If you’re like most Americans, you have just a vague idea of what fair trade means (i.e. something “good”). Try to find out any more, and you’ll be bombarded with all sortsa crazy info, from how fair trade isn’t really fair to how some companies are going over and above than fair trade to how Starbucks is the fairest of them all to how big corps are fucking up fair trade.
You can catch up on those debates here (my take is that fair trade certification is an imperfect solution — as all “solutions” are — yet the biggest part of the current solution available) — but for those more familiar with the debates, here’s something ’bout the current debates of “fair trade lite” — and conversely, “fairer than fair trade” — debate.
The basic argument goes thusly: Fair trade certification’s watered down, so you need to look beyond the label and support the REALLY fair trade companies. That’s the idea behind Andrew Purvis’ post in Word of Mouth, The Observer’s food blog, about a fair trade UK company called Cafedirect.
On the whole, Andrew says lotsa good things about fair trade — about how it’s not just about a baseline price, but about empowerment of people. Andrew’s post came after he visited Uganda, to write a longish article about fair trade is changing people’s lives there.
Where Andrew loses me is when he basically says Cafedirect rocks and everyone else using the fair trade label sucks. “The Fairtrade mark look like a rather pitiful base standard,” he opines, and says “whenever you see the Fairtrade mark on a packet of coffee in Tesco or Sainsbury’s, remind yourself that it is ‘Fairtrade Lite’ – a pale version of what Cafédirect is doing.”
But while Cafédirect’s doing some good stuff, Andrew seems blithely unaware of the work of other fair trade companies. He points out that Cafédirect pays 10% above the world market price or the Fairtrade minimum price, whichever is higher — without noting that many other coffee companies — including Equal Exchange and all of Cooperative Coffees — are doing the same.
Furthermore, Andrew — even while pointing out the fact that minimum fair trade prices for coffee are going up — fails to note that the REASON these prices are going up is due to the work of both fair trade producers and companies working WITHIN the fair trade system. Cafedirect, after all, has opted to keep the fair trade label — which implies that the company’s willing to work from within the system to shape what fair trade is.
In the US, diehard fair trade company Dean’s Beans recently went back to getting fair trade certified — after taking a few years’ hiatus accusing the standards of getting too watered down. Why? Part of the reason is that the producers wanted Dean’s Bean to get recertified. “Universally, the farmers asked me to rejoin,” Dean said, “because they said they need strong voices that understand them inside TransFair to make TransFair an organization that understands farmers.” Andrew might do well to ask the farmers who produce the coffee for Cafedirect why they choose — and pay for — fair trade certification, despite his contention that the label’s practically meaningless.
That’s not to say fair trade certification is perfect. My point is that a critique of fair trade certification need to consider and elucidate the reasons as to which many “fairer than fair trade” producers and companies decide to stay within the system.
I also think that a critique that champions one company so strongly above all other companies usually requires a very myopic viewpoint.
There are more legitimate arguments about fair trade lite, of course — a debate less about promoting a single company than about looking at the bigger picture that corporations play in the definition of fair trade as a whole. More about that later.
As third generation coffee professionals, we are extremely dismayed by recent, vicious attacks on the Fair Trade system here in the states. Many in the sustainable coffee industry, have questions and serious concerns about the alliance between the Bush state department/USAID and a small group of extrordianarily (and mysteriously) well funded roasters and journalists, as well as the current leadership at The SCAA, who have embarked upon an all-out campaign to discredit both Fair Trade and Organic movements within Coffee. Companies like Intelligentsia are currently waging a disinformation campaign against FT Organic certification and disseminating the propaganda via the conduit of thousands of clients who know little about the big picture or history of the business they are in, who mindlessly repeat the misinformation they are fed by thier principal educator about coffee, thier supplier. Few ever read between the lines and ask “Who benefits?” or “Why would the Bush/Rice State Department care about driving up the price of Specialty Coffee, when it’s Mission is to promote US Agribusiness interests and US Political agendas abroad?” (All US grown coffee is highly valued already & US Agribusiness clearly has no interest in driving up the price of Specialty Coffee as it doesn’t trade in specialty, so the obvious master here is: US POLITICAL AGENDA, though some speculate GMO COFFEE AGENDA may also be in operation–draw your own conclusions.)
