In this series, coffee companies share what they think the top 3 things that needed to be changed about fair trade certification are. Read the whole series here.
____
Most of you know that Intelligentsia Coffee in Chicago decided to leave TransFair USA’s roster of fair trade licensed companies — June this year, to be exact.
Why? “We’d been having the same conversations and voicing our frustrations to each other about the fair trade model for a long time,” Geoff said, when we talked on the phone Tuesday. After not seeing any adequate changes getting implemented at TransFair, Intelligentsia left, joining the ranks of other companies serious about trade justice that’ve parted ways with TransFair.
Sad that fair-trade-committed companies increasingly seem to feel they’re unable to move fair trade certification in a better direction. However, some good news is coming out of this, I think: Somewhat surprisingly, at least to me, TransFair is reaching out to Intelligentsia.
When we spoke on Tuesday, Geoff said Paul Rice, CEO of TransFair USA, contacted him and wanted to talk. Their chat was scheduled for sometime today.
Dunno how that went yet — But on Tuesday, I asked Geoff what the top 3 things he’d change about fair trade certification are. His recommendations:
1. The minimum paid for fair trade coffee needs to be repriced and revalued to account for differences in costs of production and standards of living from country to country. There’s no reason $1.26 per lb (the current fair trade minimum) should be considered fair everywhere. In addition, the prices need to be adjusted up to account for inflation.
2. Some sort of mechanism for rewarding higher quality coffee needs to be instituted. This is a trickier criteria, but without accounting for quality, fair trade coffee could be characterized as simply another commodity system. Decommodify the coffee, so that value has to do with quality, to create a culture of quality.
3. A better and more detailed auditing system is necessary – including a better guarantee that the farmer received a specific dollar sum. Auditing info needs to go beyond simply saying that the farmer co-op received $1.26 an lb, to detail how much of that money went to the individual coffee farmer. With the current system, coffee companies who want to know these details need to travel to the source themselves to get the info. “If I have to do that myself, then what I’m paying TransFair for? I’d like for them to back up their claims.”
I agree with Geoff’s comments to a large degree. One thing you’ll notice is that all 3 of these recommendations are really changes that need to be implemented at the FLO level (FLO’s the big international org that provides fair trade certifications for farms; TransFair USA provides fair trade licensing for US companies and fair trade certification for products sold in the US). Still, TransFair USA could certainly push FLO to consider making changes regarding these issues –
I asked Geoff: “So if on Friday, Paul Rice sez, ‘Geoff, you’re right. We’re going to start pushing FLO really hard to implement these 3 things ASAP,’ — Would Intelligentsia rejoin the fair trade roster?”
Said Geoff: “I would say ‘Show me.’ When you can show me that there are changes being made, then I can think about coming back.”
I’d actually be interested in hearinig — and posting — what other mission-based coffee companies in the US consider to be the top 3 changes that need to be made to improve fair trade certification. Coffee people reading this — Please feel free to email me your top 3. I’ll also send emails to companies I know to send theirs in.
I think that we’re all curious — indiv. companies included — in seeing where each of us are coming from.
Seriously — top 3, max. I love all you mission-based roasters, but sometimes, when I’m hit with a huge litany of complaints that don’t distinguish between the important stuff (like the above 3 points) and the persnickety stuff (i.e. “they made me pay for the stickers!” “Paul looked at me funny at a meeting in 1999!”), it’s, you know, hard to take things as seriously as they should be taken :P
Update, 2/3/07: Intelligentsia’s coming to Los Angeles and plans to open up shop in Silverlake.
I have been wanting to respond to this post but haven’t found the time to. We are supporters of Fair Trade coffee. Of the 14 coffees that we currently roast, 10 are Fair Trade certified, 2 are Rainforest Alliance certified, and all are organic certified. As a small,relatively new roasting company, buying Fair Trade and other certified coffees has been the only way that we can be assured that we are doing our part in improving the social and environmental conditions at the origin of our daily cup. Just like most of the consumers that we sell our beans to, we don’t have the resources to travel to origin to verify working condition, pay scales, land stewardship, watershed protection, song bird refuge ,etc. So we rely on the third party certification agencies. We are grateful for the efforts of these certifying agencies and therefore gladly pay the price. I also believe that we can go beyond the fair trade model and source coffees that represent true earth stewardship, social and environmental sustainability, and exceptional quality in the cup. Many mission based coffee companies are doing this now. Certified coffees come with ready marketing created by the certifying groups like Trans Fair and Rainforest Alliance, and the media that they attract. Selling great relationship coffees requires some innovative marketing. I had 10 bags of some great Guatemalan coffee that took me too long to sell because I didn’t have the marketing skills. Luckily I kept working at the roasting skills and the coffee still tasted good till I sold the last pound.
