[Part III: a rundown of people and orgs who felt certification standards need to change. The whole Certification Challenges series is here.]
By far the most common argument from TransFair USA about why it certifies products from companies that only do a tiny bit of fair trade: “What about the farmers?”
It goes along the lines of this comment from bay area fair trade dude: “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?”
That line of logic argues: If you cared about the farmers, you’d want more companies — even multinationals — doing fair trade coffee. That way, more farmers would benefit. So if you’re against multinationals joining, you’re focusing on something other than benefiting farmers.
A logic that seems, well, somewhat logical, until one examines how paternalizing it is.
Interpret that, and it becomes: Farmers want money, and they don’t care how they get it. They don’t care about what fair trade means, they don’t care about a more just world everywhere. They just have their own personal needs, and that’s all they care about at this point.
The Thai rice farmer who spoke up at the “New Challenges in Fair Trade Certification” begged to differ. And others, such as Monika Firl of Cooperative Coffees, spoke up to say that in her conversations with coffee producers, some had said they didn’t want their products fair trade certified if that meant that their products would carry the same certification sticker as those from some of the big companies that had, in the past, taken advantage of the unfair trade rules.
That’s not to say that all farmers would rather starve than take money from Nestle. Speaking personally, if I were starving, I’m not sure I’d have the strength of will to resist taking whatever I could get, even if I hated Nestle.
I’m simply saying we can’t group all farmers together into one monolithic group with one opinion and one desire — more money.
What’s happening now is that companies like Nestle that were instrumental in creating poverty in places like Ethiopia and other coffee growing countries are now expected to be lauded for dipping their toes into fair trade certification. People who were directly affected by the choices of companies like Nestle in the past may not be all that psyched that now, “only” 99.9% of Nestle’s coffee’s bought through unfair terms, as opposed to the previous 100%.
As far as I know, no coffee farmers read green LA girl. Which means that this type of discussion can end up being a bunch of non-farmers trying to speak for farmers — somewhat paternalizing in itself. Of course, money — the need, the want, the greed for it — plays a role for all of us in this capitalist culture. But we can’t expect others’ needs, wants, and greeds to always coincide with our own.
That said — The next post in this string will focus on money: Its pushes, its pulls, and its effects for TransFair USA, for small companies, and for big, transnational companies.
Updates: Part V: Why TransFair USA loves Starbucks.
[The whole Certification Challenges series is here.]
Well heck. I just commented on the “Cert Challenges III” thread. I’ll put it here too, just so y’all don’t have to press the button…
Hey All:
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
Comment by mateotemprano — February 21, 2006 @ 6:11 pm