Here in the U.S. so called “Direct Trade” gimmick(actually nothing of the sort) has emerged as nothing short of green cloaking, or sustainable skam, a spin job on relationship models that really don’t exist and that serves to break down Cooperatives (key word there is COOPERATE folks) and pits Coops & Coop members against each other in pursuit of the highest (up front) bucks from the smallest segment of the global coffee market. Geof Watts, Duane Sorensen, Willem Boot & the self proclaimed “George Jung” coffee treasure hunters are looking after their own business interests (and tiny market share); they will stop at nothing to find the “best” and pay the highest prices (?!), even if it means separating farmers from their family and community. These roasters are not content with their Finca This, Hacienda That, Fazenda Over There Estate coffees; they want to globalize the smallest producers and pit them against one another just like mini-plantations. These buyers actively work to disconnect the growers from the ONLY two truly effective programs to EVER IN HISTORY improve the lives of Coffee Growers and empower them within the supply chain: Fair Trade and Organic Certification. These elitist buyers seek out only the top 5-10% and leave the coop with no option for the bulk/rest of thier crop (second quality) which they are forced to send into the “comodity” market at sub-standard/base prices, where these very same Companies buy the coffees to blend with the “Top Micro Lots”, unbeknownst to buyers paying $45 a pound who never wonder how a “limited, exlusive micro lot lot of only 20 bags (3000 Lbs)!!!” can be sold daily for six months in 3500 locations. Were these companies, (who built thier reputations on the sustainable certifications they now eschew in favor of thier own phoney look a likes), Fair Trade Certified these gimmicks would be transparent and traceable, but outside of certification there really isn’t anyone to stop the fraud.Colonialism and exploitation hasn’t faded away from the coffee business, it just got “Third Waved” and tatooed! For the people who grow coffee, and we in the industry who sincerely wish to better thier lives, and empower our supply chain, it’s a very dangerous & dirty game these companies are playing, and many of us insiders know that the out front companies and individuals involved are, like Starbucks, scrambling to salvage failing companies by any means neccessary, and failing that, make thier companies more attractive for acquisition by agribusiness.
Comment by The Truth IS — July 12, 2008 @ 10:34 am
Totally agree – FT is a legitimate, careful system that functions very well for coffee. The cooperative system makes sense and benefits farmers.
As for the other product, I don’t know if 60-70 percent of the world’s flower suppliers are small, family owned farms. I suspect they aren’t. So rather than ignore the industries where large scale farms dominate, I respect Fair Trade for trying to apply their standards to those situations. And I think it’s helpful for the vast majority of consumers if they have one certification they know and trust working across a number of products.
Comment by kathy — July 14, 2008 @ 5:39 am
The post by “The Truth Is” has many great points.
I especially agree that “direct trade” models can dismantle cooperatives and set communities against one another (as in the traditional divide and conquer method). We as global citizens of the 1st world / northern hemisphere have to keep in mind the long history of exploitation in commodity producing regions. Starting with the Conquistadors to CIA Coups to US funded Death Squads to Structural Readjustment Programs there is a long history of domination in the global south all done in the name of providing our industries and consumers in the north with a good price
There is not middle ground in the global south. You are either in one camp or the other. They do not have the luxury that we have of being disengaged from the political system. Cooperatives are the best way for communities to grow, empower and educate themselves. Cooperatives give farmers a voice.
Fair Trade is about changing a historically exploitative system, not tweaking it to make it feel better for us. We are not yet at a place where Fair Trade should be watered down. The definitions and standards need to be increasingly focused and strengthened. If people want to engage in charity then that’s fine…but just don’t call it Fair Trade.