I agree with all of Geoff’s points. What does the fair trade price to the co-op really translate to in livable wages to each worker down the line? Reporting on the benefits of fair trade pricing should be updated regularly(yearly?)for each co-op. It would be nice if we could get updated info about the co-ops we are buying coffee from so we as roaster’s can feel a bit of a relationship which we can report to our customers.
I appreciate the opportunity to read about and comment on these issues that are presented here. Thanks
Comment by joebella — August 27, 2006 @ 10:53 pm
Hey Joseph and/or Isabel — I think you bring up a great point — For many small roasters, travelling to the countries of coffee origin is just not possible financially. Meaning that many coffee peeps with a socio-environmental conscience have a v. strong NEED (as well as a serious want) for making sure fair trade, organic, and other certifications are meaningful and trustworthy.
Geoff mentioned in our convo that he knows travelling to the country of origin to investigate how things are is just not possible for many roasters, even if it may be for Intelligentsia. Which I think is the reason why he’s willing to talk about how to improve fair trade certification, even if he believes that Intelligentsia’s practices do better than the TFUSA seal at this point.
Comment by Siel — August 28, 2006 @ 5:46 pm
i’d really like to see Intelligentsia’s full audits of the financials of FLO-certified co-ops. and i’d like to see how Intelligentsia implements tougher new standards for hundreds of producers across the world. and i’d like to see how Intelligentsia ensures farmer empowerment. and i’d like to see Intelligentsia’s environmental standards…
oh, wait, in the case of FLO-certified co-ops, it’s already done for them…by FLO. so, how is Intelligentsia doing better than FLO & TransFair? hmmm? Intelligentsia might say quality but how in the hell do you do that? and who decides? should coffee really follow the wine models and have appelation control? how do you avoid appearing obnoxiously paternalistic when you try to set up quality standards?
i guess we just have to trust them. like we have to trust any other corporation in the US that says “trust us, we’re doing the right thing.” hah. more consumers are asking for and finding trust in independent 3rd party certifications (energy, lumber, auto safety, etc.) why is Intelligentsia willing to buck this trend? perhaps they never put much effort into fair trade in the first place. i’d love to hear from fair trade supporters in Chicago-did you ever have the impression that Intelligentsia was committed to fair trade?
Intelligentsia’s hubris is directly proportional to their snobbery. pioneers like Dean’s Beans and Just Coffee don’t make claims as huge as Intelligentsia’s or boast to be doing a better job than FLO & Transfair. yet they kick Intelligentsia’s ass as far as sustainable & fair trade practices are concerned. will Intelligentsia provide the degree of transparency that Dean’s or Larry’s or Just Coffee provides? let’s face it, Intelligentsia is a brand built around elitism. it takes the specialty coffee revolution to it’s ultimate extreme. quality at any cost. that should be their motto.
of course, i expect to see a response from them full of humility and farmer-cred pictures…whatever. at the end of the day, they’re using their own brand to erode the best market-based solution to farmer poverty we have. and the goal of fair trade certification is to help eliminate the trade imbalances that have been in place for hundreds of years. not a small task. not something that can be acheived in the few years fair trade has been around. too bad Intelligentsia left so early in the game. i’d guess that they never wanted fair trade to be part of their program in the first place but they joined to silence a few persistent customers that demanded fair trade coffees in Intelligentsia’s cafes. or maybe they joined back when it was the cutting-edge thing to do in specialty coffee. now that it’s not so cutting edge, they’ve left…
like many of fair trade’s detractors, Intelligentsia seems to build criticism out of ignorance and misconceptions. Siel, please, look into these people’s critiques and see if there’s any truth behind them. it’s easy to construct arguments that suit their interests when they ignore or distort things. Geoff Watts is no expert on fair trade, so why let him off the hook? does this guy have his facts straight?
there are more willingly supportive companies in the fair trade certified system (and movement) than there are self-absorbed hyper-quality companies like Intelligentsia. who will help provide a bigger benefit for the co-ops? companies like Intelligentsia or the largely quiet yet very successful roasters who intend to grow alongside fair trade?
a question for Siel-why do the complainers get all the press? where’s the press for the positive stories? why do the people who bitch and moan get all the attention? anyone interview a roaster or retailer who’s happy with fair trade?
and now the top 3 things that need to be improved with Fair Trade Certification:
1) continued improvement of environmental standards and the effective messaging of these standards to consumers. the low-bar sham that is Rainforest Alliance (only 30% of Yuban’s beans-hah!) has co-opted fair trade’s farmer empowerement into their messaging-when in fact there is no concrete mechanism to ensure economic justice. fair trade needs to better point out this difference as well as keep pounding on the environmental issues.
