SCAE

Speciality Coffee Association of Europe

SCAE Guest Blog – Stephen Hurst, Mercanta The Coffee Hunters

Mar 11

Posted by admin in Caffè Culture 2010, Coffee Bean, Fair Trade, Rainforest Alliance, SCAE, Speciality Coffee, Speciality Roasters, World Barista Championships | No Comments

I have been asked to put some thoughts down for an SCAE Guest Blog – maybe a trademark rant, maybe some top down view of the specialty coffee business, maybe a wide angle perspective, maybe some punditry for the World Cup this Summer? What could I write? The World Cup is appealing, not least because I will be going two days after the
SCAE/WBC/Caffè Culture show is over. But the SCAE is not about football, so I will have to get back on track.

It is tempting to look at the specialty coffee business in light of the unprecedented financial chaos that has engulfed the world in the past 12-18 months. By all rights, the speciality coffee business should have suffered alongside the rest of the economy – but it appears (at least to us at Mercanta as a supplier to speciality roasters in 30 countries) that the opposite is true. Defined provenance, innovative and exciting packaging, pure and natural source, widely differentiated prices, presentational awareness in fine food venues, vast shelf space on retailer shelves, completely international – coffee?

No, water. And that is my point. If a product that honestly (besides being ”free” from a tap) tastes quite similar from one bottle to another can develop into a differentiated multi-billion dollar international mega-business, does anybody really think coffee (where at least eight totally distinct consumer aware flavours can be readily identified – let alone one thousand nuances) will not eventually be bigger still? It is inconceivable that coffee will not become a widely appreciated and differentiated product – finally about the bean itself and its own inherent taste and source.

So financial meltdown or not, speciality coffee is on a roll. It is not about the High Street coffee bar chains, it is not about Fair Trade, it is not about Rainforest Alliance, it is going to be about coffee. Coffee: the bean with its own character, its own source, its own taste, and, when you know who you are buying it from, you get all the ethics and environmental protection and authenticity that consumers really want. Information, professionalism and education about coffee will lead millions to make a better more informed choice; buy what you like, but buy it for the right reasons.

If you think a regular feature blog on the SCAE website might be interesting, there are plenty of subjects to cover from our perspective as the sourcing people, and based on our truly international reach. Please do let us know if you would like to see more.

Wishing you all health, prosperity and happiness in 2010.

Stephen Hurst
Mercanta The Coffee Hunters

Mick Wheeler’s Blog 05/03/10 – Will mechanised harvesting damage the world’s quality coffee supply?

Mar 5

Posted by admin in Uncategorized | No Comments

The ICO’s World Coffee Conference in Guatemala has been a great success, with twice as many delegates attending than had been anticipated. The presentations have been of the highest calibre and, for the most part, they were well researched, serious and thought provoking. I have enough material to blog about for weeks to come!

I will start off with the presentation made by Carlos Brando from Brazil. He highlighted a serious dilemma for the coffee world: that manual or selective harvesting of coffee was not sustainable over the longer term and, indeed, was hardly sustainable even now.

He pointed to the fact that strip picking (where all cherries on a branch are picked in a single sweep of the fist down a branch) was five times as efficient as selectively picking only ripe red cherries. In fact, he said, selective picking in many cases did not result in a significantly better proportion of ripe cherries in the final harvest. Meanwhile, he said, hand-held picking devices increased harvesting efficiency by a factor of 20, and fully mechanised harvesting was up to 200 times more efficient than selective hand picking.

Of course, he did acknowledge that mechanical harvesting significantly increased the proportion of green or unripe cherries being picked, but, he argued, it was more effective to sort the cherries out post-harvesting, than to sort them while they remained on the branch.

The argument is powerful, because it is clear that selective manual harvesting is labour intensive—and, given that many countries already experience severe labour shortages at peak harvesting times, the trend towards mechanical harvesting will only accelerate.