Comment by Don Durito de la Lacandona — July 23, 2008 @ 10:30 am
So I’m sitting here in Bolivia after an all day bus ride across the Andes and I decide to hop online and poke around, check in on some blog sites that I have enjoyed in the past.
I came across this thread and began to wonder whether it was the altitude here in La Paz or the lack of sleep that was messing with my mind. I’ve encountered plenty of surreal and indecipherable musings and conspiracy theories while drifting late at night through the blogosphere, but this marks the first time I’ve been personally incorporated into one. In a way I guess it is a kind of perverse honor to show up in someone’s paranoid fantasies; maybe this means I’ve made it to the “big time”!?
My first thought after reading the comment posted by The Truth IS was that it really shouldn’t warrant any kind of response, it is just so out there and wacked that taking the time to acknowledge it would be a crime against Time itself, an indulgence at the expense of something more worthwhile that could be accomplished with the half-hour it would take to reply. Wastefulness is a karmic sin, I think, and you know I DO want to be born as a talented musician next time around, so it makes sense to try to keep the ledger as deep in the black as possible.
But then it sort of gnawed at me, a little indignance crept in despite my best efforts to let it go. So here I am, guy, you got me, I hope that it means something to you.
I suppose that first it makes sense to ask where you get your ideas from (other than, of course, all those days I spend with Condi at the aquarium watching the pretty fishes swim around in those cute little tanks). Not sure about the extrordianarily [sic] well funded bit, not quite certain what the George Jung thing is all about, don’t really understand your mathematics when you start speculating about micro-lot sales and stores and such.
For the record, we’ve got 4 stores…three in Chicago and one in sunny L.A. It sure would be nice to have 3500, but you must realize that I spent most of that ‘mysterious funding’ you talk about booking my reservation for a prime crater-front spot in the new Mars colony that is set to open by 2291 at the latest (the rest I am saving for cryogenic freezing, just in case I’m wrong about the whole reincarnation thing).
It is certainly true that I’m only buying coffees that have real, measurable, put-a-silly-grin-on-your-face quality. That is important. Without material, intrinsic quality, coffee will never succeed in becoming more than a commodity. Whether that amounts to 10%, 20%, 50% or more than that from any given cooperative depends…well…on the size of the cooperative, average farm or garden size per member, varieties of trees they’ve got planted, how well the farms are being cared for, access to resources (pre-financing and tools /basic infrastructure), access to good information about process control and just plain old human effort. Fact is that any farmer living in an area with suitable environmental conditions (good altitude, rainfall, enough sunshine) can produce high quality coffees. But it is not easy to do, and most definitely it requires some basic resources that are oftentimes lacking.
As much as anything it also requires that buyers be willing to pay prices that support the production of high-quality coffees. Any way you slice it, it just costs more to produce better quality coffees than it does to produce mediocre or crummy ones. If you need me to explain why that is in greater detail I would be more than happy to.
One of the key reasons there is so much crappy coffee out there in the world today is that growers historically have not been paid to produce great quality. And, although this may be tough to swallow, here it is: $1.31 or $1.51, the current FT base prices, are in most cases NOT ENOUGH to cover the costs of quality production.
Here you go:
Fairtrade Certified Coffee Current Fairtrade Price elements Fairtrade Price elements as of June 1, 2007
Fairtrade Premium US$ 0.05 US$ 0.10
Organic Differential US$ 0.15 US$ 0.20
After 15 years they managed to raise the ‘premium’ by 5 whole cents. Wow. Forgive me, sir, but I am not impressed by this. We all agree the coffee market prices over the last 15 years been way to low to be considered sustainable, especially if quality is at all a factor. So an extra .05 cents/lb, or an extra .10 cents is meant to remedy that?
