Thanks for the note.

In your response you appreciate that there are a wide variety of opinions from growers out there. Thanks because that was a point I really was trying to stress. When arguing for TNC participation TF should always acknowledge this and not play the “this is what all growers want” card. That, as Siel also pointed out in her recent post, is not all true.

I know of Paul’s background, which makes it more strange to me that he seems to be building an organization that is not democratic or transparent. He knows better than a lot of folks up here what people have sacrificed in Nica and elsewhere. And you are totally right, it is not about marketing, “street cred”, or whatever– this is exactly about people’s lives. It is about being able to feed your family today and about building a better system and world for tomorrow so you can continue to feed them. We can do both if we all work together as equals, I believe.

And it seems possible that TNCs can attempt to change. We need to ask ourselves what that would look like. Probably it would begin with sticking a foot in the water and trying to wade in slow. But we also need to ask what an attempt at co-optation would look like. It would probably look similar, except that the TNC would commit as little as possible for as long as possible while trying to reap the most benefit from exploiting the system and label. We need to watch out for this too. Without TFUSA making TNCs legally commit to upping their commitments on a percentage basis, or asking them for anything other than their cash, TFUSA has no power to lead them. To the contrary, by becoming dependent on their cash, I think that they are in a bad spot.

So why did I not mention Peace or EE or Thanksgiving? If you know TFUSA than you have to know where they get the bulk of their money to operate. It is by licensing fees that are paid on a “per pound” basis. It has been made abundantly clear to us smaller mission-based roasters in the past that SBUX’s 2% is worth much more in cash than our 100% ever was. Simple economics, money talks as they say. So all of the companies that you named (save possibly Green Mountain) are a drop in the bucket compared to the 4 that I mentioned.

And no, I don’t think that TFUSA deserves a big pat on the back for working with someone like EE who was doing FT in the US before TFUSA even existed, that is who they should always be allied with. Rather, I think we should ask why committed companies like Larry’s Beans are leaving or why EE is forced to put out public challenges to TF because they are so undemocratic and unresponsive to their concerns.

But if you could get us that break down of cash inflow to TFUSA BAFTD, maybe I am completely mistaken about all of this. I hope I am, but I doubt it.

Finally, yes I would feel better about some of this if TFUSA actually audited roasters. That would be a step in the right direction. As far as dropping multi-nationals, I would rather just see them held to strong commitments, all FLO criteria, and to their licensing agreements. that way we can get them to transform themselves, if that could indeed be done.

What would bring Just Coffee back? Well, that is quite a humdinger (sorry, I’m from KY). I can only speak for myself as we are a worker-cooperative, but my opinion is that if we could, along with a bunch of other stake-holders, establish a regular, official, and open dialogue with TFUSA, we would consider a lot of things.

Thanks again…

-Matt

Certainly, the opionions of farmers and farmworkers in the developing world are more diverse than the opinions of those of us in the movement here in the US. There are coffee growers in Mexico who don’t want to see Fair Trade spread to farm workers no matter what the products are because they only want co-ops in the sytem, there are growers in Nicaragua who make incredible selfless efforts to educate their fellow farmers on organic practices and lift the quality level of the country, and there’s farmers in East Timor who publicly state that Starbucks is more important to their future than “foreign aid, Fair Trade, or anything else.” (Starbucks latest CSR Report, p24) And there’s a million more opinions. Furthermore, Just Coffee’s efforts with farmers are commendable and a model for other roasters to follow, but it doesn’t grant them any more or any less cred than Paul Rice who worked with the Sandanista government to build coffee co-ops for 11 years and friends & colleagues of his were assassinated by Contras and Samozist sympathizers. Honestly, who cares who’s got more street cred w/farmers? Dean’s Beans? Technoserve? Paul Katzeff? Oxfam? Does it matter? Almost makes it seem like some kind of marketing tool. A lot of the people that you work with are people I’m sure TransFair works with too. Consider this-if Fair Trade Certified bananas are a way for Chiquita to start getting their act together, isn’t it worth a try? It’s not 1954.

I do agree, at least on a theoretical level, that FLO standards could come under threat from large multinationals. But what you’re assuming is that the people who work for FLO and who’re on the board would have some motive to allow this to happen. What would be that motive? You have to assume that people are willing to sacrifice standards and ideals for some kind of personal gain.

