

57

Training materials (PS-EM 2.6)

83

74

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM 2.6 (PS-EM 2.8)

63

27

PSO trained 50% of producers (PS-EM 2.9)

51

42

Training program on climate change (PS-CC 1.2)

56

56

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 70 I

CD-2

TANZANIAAFRICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

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

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

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS*

5%

11%

12%

12%

12%

* Figures are based on sampled farms

I 71 I

CD-2

TANZANIAAFRICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

No food security issues
85%

No food security issues
88%

No food security issues
88%

No food security issues

Food security issues
2%

Food security issues
15%

Food security issues
12%

Food security issues
12%

Food security issues
7%# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
No response rate (7%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
No response rate (2%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
No response rate (2%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
No response rate (2%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5
No response rate (2%)

RUST INCIDENCE*
Food security issues
No Rust incidence
Tanzania
21%

No Rust incidence
31%

No Rust incidence
28%

No Rust incidence
25%

No Rust incidence
30%

Rust incidence# of months:
79%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (22%) ■ <10% (57%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (2%)
*No response rate (23%)

Rust incidence# of months:
69%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (27%) ■ <10% (42%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (4%)*No response rate (x%)

Rust incidence# of months:
72%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (26%) ■ <10% (46%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (3%)*No response rate (x%)

Rust incidence# of months:
75%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (28%) ■ <10% (47%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (2%)
*No response rate (x%)

Rust incidence# of months:
70%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (24%) ■ <10% (46%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (0%)*No response rate (x%)

FOOD SECURITY*
No food security issues
98%

201 8

93%

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)*
12,00010,000
Rust Incidence
Tanzania
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Tanzanian Global yield range
averagen Africa yield range
yield● Average yield
Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices
Africa template* Figures are based on sampled farms
Tanzania

n Globaln Africa● Average yieldn Globaln Africa● Average yieldn Globaln Africa● Average yieldn Globaln Africa● Average yield

I 72 I

CD-2

TANZANIAAFRICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS** Figures are based on sampled farms

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dryn PSO

I 73 I

CD-2

TANZANIAAFRICA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
100%

80%

60%

40%
Globalnn
20%n

TanzaniannnLarge Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

GlobalnnnTanzaniannn

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSOs performance0%

AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
Template

I 74 I

CD-2

TANZANIAAFRICA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–FARM SIZELARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

100

0

100

0

95

-2

Receipt includes data product (EA-IS 1.4)

100

0

100

100

52

50

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP 1.1)

100

0

100

0

Insufficientdata

Insufficientdata

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.2)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

100

0

33

33

100

100

0

50

50

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

100

100

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers(SR-HP 1.11)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

25

-75

67

67

100

0

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

80

-20

100

100

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

100

100

67

67

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

20

-80

0

0

N/A

N/A

Use of Personal protective equipment (SR-WC 4.2)

100

0

67

67

62

46

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR 1.1)

100

0

100

100

60

60

Erosion prevention (CG-SR 1.4)

20

-80

67

67

11

-2

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR 2.10)

80

-20

33

33

N/A

N/A

No forest conversion (CG-CB 3.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

60

60

33

-67

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Improvement tracking program (CG-EM 2.1)
Environmental
Pruning program for long term productivity
management
and monitoring (CG-EM 3.1)
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM 3.2)

40

40

67

-33

N/A

N/A

100

0

100

0

100

1

100

0

100

0

N/A

N/A

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources
Protecting soil
resources
Conserving
biodiversity

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity
I 75 I

CD-2

TANZANIAAFRICA //SECTIONS OFTHE
SCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions
Protecting
water
resources

WET MILLS
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–MILLSDRY MILLS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

99

-1

100

0

Receipt includes data (EA-IS 1.4)

67

40

100

100

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP 1.1)

100

0

100

0

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP 1.2)

100

0

100

100

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

93

-7

100

100

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

36

36

50

50

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.11)