You might say “So what?” But there was a clear message here that needs to be acknowledged and addressed: what are we going to do with that low quality coffee produced from the green cherries? Possibly more importantly, will this impact or limit the quantity or proportion of good quality coffee that will be available in the future?

Carlos argued that the world would be able to absorb this increased quantity of low quality coffee in instant and other low quality markets, but I am not so sure. We already know that the increased use of lower quality depresses demand. What could be even more important is that if the trend towards mechanical harvesting were to increase the production of low quality coffee, it inevitably would also mean that the quantity of high quality coffee produced in future would be reduced. While I may disagree about the rate of adoption of mechanical harvesting, I cannot argue against its inevitability. That means that this issue is a serious wake-up call for the industry, and one that we ignore at our peril.

Mick

Mick Wheeler’s Blog 04/03/10 – Why Championships are just the tip of the SCAE’s iceberg

Mar 4

Posted by admin in Caffè Culture 2010, Café Europa, SCAE Gold Cup Programme, Speciality Coffee, Speciality Coffee Association of Europe, World Barista Championships | No Comments

UKBC 2010 winners

Before starting this week’s blog, I should mention that one of the industry’s greats, Emilio Lavazza, passed away recently. I cannot say that I knew him well, but did meet him on a number of occasions, most notably at the Lavazza plant in Turin about 10 years ago. He was a knowledgeable man with a passion for coffee and innovation. He will be missed.

You can almost feel the excitement and tension now rising throughout Europe and beyond as our national champions in five of the coffee disciplines head towards the World Championships in London in June.

The crowning of national champions is a great thing, and certainly brings the whole speciality coffee movement into the media spotlight. But it is important not to forget why we have the Championships—and also to emphasise that, as an Association, we have a great deal more to offer than just competitions and training for competitions.

Let there be no doubt, the SCAE’s Championships fulfil an important part of the Association’s mandate to promote quality. They do this by emphasising and reinforcing the message that attention to detail and excellence at every stage in the marketing chain is paramount—be it the barista making the final cup, or the cup taster selecting the best coffee. Championships are an extremely important tool in the arsenal we use to generate excitement and commitment to quality, but they must NEVER be seen as the only thing that we do.

We do so much more, and I urge you all to look beyond the competitions to the Gold Cup Programme, the trips to origin; the fantastic education programme at our events, the research programme, Café Europa, the monitoring of EU legislation and the fact that we act as a voice for the industry.

So yes, enjoy the Championships, celebrate the winners, commiserate with the losers, but remember: there is more to the Association than competitions. Above all, get involved!

Mick

Mick Wheeler’s Blog 25/02/10

Feb 25

Posted by admin in Coffee Labelling, Coffee Origins, Kona Blend, Speciality Coffee, Speciality Coffee Association of Europe | No Comments

Naming blends: Truth in labeling or just a con?
There was an interesting piece on the website a few days ago that highlights an important issue. A report on the Hawaiian coffee industry shows that the growers actually lose out because blends containing as little as 10% Kona coffee are allowed to be sold as “Kona blend.” The argument goes that the growers lose out, because much of the benefit that should have gone to them goes instead to the middleman who is exploiting the good name of Kona. This is not something new, however—in fact it is widespread with coffees from a number of high priced origins—but I certainly agree that it is deceptive and, to my mind, misleading.

But looking at it from the other side of the coin: how is a roaster to describe a blend? It is understandable that he would want to highlight the most expensive ingredient in the pack, so what is wrong with clearly stating that it is a blend of coffees that includes that particularly expensive origin? Fair enough, you might say, but as with so many things in life, it is totally dependent upon where you draw the line. Is it okay to call a coffee a blend of X when the blend only contains 1% of X? I don’t think so, so where is the line—at 10%, 50% or where?

A difficult issue for sure, but this is all about truth in labeling—an important issue and one that I suspect will plague the industry for some time to come. There is, of course, yet another side to this issue, and that is when the origin of the coffee is deliberately disguised so that it is presented as something else.