With regards to your question about what % of TFUSA’s operating budget comes from Starbucks, Protctor & Gamble, Sara Lee, and Dunkin Donuts,

**why did you leave out Equal Exchange, Cafe Mam, Green Mountain, Tony’s, Peace Coffee, Thanksgiving, Alterra, etc?**

Interesting choice of companies Matt. What about the companies who do a good job? Does TransFair get any credit for working with them?

If TransFair started auditing roasters, would you feel better about the whole issue of transparency? If TransFair dropped laggard multinationals, would you feel better about what’s happening with the Fair Trade Certified lable in this country? If things improve on these fronts, would Just Coffee change their position?

First off, your comments are incredibly well-informed, BAFTD. I suspect that you are one of the movers and shakers at TFUSA, which would be really cool in the sense that TFUSA does not publicly engage these issues very often. If you are a TFUSA person, would you mind saying so and we can all be on the same page here?

To respond tho the “market share” question– of course many of us are concerned about big players being able to drive us off. If it were a level playing field this would be more paltabale. However, when you have huge comapanies that are subsidizing the 1%-3% of what they purchase at the fair trade minimum with the 97%-99% of the coffee that (in most years) they are paying .50-.80 cents for, then selling “fair trade” coffee for nothing, it is a little disconcerting. Especially to those of us who feel like FT is more than a label, but an actual commitment to deal with ALL people fairly. But this is only one aspect of the problem.

To go further, I’d like to ask you BAFTD (and others) to stop painting farmers as some monolithic block of people that you can somehow speak for. I think it is obvious by the description of the Thai rice farmer’s comments that many producers do care about who buys and sells their products. Many farmers that we work with at Co-op Coffees have an incredible sense of wanting to create a trade system that is fair. Many are not happy with the potential of having their coffee bought and sold by a multi-national that can hide behind the FTC label. Some of the people we work with spent literally decades, fighting and losing their lives, for social and economic justice. To then see the “fair trade” seal handed over to folks like Chiquita (coming soon to a banana near you) and P&G pisses them off. Is this really a stretch for you to understand? It is not universally the case I’m sure, but my point is that although farmers are hungry, many have other concerns as well. And farmers can speak for themselves, so maybe you should talk to some with differing view points. You won’t have to look too hard to find them.

Transnational companies can water down the meaning of fair trade in numerous ways. BAFTD, you obviously have a lot of knowledge of these issues (nudge, wink). To claim to not have an inkling as to how this could happen seems like you are either being disingenuous or just blinded by your own momentum.

Some consumers (and roasters) have lost trust in the label because they see it on the products of companies that they perceive as having little or no commitment to changing their overall business practices. To a lot of us out here fair trade is about economic justice. And that goes for consumers, business people, and farmers alike. If there were strict contractual commitments laid out by TFUSA for big fellers to up volume over a defined period of time and for transparency in their business practices, I think some skeptical people would be more open to the presence of TNCs. As-is they get to have their cake and their cheap coffee too.

Another concern is that multinationals can exert a lot of influence on the system (pushing to include plantations, for example) in general, and the certification organization in particular, by pumping oodles of cash into the certifier’s operating budget. Next thing you know, actually holding them accountable for not keeping up to standards gets pretty daunting, I would imagine. Then when they use the label in ways that are not allowed in their contract, or when they don’t offer pre-financing to the co-ops that they buy from, or when one of their executives gets steamed over activist campaigns against them and wants you to kick out a public statement, I imagine it is pretty difficult to stand up.

I have a challenge for you BAFTD, if you are a TFUSA person, how bout telling us the percentage of cash into TFUSA’s 2005 operating budget came from SBUX, Dunkin, P&G, and Sara Lee. That would be an interesting exercise in transparency, no? I think it might shed some light on an important aspect of all of this.

And that is something getting lost in the haze here– what about transparency? Why does TFUSA not audit their roaster-licensees? TF Canada audits the vast majority of its licensees anually. How can TFUSA even pretend to hold roasters accountable when they rely on unchecked self-reporting to get their numbers? Has TFUSA ever “written up” SBUX or any other big company for misusing the seal? This all points to a near total lack of transparency to me, a former licensee.