76

76

56

56

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

61

54

78

78

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

0

100

100

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

75

-25

78

-22

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

16

-20

22

-78

Use of Personal protective equipment/PEE (SR-WC 4.2)

33

26

50

-50

Wastewater management (CP-WC 2.1)

93

19

N/A

N/A

Waste
management

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment (CP-WM 1.1)

95

-5

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct (CP-WM 1.2)

99

-1

N/A

N/A

Energy use

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during processing (CP-EC 1.4)

Insufficientdata

Insufficient
data

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 76 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
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–PSOs

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Product Tracking systems all entities (PS-MT 1.1)

92

-8

C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT 1.2)

100

100

Receipts for farmers (PS-MT 1.3)

100

0Hiring practices for PSOs (PS-HP 1.1)

100

0Maintaining soil productivity—soil plan includes soil analysis (PS-SR 2.1)

75

75

Maintaining soil productivity—implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR 2.3)

17

17

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM 1.1)

1000Trains 30% on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM 1.4)

58

58

Trains 30% on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM 1.5)

58

58

Annual meeting and Written management plan (PS-EM 2.5)1000Training materials (PS-EM 2.6)

100

0

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM 2.6 (PS-EM 2.8)

67

67

PSO trained 50% of producers (PS-EM 2.9)4242Training program on climate change (PS-CC 1.2)

42

42Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 77 I

CD-2

CHINAASIA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

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

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

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS*

14%

14%

11%

11%

14%

* Figures are based on sampled farms

I 78 I

CD-2

CHINAASIA //

2014

2015

FOOD SECURITY*
No food security issues

No food security issues
100%

No response rate (45%)

RUST INCIDENCE*
Food security issues
No Rust incidence
China

2016

Rust incidence# of months:
22%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (0%) ■ <10% (22%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (0%)*No response rate (23%)

No Rust incidence100%
No response rate (45%)

78%

Rust incidence# of months:
22%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (0%) ■ <10% (22%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (0%)*No response rate (x%)

No Rust incidence

201 8

No food security issues

No food security issues
100%

No response rate (45%)

78%

201 7

No food security issues

No response rate (46%)

54%

Rust incidence# of months:46%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (3%) ■ <10% (43%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (1%)
*No response rate (x%)

100%

100%

No Rust incidence

No response rate (42%)

54%

No Rust incidence

44%

Rust incidence# of months:46%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (3%) ■ <10% (43%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (1%)
*No response rate (x%)

Rust incidence# of months:
56%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (7%) ■ <10% (49%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (0%)*No response rate (x%)

n Globaln Asia● Average yieldn Globaln Asia● Average yield

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)*
12,00010,000
Rust Incidence
China
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Chinan Global yield range
averagen Asia yield range
yield● Average yield
Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices
ASIA template* Figures are based on sampled farms
Chinan Globaln Asia● Average yieldn Globaln Asia● Average yield

I 79 I

CD-2

CHINAASIA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS** Figures are based on sampled farms

100%
80%
60%
40%
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
0
100%

80%

60%
Global
n
n
40%n

20%

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
PSOs performance

I 80 I

CD-2

CHINAASIA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources
Protecting soil
resources

2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–FARM SIZELARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

100

0

100

0

99

-1

Receipt includes data product (EA-IS 1.4)

100

0

97

-3

99

-1

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP 1.1)

100

0

100

0

100

100

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.2)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

100

100

0

0

Insufficientdata

Insufficientdata

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

80

80

29

29

70

70

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers(SR-HP 1.11)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

98

8

99

3

100

0

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

42

42

20

3

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

38

-25

42

-16

N/A

N/A

Use of Personal protective equipment (SR-WC 4.2)

98

-3

96

-4

97

-3

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR 1.1)

95

-5

86

-14

85

18

Erosion prevention (CG-SR 1.4)

32

-8

34

5

29

-8

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR 2.10)

53

-38

69

-18

N/A

N/A

No forest conversion (CG-CB 3.1)