2) improved practices and technology to provide more consistent information on supply & farmer impact. TransFair seems to be taking a step in the right direction here: http://www.fairtradeimpact.org/
3) fair trade needs to have a better & faster PR response team so people like Geoff Watts don’t end up owning the debate because they acted faster.
Comment by max inabaar — August 29, 2006 @ 1:06 am
A question for max — Why hide behind an anonymous “inabaar” moniker and erode your credibility even before you start your rants? While it’s great that you care about this issue, the fact that you’re too scared to own up to your statements really undercuts my willingness to take you seriously — even when you’re not making odd demands (i.e. demanding to know where Equal Exchange’s pens come from).
I’m not sure you actually read Geoff’s recommendations carefully — He clearly sez that FLO audits need to go FURTHER (i.e. get more detailed), not that FLO doesn’t do audits.
I’ll write more about the 2+ hour convo I had with Geoff later, but Intelligentsia is indeed planning to put all their financials up on the web — I think Geoff said around Nov.’s when the website’ll be done. The idea’s to give ALL details — including the amount that goes to the individual farmer.
In the meantime, Geoff said Intelligentsia’s willing to give financial details to any who ask, which you can read in the initial post about Intelligentsia. Have you tried asking him for them before declaring that Intelligentsia’s saying “we just have to trust them”?
I really want fair trade certification to work, but we have a serious problem here — A lot of committed companies are leaving the fair trade system cuz they believe it doesn’t deliver on its promises. Glossing over this problem by saying the companies leaving are just being snobby naysayers is not going to resolve the issue. The system itself needs to be improved.
Comment by Siel — August 29, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
Max, why the player hating? I don’t know if you are a consumer or part of the industry, but I can speak for many of my industry mates when I say Geoff Watts is highly respected as a coffee buyer, roaster, and cupper.
Dean Cycoon is one of the most outspoken opponents of the transfair way. He is very vocal about how much better his system is than TF’s. Have you ever heard his outbursts? Check out the portafilter podcast titled “the angry podcast” before you rush to offer your perspective.
You can avoid obnoxious paternalism while instilling best practices at origin. It is rather simple. As a roaster and cupper, you teach a farmer/co-op manager about roasting and cupping coffee. Roasting and cupping are your skillsets, growing and processing coffee is their talent. They can offer you a wealth of information about how, why and what they do to produce their coffee. As the relationship develops you learn from them and they learn from you. Hardly paternalistic, rather the opposite indeed.
Geoff soaks up knowledge like a sponge. When he leaves a finca in Colombia and lands in Guatemala he might be able to offer some insights on a different approach to pruning or a new raised bed drying method. Hell, he might even bring that farmer with him to discuss farming! His constant travel brings with it ideas, opportunity, and dispersion of knowledge. There are a handful of people who are doing the same thing. He is not alone, and they all have the best interests of farmers in mind.
The fair trade system is far more paternalistic: OK kids, you’ll get at least this much $ if you just try to get your coffee in a bag….
A few more things I think Transfair needs to address beyond Geoff’s points:
1. The fee structure. Presently it discourages roasters from buying fair trade coffee that will be blended with non-fair trade coffee. For example, our espresso could be 75% fair trade licensed coffee. We do not/cannot label it as fair trade, however if we operated under the current fee structure we would be paying a .06-.09 per green pound licensing fee to transfair for coffee that will not be marketed with their logo or affiliated with fair trade. Frankly, this is BS, and many roasters have simply removed fair trade coffees from their blends.
2. How can transfair reconcile the fact that it is willing to license roasters who are simply using fair trade as an extension of their product line? Is it OK to grant a license to a comapny that buys fair trade one day and the next day they are hammering a Peruvain farmer for coffee at “C” minus differentials? (.89 a pound sound fair?)
The system needs to be improved.
Comment by tim — September 13, 2006 @ 11:38 am
Hey Tim! Thanks for sharinig your thoughts! I was wondering though — I was really hoping to just get the top 3 that a coffee company — in this case, Sacred Grounds — thinks need to change. Since the 3 points from Geoff and 2 in your comment makes 5 total, I was wondering which of those 5 you’d rank in the top 3. Cuz, as you know, many companies have a v. long litany of things they’d like to see changed — I’m wondering if there’s any consensus as to what the most important changes are.