I had a look at one of the articles that Siel linked to in the Guardian, and I do agree that the whole thing is kind of off-putting and reads like a commercial. A whole lot of self-righteous self -promotion. There was a comment by someone calling themselves makewealthhistory that I will quote here though, ‘cause I think it was fairly well stated:
“As long as Fairtrade is just about paying a living wage, it is only a guarantee of giving people what they’re perfectly entitled to. That we consider that to be progressive and virtuous is somewhat sickening. All in favour of fairtrade, as long as we bear in mind it’s limitations, and support those who do actually believe in longer term development and empowerment”
It is true I’ve been personally quite critical of the FairTrade tm system, and took some time a while back to explain why on this very website. But it is important to understand that my complaints have a lot to do with the way the FT system it misrepresented in the public sphere. Its impact and its long-term viability have been way overstated, and it carries a halo among consumers that just does not merit. It is misleading in the sense that it over-promises and under-delivers, and for this reason I worry. There are many consumers who want to ‘do the right thing’…but we’ve got to teach them to think and to learn and to be critical, not to place blind faith in any particular system or brand. Any criticisms I may have lodged are also a reaction to the fervent ‘my way or the highway’ kind of attitude that many of the FT movements loudest voices have put forth. There are many ways to the goal, and more than likely whatever future strides are made with regard to sustainability in the coffee industry will be the result of multiple forces pioneering different strategies for changing the model. It is silly and illogical to believe that individual companies, groups, or advocates cannot innovate and create great products which advance the livelihoods of the producers with whom they work without being part of the monolithic FT system. It is precisely the competition of ideas that allows for progress to be made.
And though I’ve said it many times before in public forums, I’ll say it again: there is plenty to be admired about what FT has accomplished. They’ve managed to get the attention of the consumer in a big way. They’ve stimulated discussion about sustainability in coffee that has penetrated the mainstream in a way that no single coffee roasting company has been able to accomplish on its own. For this I tip my hat, it is no small feat.
But this should be considered the starting place. Where it has gone off-rail is that in their eagerness to get people’s attention many FT promoters have turned to ambiguous and loaded marketing, full of sloganeering and inflammatory language that paints a black and white picture of the coffee industry. This heavy-handed zealotry has encouraged the kind of blind faith that characterizes most failed movements where critical thinking gets drowned by rhetoric and by the end all you’ve got left is a sticker that is taken to mean a lot more than it actually is capable of delivering. Most consumers tend to consider it the end, the absolute benchmark for sustainability in coffee, when really it has become little more than a band-aid in most cases. Ultimately FT has a definite value in the coffee industry. A fairly specific one, and I do not want to see it fall apart. Yet it is not a silver bullet, and it is not a solution to all of the obstacles facing coffee producers in developing countries around the world. It is one of many parallel efforts to give farmers opportunities they have historically lacked. It succeeds in some places and fails in others, just like most systems. Whether or not it can have relevance in the future depends on its ability to evolve and become dynamic enough to address the differences and subtleties that exist from farm-to-farm, country to country.
I agree with those who have a sour taste in their mouths from all the ‘fairer-than-thou’ campaigning that has been whirling around the coffee industry over the last several years. My appeal is for a return to the basics…let’s talk about details rather than recline in catchphrases. Let’s acknowledge that there are very significant differences between cooperatives, in the same way there are critical difference between private businesses. I’ve worked (and continue to work) with dozens of cooperatives in countries as radically distinct from one another as Rwanda, Costa Rica, Peru, and Ethiopia. Each faces different challenges, has different access to resources, and varying levels of advantage and disadvantage. The real secret to sustainability is finding out how to build systems that allow each to address their weaknesses and capitalize on their strengths. Some do great work—and deserve a ton of support and credit. Others suffer from varying degrees of mismanagement as a result of either lack of competence, lack of vision, or outright corruption. The success or failure of any cooperative group is as much a function of the quality of their leadership as it is anything else.
And at the end of the day, it is more about changing the way the consumer thinks about the value of coffee. The biggest enemy to the coffee farmer today is the long-standing tradition in consuming countries of considering coffee as a cheap and undifferentiated product. It is the feeling of entitlement—that somehow we deserve to be able to purchase a cup for .99 cents or buy a lb. for 5 or 6 bucks.