98

-3

100

0

100

0

Conservation set asides (CG-CB 3.7)

40

20

33

10

N/A

N/A

No WHO chemicals (CG-EM 1.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Improvement tracking program (CG-EM 2.1)
Environmental
Pruning
program for long term productivity
management(CG-EM
3.1)
and monitoring
Renovation program for long term productivity(CG-EM 3.2)

98

18

100

5

N/A

N/A

100

0

100

0

99

-1

75

-25

44

-56

N/A

N/A

Conserving
biodiversity

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity
I 81 I

CD-2

CHINAASIA //SECTIONS OFTHE
SCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources

WET MILLS
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–MILLSDRY MILLS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

100

0

100

0

Receipt includes data (EA-IS 1.4)

98

-2

100

0

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP 1.1)

100

0

100

0

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP 1.2)

100

0

100

0

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

67

67

100

13

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

31

31

100

25

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.11)

100

0

100

0

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

100

5

63

20

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0
Insufficientdata

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

1000Insufficient
data

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

60

3

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

22

5

100

0

Use of Personal protective equipment/PEE (SR-WC 4.2)

100

0

100

0

Wastewater management (CP-WC 2.1)

91

91

N/A

N/A

Waste
management

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment (CP-WM 1.1)

95

0

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct (CP-WM 1.2)

100

0

N/A

N/A

Energy use

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during processing (CP-EC 1.4)

100

14

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 82 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
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–PSOs

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Product Tracking systems all entities (PS-MT 1.1)

100

0

C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT 1.2)1000Receipts for farmers (PS-MT 1.3)

100

0Hiring practices for PSOs (PS-HP 1.1)

100

0Maintaining soil productivity—soil plan includes soil analysis (PS-SR 2.1)

93

-7

Maintaining soil productivity—implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR 2.3)100

0No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM 1.1)

1000Trains 30% on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM 1.4)

100

40

Trains 30% on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM 1.5)

100

40

Annual meeting and Written management plan (PS-EM 2.5)1000Training materials (PS-EM 2.6)

100

0

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM 2.6 (PS-EM 2.8)

100

0

PSO trained 50% of producers (PS-EM 2.9)

100

40

Training program on climate change (PS-CC 1.2)

100

20

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 83 I

CD-2

INDONESIA

ASIA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

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

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

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS*

10%

13%

12%

12%

13%

* Figures are based on sampled farms

I 84 I

CD-2

INDONESIA

ASIA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

FOOD SECURITY*
No food security issues
52%

No food security issues
66%

No food security issues
71%

No food security issues
73%

No food security issues
78%

Food security issues
48%

Food security issues
34%

Food security issues
29%

Food security issues
27%

Food security issues
22%# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6■7 ■8No response rate (9%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6■7 ■8No response rate (5%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6■7 ■8No response rate (3%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6■7 ■8No response rate (2%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6■7 ■8No response rate (1%)

Food security issues
RUST INCIDENCE*
Indonesia
No Rust incidence

No Rust incidence

No Rust incidence

No Rust incidence

No Rust incidence

16%# of months:
Rust incidence■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■584%■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■ >10% (3%) ■ <10% (81%)*No response rate (23%)
No response rate (85%)

16%# of months:
Rust incidence■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■584%■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■ >10% (1%) ■ <10% (83%)*No response rate (x%)
No response rate (53%)

20%# of months:
Rust incidence■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■580%■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■ >10% (2%) ■ <10% (78%)*No response rate (x%)
No response rate (28%)

17%# of months:
Rust incidence■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■583%■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■ >10% (2%) ■ <10% (82%)*No response rate (x%)
No response rate (15%)

13%# of months:
Rust incidence■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■587%■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
■ >10% (6%) ■ <10% (81%)*No response rate (x%)
No response rate (11%)

n Globaln Asia● Average yieldn Globaln Asia● Average yield

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)*
12,00010,000
Rust Incidence
Indonesia
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Indonesia

n Global yield range
averagen Asia yield range● Average yield
yield
Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices* Figures are based on sampled farms
ASIA templateIndonesian Globaln Asia● Average yieldn Globaln Asia● Average yield