Comment by Siel — September 15, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
Top three things:
1. Convert TransFair premiums to a sliding scale above the C, with a lower limit. (possibly an upper if prices should ever get above a certain level? Not sure on that one - I’m no economist)
2. Make payments TO THE FARMER the standard for certification to increase transparency. That’s the obvious one. If you’re going to talk about helping farmers directly, then be accountable for it…directly.
3. Quality standards. Geoff is dead-on about creating a culture of quality. Though an immense and nebulous undertaking, I think it would be invaluable and make sourcing really fine coffees that much easier, which woud drive up demand, etc… I’ve heard more than once that, “Oh, I’ve had Fair trade coffee and I didn’t like it.” Who is benefiting from that? Maybe something as simple a two-tier cert (A and B?) would be enough that farmers would push to attain “A” pricing and that helps everyone.
I began origin-roasting a few years ago after meeting some really great farmers in Costa Rica. It was the best thing possible for the farmers but proved unsustainable both financially and ecologically(air freight). While I still have a good relationship with my Costa Rican supplier and travel there annually to meet with him, I have entrusted the Fair Trade certification process to guide me to selections of other responsible coffees until I can get there myself.
Comment by Jim — September 26, 2006 @ 12:37 am
I posted a couple of days a message (maybe it was to rude :D or something) but anyway … I think that Max has a point even if I don’t share his view on intelligentsia, I think that attacking Transfair USA hurts the producers as they are stating a lack of transparency in origin countries and this isn’t true… I sincerely hope that they aren’t trying to capitalize on this because then they will become worse than the multintionals that exploit producers. Please don’t contribute to bring down a system that has worked for more than 25 years, many producers depend on it (read the JNC letter posted here they say it directly and Just JNC has 36K producers).
Don’t play with the livelyhood of these people. I can send you pictures of the infrahumane shacks where displaced farmers live (I saw them in Peru and couldn’t believe it), so think about the impact of your words before volunteering them so freely.
I fully agree with Dean, and I think that he has hit the root of the problem, and it isn’t lack of transparency in origin.
So Siel, I offer to give you a lot of first hand information about what I’ve seen in origin. Some of this criticism is based on the lack of understanding of the business … the trading business … because even the Fair Trade Coffees are a commodity.
You know my email.
Comment by eeCoff — September 26, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
As usual when reading Geoff’s comments about Fair Trade, I find myself much in agreement and happy for his insights. I, however, would question his second point. It seems to me that the mechanism for rewarding supererior quality FT coffees exists via the mechanisms of the free market. As Intelligentsia has proven, if you find superior coffees and offer them to the consumer as a superior product, buyers will come. The FT price is a floor, not a ceiling.
Comment by Jerry at The Change — September 27, 2006 @ 8:30 am
For readers — I talked to Jim ’bout his comments, and his revised top 3 went up here.
eeCoff — Dude — I didn’t get your message — I’m guessing it was a comment? I do have a spam filter set up, and while it’s good, it’s not perfect. However, there are currently 844 comments captured in it, which is why I never wade through it. But it sounds like for some reason your comment was considered spam! I’m sorry :(
Back to the point you’re making — I totally hear you about not wanting to “bring down a system” — especially a well-meaning one — that’s “worked,” more or less, so far. I too refrained from saying anything negative about the FT certification or about FLO or TFUSA specifically for a while — and I believe many coffee companies and activists did the same — until it got to the point where it really became clear — at least quite clear to me — that TFUSA wasn’t making a good faith effort to listen to and address these concerns — and that TFUSA wouldn’t do so, until the seriously fair trade people started making some noise.
Thus, the direction this blog’s taken.
I too agree with a lot of what Dean has to say, so we have that in common. But as you know, Dean too has left the TFUSA system.
So now I’m sorta wondering if your comment had to do more with the quality issue (which Jerry too’s questioning, as well as many others) or about the transparancy to the farmer level issue (which I have TFUSA people saying they’ll gimme more info to discredit, but I haven’t received this info as of yet)…. In any case — I tried emailing you — but it bounced back to me: the email account appears not to exist. If you mistyped it, pls backchannel me — My email’s greenlagirl@gmail.com.
Jerry — I have to say that that’s the point that bothers me the most. On the other hand, I don’t have enough confidence in my feeling of disagreement, because I’m clearly not a quality connoiseur. Still, I’m a serious coffee drinker, and I really have qualms about linking the fair trade movement so strongly to the quality coffee (which I see as being similar to the haute cuisine) movement… More on that later, after I have more time to think about it –
Comment by Siel — September 27, 2006 @ 11:22 pm