If you harbor ire, it ought to be directed at the companies who thrive on low quality coffee, who nurture and sustain it. The so-called “Big Four”(Sarah Lee, Kraft, P&G, Nestle) account for the overwhelming majority of coffee purchases/sales worldwide. They continue to dominate the marketplace because consumers continue to patronize them. It is because quality is not given top priority, and any system that does not elevate quality to a place of top importance will perpetuate this problem.
You asked what happens to the coffee I do not buy from many of the coops I work with, the stuff that just doesn’t make the grade? Much of it goes into commoditized FT contracts, my friend. For this I am grateful…FT provides a safety net for producers who do not achieve great results with the quality of their coffees. In this way it fills a huge need. In this way it is of tremendous value. If the BIG 4 were pressured to purchase only FT coffee it would represent a positive change on an order of magnitude that is hard to even conceive. So turn your energy towards them—all this criticism directed towards small companies within the Specialty industry is profoundly misplaced. Sure, some of them are probably not doing great work, and I’m quite certain there are some unscrupulous greenwashers out there. But they do not tend to last. And in general the Specialty industry has been a tremendous boon to coffee farmers worldwide. You should know that, my brother, as a ‘third generation coffee professional’.
I’m still not sure what you mean when you talk about ‘GMO COFFEE AGENDA’. I’m equally puzzled by your comments about ‘coops vs coops’ (is that like Spy vs Spy?), and this thing about ‘separating farmers from their family and community’ doesn’t make any sense to me. Can you elaborate?
Better yet, could you come out from behind your anonymous moniker and take some responsibility for your words? I would love the opportunity to debate with you in a public forum, to answer your questions, to pose some of my own. This kind of dialogue would be a great service to the interested consumer who yearns for meaningful conversation about coffee. At the very least you might be able to share with us your insights about what the way forward should look like.
It strikes me as somewhat sad that you choose sit at your desk and spit crazy, off-the-wall and completely false accusations at some of the very companies who are making a difference in the industry, hiding behind an anonymous handle and taking lunatic potshots at several folks who have poured their hearts into the effort to improve the way coffee is understood and valued.
Thanks for listening,
geoff
Comment by geoff watts — July 27, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
Kudos to Geoff for taking the time to wiegh in, especially during a grueling trip to origin.
Geoff also gets points for being a good writer. I appreciate that – seriously. A good back & forth debate (or maybe “argument”) is always more fun to follow when the writing is lively and sharp. I disagree w/Geoff fairly often but I’ll always appreciate when a well-crafted and full-on post like this one.
Further, I agree with his sentiment that its always preferable to avoid hiding behind psuedonyms, especially when explicitly criticizing other, specific parties. With that said, I know that sometimes circumstances are such that its either hide your identity or shut-up. In which case I believe those w/cloaked identities owe the rest of us to:
- back up their accusations as thoroughly as possible
- tone down the emotion & jack up the benefit of the doubt for those they’re accusing.
They needn’t being silent by any stretch, rather they just need to not abuse their anonymity.
–
But. . .but. . . I’d add that when “The Truth” made the reference to 3500 locations I have to assume that either s/he meant:
- Starbucks and their “Black Apron” coffees (in which case I think he’s over-stating STBX’s talk of small lots)
- OR Intelligentsia’s total base of wholesale and foodservice customers (which I’d guess is in the hundreds or lower thousands – we’ll let Geoff set the record straight) and not to Intelligentsia’s company-owned stores.
- OR to some other company (in which case “the Truth” should let us all know who s/he was talking about).
To wrap up — I agree strongly w/Geoff’s point that the “other” (or “enemy” or what-have-you) _shouldn’t_ be direct-trade & Fair Trade & all the specialty coffee players who are making sincere efforts, but rather the big commodity players (Folgers, Vocafe, Nestle, etc.). While its tempting (& I should know) to point your “gun” to the competitor who is closest to you in the market, we who are “trying” (loosely defined) should focus more of our energy on the big commodity players and retailers and food service operations and not so much on each other.