I 85 I

CD-2

INDONESIA

ASIA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS** Figures are based on sampled farms

100%
80%
60%
40%

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dry

n PSO

20%
AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL

100%
0

80%

60%

40%
Globalnnn20%Indonesiannn

Large Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

GlobalnnnIndonesiannn

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSOs performance
I 86 I

CD-2

INDONESIA

ASIA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–FARM SIZEMEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

100

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

68

28

Receipt includes data product (EA-IS 1.4)

100

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

86

17

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP 1.1)

100

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

100

100

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.2)

Insufficient data Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

100

1

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

Insufficient data Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

0

Insufficient data

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

Insufficient data Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

6

Insufficient data

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary
workers (SR-HP 1.11)

Insufficient data Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

100

1

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

Working
conditions

LARGE FARMS

100

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

100

0

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

Insufficient data Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

Insufficient data Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Use of Personal protective equipment(SR-WC 4.2)

100

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

43

-4

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR 1.1)

100

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

28

-10

Protecting soil
resources

Erosion prevention (CG-SR 1.4)

100

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

26

-20

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR 2.10)

100

Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Conserving
biodiversity

No forest conversion (CG-CB 3.1)

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

98

5

Insufficient data Insufficient data

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Protecting
water
resources

Improvement tracking program (CG-EM 2.1)
Environmental
Pruning
program for long term productivity
management(CG-EM
3.1)
and monitoring
Renovation program for long term
productivity (CG-EM 3.2)

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity
I 87 I

CD-2

INDONESIA

ASIA //SECTIONS OFTHE
SCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources
Waste
management
Energy use

WET MILLS
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–MILLSDRY MILLS

WET/ DRY MILLS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

83

58

100

14

100

0

Receipt includes data (EA-IS 1.4)

91

-9

99

18

100

0

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP 1.1)

100

100

98

-2

100

0

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.2)

98

-2

100

0

100

0

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

0

0

41

-4

33

-67

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

0

0

10

-10

17

-83

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers(SR-HP 1.11)

97

-3

96

0

100

50

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

80

-20

85

7

100

0

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

100

100

0

100

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

20

20

41

-36

33

-67

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

3

3

24

-36

17

-83

Use of Personal protective equipment/PEE(SR-WC 4.2)

16

16

50

-21

71

-29

Wastewater management (CP-WC 2.1)

6

6

N/A

N/A

29

-71

Processing waste does not contaminate local
environment (CP-WM 1.1)

59

-16

N/A

N/A

57

-43

Composting byproduct (CP-WM 1.2)

93

18

N/A

N/A

100

0

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee
during processing (CP-EC 1.4)

0

-75

N/A

N/A

100

N/A

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 88 I

CD-2

INDONESIA

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

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

PSOs
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–PSOs

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Product Tracking systems all entities (PS-MT 1.1)

94

3

C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT 1.2)100

9Receipts for farmers (PS-MT 1.3)

97

6

Hiring practices for PSOs (PS-HP 1.1)

89

16

Maintaining soil productivity—soil plan includes soil analysis (PS-SR 2.1)

40

22

Maintaining soil productivity—implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR 2.3)

29

1

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM 1.1)

1000Trains 30% on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM 1.4)

63

7

Trains 30% on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM 1.5)

63

3

Annual meeting and Written management plan (PS-EM 2.5)

8934

Training materials (PS-EM 2.6)

66

-16

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM 2.6 (PS-EM 2.8)

60

5

PSO trained 50% of producers (PS-EM 2.9)

31

-23

Training program on climate change (PS-CC 1.2)

37

19

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 89 I

CD-2

PAPUA NEW GUINEAASIA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

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

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

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS*

2%

2%

3%

3%

5%

* Figures are based on sampled farms

I 90 I

CD-2

PAPUA NEW GUINEAASIA //

2014

2015

FOOD SECURITY*
No food security issues

2016

No food security issues
100%

201 7
No food security issues

No food security issues
100%

201 8

100%

No food security issues
100%

100%

No response rate (4%)