I want to relate a question asked by one of the farmers that we work with from Guatemala. The question is: Why do the farmers have to be democratically organized and transparent when the roasters and certifier do not have to be. Why do the farmers have to answer to their constituencies when the SBUXs and TFUSAs don’t have to? The majority of producers that we have heard from feel that this is about more than $1.26/$1.41 a pound, which incidently is NOT considered to be a fair price by many farmers any more. They are in this to create a system that is just. Many farmers want to make trade fair, like the name says.

I’d like to end this tome by saying that what the fair trade movement in the US needs right now (IMHO) is open dialogue about this issues between all stakeholders. This cannot end in Denver, that would be way too easy. The FT movement is full of people from all stripes, with opinions that stretch from mine to BAFTD’s and beyond. What we need now is for TFUSA to open up to the rest of us, put this stuff on the table, and be willing to engage in the same sort of messy democratic process that the grower co-ops go through to hash things out. Why is the conversation happening over this blog with clandetine yet snappy nick-names and not around a table where we all can see each other and commit to working on these hard issues together? We need to demand that TFUSA open their process and let others in the movement (growers, NGOs, student-activists, long-winded disaffected 100% roasters, etc) have input in the shaping of this thing. What do they have to lose?

That is all, thanks…

-Matt Earley
http://www.justcoffee.net

“I feel especially bad because what he said was immensely valuable — That fair trade would become a tough sell for farmers if certification lost its meaning and value, and that ensuring that fair trade retains the values that we’re all working for is important.”

Could someone explain to me how large multinationals’ purchases of Fair Trade Certified goods from FLOCERT-Certified co-ops/farms can cause Fair Trade Certification to lose its value? Or meaning?

Please?

It’s my understanding that the product is coming from a producer that has met the standards of FLOCERT in their inspection. How is certification weakended?

Are people still under the impression that the Fair Trade Foundation UK or TransFair USA certify companies in their respective markets?

Fair Trade is about a lot of things, but it’s not about saying that some companies can and some companies can’t participate in the model because it’s politically expedient.

I’m just wondering who would like to announce to all the farmers whose products are sold to Sam’s Club, McDonalds, and Starbucks, that they can no longer rely upon this business because, well, they’re bad companies and politically active people in the Fair Trade movement don’t like it…anyone?

And lastly, does anyone look at the comments & positions of Equal Exchange, Thanksgiving, Global Exchange, and Co-operative Coffees as statements made by competitors of these large multinatinals? Let’s not forget that many people who complain about the state of the Fair Trade Certified mark run businesses. Businesses that fear competition from large multinationals. How much of their concern is related to the fate of farmers or the fate of their own companies? I’m waiting for someone to say “I’m worried about the ‘integrity’ of the Fair Trade Certified mark because it’s going to impact my bottom line.”

And please understand that the above was a summary of the arguments from people who thought reform needed to happen. The orgs and companies you mentioned above DID indeed talk a lot about some of the conversations they’d had with farmers, some of whom had even wanted to leave the certification system due to some of the concerns named above. I’ll write more about this in another post, but I just wanted it to be clear that what I’ve written so far is not by any means a comprehensive report of all that was said at the workshop.

Frankly, I could give a rats ass about what they think of Starbucks or Nestle getting involved in Fair Trade. They all need to listen to the farmer from Thailand. It’s about the farmers. People who think Fair Trade is about companies are wrong. A million pounds of Fair Trade Certified product is still a million pounds of Fair Trade Certified product. NO MATTER WHO SELLS IT.

It’s also interesting that the only people who seem to care about how supposedly the “fair trade mark is being diluted by transnational companies” are the ones who actually have the least to do with the amount of Fair Trade Certified product gets consumed in this country.

It would have been nice to have retailers on the panel-sure, GlobEx is a retailer, BUT, why not Wild Oats (who are based in Colorado, ahem) or anyone else?

My last question: How will the current state of international trade be altered in a way that is positive for farmers and farmworkers without engagement with large multinational companies?

Do Global Exchange, Co-operative Coffees, Paul Katzeff, or Equal Exchange care to answer?

I might have to do this fair trade rice campaign because I consume tons of that stuff, and Alter Eco doesn’t supply to my area.