Under EU legislation, the origin of a product is the last place it is substantially transformed. So, it is possible to argue that origin of the coffee is not the country where it is grown, but the country where it is roasted. A blend could be presented as a British, French or Italian coffee. Nothing wrong with that, you might say, if the blend reflects the expertise that has gone into the blending and roasting that coffee, and especially if the blend does not contain one single dominant origin.

But there is a fine line between misleading the customer and paying tribute to the true origin. To my mind, there is only one way around this dilemma, and that is to be truthful on the label and list all the origins in the blend. Is this is giving away commercial secrets? Not really. I suspect that only those who have the most to hide would come up with such a pathetic excuse.

Mick Wheeler’s Blog 18/02/10

Feb 18

Posted by admin in Facebook, SCAE, Speciality Coffee Association of Europe, Twitter | No Comments

SCAE Facebook
How to break the ice on this topic to an audience as varied as ours, with a hugely varied demographic from trendy baristas in European cities, to hardworking sales teams and CEOs, was no mean challenge – especially as we are all still learning too.

I asked myself: a new game or a new pain? A new tool, or a new fool? Well, suffice it to say, our views are changing as we see the response and interaction that we have achieved in a very short time.

I am delighted with the number of people reading my blog – and responding to it. So, what I would like to ask you to do now is to explore the realms of the Speciality Coffee debate that is extending out from here via our presence on Twitter and Facebook. For those who think of these channels as either time wasters or intimidating, I would ask you to stop and think again before passing judgement.

The off-putting angle can be a turgid or techy definition of what all this social media is about. To some it is being faced with geeky characters defining it as THE technology, which transforms broadcast media monologues from one to many, into social media dialogues, i.e. many to many. To others, its appeal has been the way it supports the democratisation of knowledge and information, transforming people from content consumers into content producers.

For us at the SCAE, it is about increasing those links across our pan-European organisation. No longer do our members have to wait for a feedback questionnaire or feel that they are sticking their head above the parapet to voice a view. With these far more relaxed and accessible mediums, everyone and anyone can dip a toe in the flow.

The added beauty about it all is you can just watch……..and read…….and listen, you don’t have to start scribbling pithy monologues or witty answers.

So go and open up that Facebook and Twitter page of ours…….after all it’s free, fun and quick…..and you never know, you might just pick up a good tip or two.

Mick

Mick Wheeler’s Blog 02/02/10

Feb 2

Posted by admin in SCAE, SCAE Gold Cup Brewmaster Course, SCAE Gold Cup Programme, Speciality Coffee, Speciality Coffee Association of Europe, World Barista Championships | No Comments

SCAE Gold Cup Programme

The coffee industry is familiar with the concept of balance. A balanced blend. A balanced cup. Balance. The early years of the SCAE was the stuff of voluntary organisations – fuelled by enthusiastic industry experts who believed in the cause and delivered more than their fair share. Little would those early volunteers have thought the fledgling World Barista Championships would become the powerful vehicle it has become. While undoubtedly an enormously powerful vehicle for the furtherance of quality coffee, that power tipped the balance of the SCAE’s output.

The SCAE was rightly criticised from within and without for its espresso focus. It was clear we had to put some energy into brewed coffee to redress the balance. The first successful move was to introduce brewed coffee into the competition arena with the World Cup Tasters Championships. The second and more pervasive shift was the introduction of the SCAE Gold Cup Programme. The Programme was officially launched in Antwerp at the SCAE Coffee Fiesta event in 2007. It was launched as a whopping three-day course, which was actually more of a coffee course than a brewing course. Everything from coffee origins to processing options to roasting to cupping was covered, along with the more relevant topics of grinding, brewing and extraction measurement.

The standard of filter coffee is getting an overdue shot in the arm with the Gold Cup Programme. The great success of the programme has been the quality of both the education content and the delivery of the key learning points, now mercifully condensed into a concentrated one-day course. Taught by Level 2 qualified Brewmasters, the SCAE Gold Cup Brewmaster course is a hugely beneficial day for any coffee professional, which clinically deconstructs how a great filter brew can be achieved or ruined, with course attendees measuring and computing extraction levels. The next course runs in Dublin on February 25th, details here.