No response rate (4%)

No response rate (3%)

No response rate (1%)

No response rate (1%)

RUST INCIDENCE*
Food security issues
No Rust incidence
Papua
15%

No Rust incidence
15%

No Rust incidence
32%

No Rust incidence
33%

No Rust incidence

Rust incidence# of months:
85%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (9%) ■ <10% (77%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (0%)*No response rate (23%)

Rust incidence# of months:
85%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (9%) ■ <10% (77%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (0%)*No response rate (x%)

Rust incidence# of months:
68%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (6%) ■ <10% (62%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (100%)*No response rate (x%)

Rust incidence# of months:
67%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (6%) ■ <10% (61%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (100%)*No response rate (x%)

Rust incidence# of
6%months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (0%) ■ <10% (6%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (100%)*No response rate (x%)

94%

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)*
12,00010,000
Rust Incidence
Papua
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Papua New

n Global yield range
Guinean Asia yield range
average● Average yield
yield
Averageyield in C.A.F.E. Practices
ASIA template* Figures are based on sampled farms
Papua

n Globaln Asia● Average yieldn Globaln Asia● Average yieldn Globaln Asia● Average yieldn Globaln Asia● Average yield

I 91 I

CD-2

PAPUA NEW GUINEAASIA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

n Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Nonn Preferred		Compliantn Verified

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS** Figures are based on sampled farms

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%

Total

n Economic Accountabilityn Social Responsibilityn Coffee Growing

n Coffee Processing-Wet

n Coffee Processing-Dryn PSO

AVERAGEPERFORMANCE OF ALL KPIs—COUNTRY AND GLOBAL
0
100%

80%

60%
Global Papua New GuineannLarge Farms performancennMedium Farms performancenSmallholder Farms performance
40%n

20%

Global Papua New Guineann
Wet Mills performancenn
Dry Mills performancenn
PSOs performance

I 92 I

CD-2

PAPUA NEW GUINEAASIA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources
Protecting soil
resources
Conserving
biodiversity

2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–FARM SIZELARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance %(2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

70

44

Receipt includes data product (EA-IS 1.4)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

70

46

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP 1.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data

Insufficient data

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.2)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100

100

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data

Insufficient data

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data

Insufficient data

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary
workers (SR-HP 1.11)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100

100

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100

0

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100

3

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

NA

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

NA

Use of Personal protective equipment(SR-WC 4.2)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

73

42

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR 1.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

44

-34

Erosion prevention (CG-SR 1.4)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

82

-18

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR 2.10)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

NA

No forest conversion (CG-CB 3.1)

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

NA

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

NA

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

88

3

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Improvement tracking program (CG-EM 2.1)
Environmental
Pruning
program for long term productivity
management(CG-EM
3.1)
and monitoring
Renovation program for long term
productivity (CG-EM 3.2)

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity
I 93 I

CD-2

PAPUA NEW GUINEAASIA //SECTIONS OFTHE
SCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

WET MILLS
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–MILLS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

100

0

100

0

Receipt includes data (EA-IS 1.4)

100

0

100

0

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP 1.1)

100

0

75

-25

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP 1.2)

100

0

100

0

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

100

0

100

0

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

100

100

0

0

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.11)

Insufficientdata

Insufficient
data

20

20

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

Insufficientdata

Insufficient
data

40

-60

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

100

0

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

100

100

100

100

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

100

0

75

-25

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

100

50

60

10

Insufficientdata

Insufficient
data

20

-80

100

0

N/A

NA

Use of Personal protective equipment/PEE (SR-WC 4.2)
Protecting
water
resources

DRY MILLS

Wastewater management (CP-WC 2.1)

Wastemanagement

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment (CP-WM 1.1)

100

0

N/A

NA

Composting byproduct (CP-WM 1.2)