But the emotional & commercial logic of attacking those who are most like you is real and hard to resist. So lets take this advice for all of us (myself included).
Which leads to my final point – Geoff, too, needs to listen to his own good words. Namely, not infrequently Intelligentsia focuses on Fair Trade as the “other”, that which has to be addressed, critiqued and diminished. Here in Boston Intelligentsia-supplied cafes have posters proclaiming in huge letters “THIS IS NOT FAIR TRADE COFFEE”. The obvious take-away is that “Fair Trade”, not “commodity coffee” or “c-market coffee” or Nestle or Folgers is the problem and the alternative that has to be addressed and mentally discounted.
I could go on, its such a rich topic, but that’s enough for now.
Comment by Rodney North — July 28, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
Thanks Rodney.
I get your point about resisting the temptation to bash other certification models or sustainability efforts and I agree. When anyone cares enough to try to build something aimed at making a positive difference in the world, he/she/they really ought to be encouraged, not belittled. It is still the minority of the population that has managed to understand the benefits of looking out for the well-being of others and considering the likely impacts/outcomes of the choices we make as consumers. Squabbling within the ranks is usually not productive.
That said, criticism that is productive and comes from an intention to make the object better in some way is a good thing. While I have at times been an outspoken critic of the FT model (as it is applied to coffee–I have little experience with other industries) I’ve also made an explicit effort to remind readers that there are many things FT does that are unequivocally positive. In the end I have a very real, very vested interest in seeing FT certification succeed and continue, as it fills a specific need in the coffee world.
However, it grows wearisome to be repeatedly assaulted in anonymous public forums by people using FT Certification as a bludgeon without even understanding its strengths and weaknesses. Many armchair critics still confuse Fair Trade with Free Trade. And a good number of the most vocal FT supporters DO regularly attempt to advance their cause using negative tactics–badmouthing other initiatives for the sole reason that they are not FT. By taking the ‘true believer’ approach where critical judgement is suspended and the ‘movement’ is put forth as gospel–as a finished product, self-righteous in its conception–advocates end up alienating some of the people who they should really view as allies.
It’s also important to me that you understand this-when I have made criticisms in the past they’ve come from real experience, not conjecture, not suppositions, not assumptions. It is the nature of my work that I’m in near daily contact with growers and grower groups all year-round. I spend the majority of my time ever year working in producing countries, on farms, with coffee farmers. And I travel in circles with some of the most progressive coffee buyers on the planet, including many of the very people who helped get FT started and continue to be active supporters. We talk about these issues a lot, we share experiences, we brainstorm solutions.
This sounds like a bunch of own-horn-tooting, but is not intended to be…it just means a lot to me that it be understood my criticisms come from a thoughtful place and are meant to add value to the conversations about how this industry ought to move forward.
I know the signs you talk of, but disagree with the analysis; I feel there is another take-away…the idea is to change the pattern of conversation about FT and open the door for better dialogue. When somebody says ‘my coffee is sustainable’ the natural question from an observer ought to be: “what does that mean?” or ‘how exactly is it is sustainable?” rather than “Oh, so then it is Fair Trade?”. Neither Transfair USA, Flo, or anyone else owns the patent on fairness, regardless of what many young and well-intentioned advocates like to pretend.
Why does it need to come up at all? Well, for better or worse it has truly become the most recognizable, most mainstream, most widespread ‘standard’ for sustainbility in coffee right now. So naturally when any company/organization uses a different system they will be asked by their customers–how is this different than Fair Trade? Why not just be Fair Trade? There is certainly a mandate to explain oneself, and part of the explanation has sometimes needed to include commentary about why indeed we’ve chosen to do the Fleetwood Mac and go our own way.
There are many ways to do good work.
Anyway, I am curious to hear about some of the other instances where we disagree. You mentioned in the post just now that you disagree with me fairly often and I would love the opportunity to discuss with you any topics where we have seriously differing opinions. It would probably be helpful for both of us. You can email me anytime!
cheers,
geoff
Comment by geoff watts — August 7, 2008 @ 11:29 am