While the balance still leans toward the espresso-based beverage world, and the scales will tip forcefully at the WBC in London, we will continue to keep filter in focus through the SCAE Gold Cup Programme and other brewed coffee initiatives.

Mick

Mick Wheeler’s Blog 10/02/10

Feb 2

Posted by admin in SCAE, Speciality Coffee, Speciality Coffee Association of Europe | No Comments

Mick Wheeler’s Blog 10/02/10

Over the past few weeks I have had some interesting correspondence with Julie Fisher, a member from the Netherlands, in response to some challenging questions she raised on the nature of the SCAE and what it stands for.

In particular she asked the following very reasonable question: If the SCAE allows anyone to join, where is the commitment to quality? She went on to say that she believed that it is time that we looked carefully at the credentials of potential members. She argued very articulately that membership should not be open to all, and that members should be required to show and to explain what they are doing in order to further the cause of speciality coffee, and their commitment to quality.

I certainly see her point, but the Association has never seen itself as an exclusive club; it’s rather more like a political movement spreading the gospel of quality coffee. As such, we are inclusive, not exclusive. We welcome anyone and everyone who wishes to subscribe to our message that quality matters, and further, to go on to reinforce that by ensuring everything we do and every activity that we undertake is aimed at promoting that message. Now, inevitably there will be people, and companies, that will join us without wholly subscribing to our message, but they quickly learn that the Association has nothing to offer them.

We have strict rules on where, when and how our logo can be used and indeed we are extremely strict in enforcing those rules, so we do, as far as we are able, ensure that no one uses the logo (and therefore the good name of the Association) to promote themselves. If we were an exclusive club, then that would encourage members to exploit the name of the Association, arguing that by simply becoming a member of the Association, they are better than those who are not. In that situation who would be the best judge of who should be a member or not? Would we hold interviews, check credentials, etc? Believe me – if we did that, then there would be no resources left to further the cause of promoting quality coffee.

So, I continue to believe that the SCAE’s inclusive approach is the only way that the Association can really move forward. Our logo was never meant to be used as a badge of endorsement, but rather, a badge to proclaim our members’ allegiance to improving quality.

Mick Wheeler’s Blog 27/01/10

Jan 27

Posted by admin in Mainstream Coffee Market, SCAE, Speciality Coffee, Speciality Coffee Association of Europe | No Comments

Cuptasting in Tallinn

Thank you all for your recent comments and observations – much appreciated and interesting. Some of your comments led me to consider this question: Are the “Speciality” and “Mainstream” sectors separate and in fact do they compete with each other?

It is all too easy (and indeed comfortable) to argue that the two sectors are distinct and separate and have nothing in common. But the truth is a little more complicated, because according to our definition, many good coffees that are considered mainstream in some countries are definitely revered as speciality in others. And, can a mainstream roaster not also produce speciality coffees within its range?

The reality is that both sectors are closely entwined and that they need each other. Speciality is only special because it is different from, and hopefully superior to, mainstream. Mainstream needs speciality because where speciality goes today, mainstream needs to follow tomorrow. Indeed speciality has been the force that has re-invigorated the coffee market, boosting demand and more importantly acting as the conduit through which many young people are introduced to coffee consumption.

But if speciality leads where mainstream goes tomorrow, is there a danger that, in time, mainstream will crowd out speciality altogether? Our definition of speciality revolves around quality, and the supply of quality coffee, although increasing, is still limited (that’s why it’s exclusive and “special”). So, while the speciality sector is able to demand the best qualities, mainstream, by definition has to work with what is left; it is supply-pushed rather than demand-led. Mainstream will always adapt rather than mimic the cutting edge innovations developed within the speciality sector, as the mainstream business will never be able to completely embrace those innovations with the same degree of finesse that those engaged in speciality can. In most cases this is because mainstream cannot guarantee itself access to the best qualities.