100

0

N/A

NA

Energy use

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during processing (CP-EC 1.4)

Insufficientdata

Insufficient
data

N/A

NA

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 94 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
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–PSOs

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Product Tracking systems all entities (PS-MT 1.1)

100

0

C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT 1.2)1000Receipts for farmers (PS-MT 1.3)

100

0Hiring practices for PSOs (PS-HP 1.1)

100

100

Maintaining soil productivity—soil plan includes soil analysis (PS-SR 2.1)00Maintaining soil productivity—implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR 2.3)

00

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM 1.1)

1000Trains 30% on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM 1.4)

100

0Trains 30% on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM 1.5)1000Annual meeting and Written management plan (PS-EM 2.5)1000Training materials (PS-EM 2.6)

100

0

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM 2.6 (PS-EM 2.8)

83

-17

PSO trained 50% of producers (PS-EM 2.9)

67

-33

Training program on climate change (PS-CC 1.2)

100

0Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 95 I

CD-2

VIETNAM

ASIA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

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

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

PERCENT WOMEN FARMERS*

36%

32%

20%

18%

24%

* Figures are based on sampled farms

I 96 I

CD-2

VIETNAM

ASIA //

2014

2015

FOOD SECURITY*
No food security issues
88%

NO DATA

Food security issues
12%# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (0%)
RUST INCIDENCE*
Food security issues
Vietnam# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (100%)*No response rate (23%)

2016

No food security issues

201 7

No food security issues
100%

201 8

No food security issues
100%

No food security issues
100%

99%

Food security issues
0%Food security issues
0%Food security issues
0%Food security issues
1%# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6
No response rate (0%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6
No response rate (0%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6
No response rate (0%)# of months:■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5 ■6
No response rate (0%)

No Rust incidence

No Rust incidence
46%

No Rust incidence
21%

No Rust incidence
16%

Rust incidence# of months: 54%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (0%) ■ <10% (54%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (0%)*No response rate (x%)

Rust incidence# of months:
79%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (0%) ■ <10% (79%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (0%)*No response rate (x%)

Rust incidence# of months:
84%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (0%) ■ <10% (84%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (0%)*No response rate (x%)

74%

Rust incidence# of months:
26%■1 ■2 ■3 ■4 ■5■ >10% (0%) ■ <10% (26%)■ 6 ■ 7 ■ 8 ■ 9 ■ 10
No response rate (71%)*No response rate (x%)

AVERAGE YIELD IN C.A.F.E. PRACTICES (LBS GREEN COFFEE/HA)*
12,00010,000
Rust Incidence
Vietnam
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
● Vietnam

n Global yield range
averagen Asia yield range
yield● Average yield
Average yield in C.A.F.E. Practices
ASIA template* Figures are based on sampled farms
Vietnamn Globaln Asia● Average yieldn Globaln Asia● Average yieldn Globaln Asia● Average yieldn Globaln Asia● Average yield

I 97 I

CD-2

VIETNAM

ASIA //

2014

2015

2016

201 7

201 8

APPROVAL STATUS OF SUPPLY CHAINSn Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

n Strategicn Preferredn Verified

TOTAL AND SUBJECT AREA SCORING FOR ACTIVE SUPPLY CHAINS** Figures are based on sampled farms

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
100%

80%

60%
Globalnnn40%VietnamnnnLarge Farms performance
Medium Farms performance
Smallholder Farms performance

GlobalnnnVietnamnnn

Wet Mills performance
Dry Mills performance
PSOs performance
I 98 I

CD-2

VIETNAM

ASIA //SECTIONS
OF THESCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources
Protecting soil
resources
Conserving
biodiversity

2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–FARM SIZELARGE FARMS

MEDIUM FARMS

SMALLHOLDER FARMS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance %(2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

58

-42

Receipt includes data product (EA-IS 1.4)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

44

-56

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers(SR-HP 1.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100

100

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers(SR-HP 1.2)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100

0

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data

Insufficient data

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data

Insufficient data

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary
workers (SR-HP 1.11)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100

0

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100

0

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100

0

Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare
for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Use of Personal protective equipment(SR-WC 4.2)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

83

4

Water body buffer zones (CG-WR 1.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6

-12

Erosion prevention (CG-SR 1.4)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

24

-73

Formula of nutrients applied (CG-SR 2.10)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

No forest conversion (CG-CB 3.1)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

99

-1

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

Improvement tracking program (CG-EM 2.1)
Environmental
Pruning
program for long term productivity
management(CG-EM
3.1)
and monitoring
Renovation program for long term
productivity (CG-EM 3.2)

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity
I 99 I

CD-2

VIETNAM

ASIA //SECTIONS OFTHE
SCORECARD
Economic
Accountability

Hiringpractices andemployment
policies

WET MILLS
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–MILLS

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Keeps receipts for the coffee (EA-IS 1.3)

100

100

100

0

Receipt includes data (EA-IS 1.4)

100

100

100

0

Minimum wage paid to permanent workers (SR-HP 1.1)

100

100

100

0

Minimum wage paid to temporary workers (SR-HP 1.2)

100

100

100

0

Benefits for permanent workers (SR-HP 1.7)

50

50

100

0

Benefits for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.8)

50

50

100

0

Minimum wage exceeded for temporary workers (SR-HP 1.11)

100

100

100

0

Hours of work (SR-HP 3.3)

50

50

50

-50

No child labor (SR-HP 4.1)
Access to education (SR-WC 2.1)
Working
conditions

Protecting
water
resources

DRY MILLS

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all permanent workers (SR-WC 3.4)

100

100

100

0

Insufficientdata

Insufficientdata

Insufficientdata

Insufficient
data

50

50

100

0

Employer contributes to cost of healthcare for all temporary workers (SR-WC 3.5)

0

0

75

-25

Use of Personal protective equipment/PEE (SR-WC 4.2)

100

100

75

25

Wastewater management (CP-WC 2.1)

100

100

N/A

N/A

Waste
management

Processing waste does not contaminate local environment (CP-WM 1.1)

100

100

N/A

N/A

Composting byproduct (CP-WM 1.2)

100

100

N/A

N/A

Energy use

Responsible harvesting of wood for drying coffee during processing (CP-EC 1.4)

100

100

N/A

N/A

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 100 I

CD-2

VIETNAM

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

Environmental
management andmonitoring

Training programon climate change

PSOs
2018 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS–PSOs

Compliance% (2018)% Point
2018–2014

Product Tracking systems all entities (PS-MT 1.1)

100

0

C.A.F.E. Practices participant list (PS-MT 1.2)1000Receipts for farmers (PS-MT 1.3)

100

0Hiring practices for PSOs (PS-HP 1.1)

100

0Maintaining soil productivity—soil plan includes soil analysis (PS-SR 2.1)

57

-43

Maintaining soil productivity—implementing soil and foliar plan every two years (PS-SR 2.3)

29

-71

No distribution of WHO chemicals (PS-EM 1.1)

1000Trains 30% on correct procedures for agrochemicals (PS-EM 1.4)

100

0Trains 30% on proper use of PPE and facilitates access to PPE (PS-EM 1.5)

71

-29

Annual meeting and Written management plan (PS-EM 2.5)1000Training materials (PS-EM 2.6)

100

0

PSO trained 25% of producers on topics in PS-EM 2.6 (PS-EM 2.8)

100

0

PSO trained 50% of producers (PS-EM 2.9)1000Training program on climate change (PS-CC 1.2)

57

Insufficientdata

Insufficient data may be due to no entities of this type with a valid status in this year or no workers corresponding to the indicator in this year.
N/A: Entities are not evaluated against this indicator in the C.A.F.E. Practices scorecard.
n Indicators that have the greatest decrease in performance per entity
n Indicators that have the greatest increase in performance per entity

I 101 I

CD-2