However, there are exceptions. Starbucks, for example, has a throughput worldwide in excess of 2 million bags a year. It buys some of the best coffees available, but it also buys a lot of coffee that is considered mainstream. It clearly straddles both sectors and has recently reinforced that notion by adding instant coffee to its range. Nevertheless, it is a rather neat example of what I was saying about speciality leading where mainstream will follow. Starbucks started off by being exclusively speciality, but quickly realised—once it started trading sizeable volumes—that it needed to work with the coffees it could get, rather than those it necessarily demanded.

So yes, the relationship is complex and although it is important to define speciality, we must not necessarily do so in an effort to undermine mainstream.

As always, comments and feedback welcome.

Mick

Mick Wheeler’s Blog 20/01/10

Jan 20

Posted by admin in SCAE, Speciality Coffee, Speciality Coffee Association of Europe | No Comments

Mick Wheeler of SCAE

Hi, I’m Mick Wheeler, Executive Director of SCAE and I’d like to welcome you to my blog. As this is my first post I thought I would concentrate on a notion upon which we as an Association have struggled with ever since we started and that is “What is Speciality Coffee”?

The definition used by the SCAE was first constructed by Alf Kramer around ten years ago and although a fairly accurate account of our thinking at that time is a bit cumbersome when weighed up today. It quite rightly defines Speciality Coffee at the last point in the marketing chain and clearly identifies the fact that it is the consumer rather than the trade who is the ultimate judge. However many see this definition as unsatisfactory, arguing that it is too loose and raises more questions than answers. Many see it as a cop-out, deliberately pushing the point of definition to a place where it becomes impossible to measure.

By contrast the SCAA deliberately define Speciality Coffee at the green bean stage, simply because they believe that it is the last point in the marketing chain, where it remains identifiable and therefore measureable. And there is no doubt that a great cup of coffee depends upon good quality green bean. Ric Rhinehart has written a good piece on this issue justifying the SCAA approach, but at the same time acknowledging its shortcomings.

However the argument against defining speciality at the green bean stage is that it does not and cannot guarantee the quality of coffee in the cup to the consumer. This is important for we all know that every other point in the marketing chain, (i.e. roasting, packing, storage, grinding, brewing and serving) can all have a profound impact on the experience that the consumer will have when drinking the product. So we have a serious dilemma and one which seemingly seems impossible to resolve, especially as in Europe there are so many different coffee cultures and traditions, that what is considered speciality varies from country to country and indeed also sometimes from region to region.

However the SCAE have always pointed out that its definition of Speciality is more that just an attempt to distinguish Speciality from mainstream, but rather a call to arms that defines the whole movement towards better quality coffee. It is not how we define Speciality Coffee that matters but that we see what we do in the Association as a constant process of continually improving the quality of coffee consumed in Europe and indeed elsewhere, for that matter.

Nevertheless, be that as it may, it does not really help when trying to explain “What is Speciality Coffee?” to those who are not involved in our trade, nor is it of any use when trying to determine whether or not we are achieving our mission of expanding the market for better quality coffee. One way to overcome this might be to look at the Speciality Coffee sector not as a single sector but as a collection of niche markets which collectively make up the sector. Depending on your point of view this either widens out or restricts the definition of Speciality but it at least allows us to include not only coffee sold as the beverage but also to include coffee sold as roasted product. It also gives us a better chance of actually measuring the industry.

So what niche markets should we include?

I can think of the following but would welcome any feedback anyone has:

• Coffees sold as a single origin
• Organic coffee
• Third party certified coffees
• Cup of Excellence coffees
• Coffees sold through dedicated Coffee shops and
• Coffee brewed to the highest standards in cafés, bars and restaurants

The drawback with such an approach is that it excludes high quality blends, but at the same time includes poor quality single origins as well as markets which make it difficult to measure. It is therefore not the answer but at least it gives us a framework and a focus over which to argue.

I welcome your thoughts and feedback. Thank you for joining me.

Mick