[The whole Certification Challenges series is here.]
Fletch, in a comment in the previous post, wondered if the mission-based fair trade coffee companies are simply walking away from fair trade certification with their noses in the air.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. To their credit, the Cooperative Coffees members that parted ways with Transfair USA, the nonprofit that provides the fair trade certification sticker for US products, decided to do so after TWO years of negotiations that went nowhere.
And Equal Exchange, a 100% fair trade certified company, is to be seriously commended for continuously taking the time to recommend changes and solutions about fair trade certification to TFUSA, despite the fact that many of EE’s careful and measured recommendations have NOT been taken by TFUSA in the past.
That said, I agree at least in part with some of the points Fletch brought up. Yes, TFUSA needs to make a bigger effort to work with the mission-based companies, but some of these mission-based companies ALSO need to work harder to be part of a more unified fair trade movement.
I’ve yet to hear from any Co-op Coffees member company about what move from TFUSA — a real-world move that allows transnational companies to take part in the movement — WOULD satisfy them.
Regardless, one thing I’ve been interested in is organizing and lobbying by mission-based coffee roasters. Starbucks, due to its sheer size, makes up about 21% of all fair trade certified coffee that comes in the US right now, despite its minimal commitment to fair trade. However, I’m guessing that the mission-based companies, if they banded together, could have just as big a cache as Starbucks, even strictly in terms of purchasing volume (and correspondingly, certification fees for TFUSA).
Why this banding together hasn’t happened yet is a little beyond me — When I’m feeling positive, I think it’s cuz the mission based companies thought TFUSA would work harder to address their concerns so a more confrontational move wouldn’t be necessary. When I’m pessimistic, I think the mission-based companies were too busy quibbling with each other to encourage any kind of collaborative work.
I really hope to see some more collective and collaborative action come out of the meetings that take place at the SCAA (Specialty Coffee Association of America) conference in Charlotte early April. I’ll be writing up something about the negotiations for Just Things — All perspectives you’d like me to consider in writing the piece are encouraged and welcome.
[The whole Certification Challenges series is here.]
I’m wondering if part of the reasons for mission based companies splitting with TFUSA is because by doing so they can do a better job of adhering to their mission . If these companies are able to go directly to source and see with their own eyes that a grower is producing an environmentally and socially sustainable product and they pay them fair or better than Fair Trade prices directly , then they are achieving their goal of sustainability and also of bringing a quality cup of coffee to their customers. There are many roasters in the SCAA like myself who are committed to roasting at or near 100% fair trade coffee, but it is frankly limiting to do so. We probably could benefit from a “Band of Brothers” approach, or perhaps there can be a new “Co-operative Coffees ” to carry the torch.
Comment by joebella — March 27, 2006 @ 6:32 am
I’m with you, Joebella. It’s important to remember that even though these mission-based companies are not fair trade certified, they are still paying their workers the same, if not more than ftc companies, and quite possibly are able to do more for their individual producers’ land. Also, a problem with certification is that only co-ops are able to be certified. I am aware of a few mission-based companies that own their own plantations, and use only the beans from their own land, and others who use only a few specific farms (that are not part of co-ops) for their beans.
So, they are adhering to our justice issues, but in not being certified, they don’t have to pay the outragous fees, nor do they have to adhere to the strict rules of TFUSA. The problem here is that we, as consumers, know that they are not held to any outside standars, nor are their credentials being reviewed on a regular basis.
But do they NEED to have the stamp of approval, even if they are doing at least, if not more, than ftc companies? It seems like we may be putting more importance on the sticker rather than their actual practices.
Comment by Gillian — March 27, 2006 @ 10:55 am
Thanks for the response, Siel. I strongly agree that mission-based companies are doin’ a lot for fair trade certification. I just wonder, and lement, why they aren’t coordinating their message together. Why, for example, didn’t C.C. above approach EqEx before leaving Transfair certification? My guess, and it’s only that, is that C.C. felt that the five percent solution wasn’t good enough. The problem, though, is that SBux supplies far more fair trade licensing fees to Transfair than C.C. did, so (again, guessing) Transfair probably shrugged off their departure. They wouldn’t do so if a collection of mission-based firms achieved the licensing stream SBux provides.
Clearly, a start for this sort of group would be general agreement on what constitutes a minimum commitment to fair trade at Transfair. Everyone here agrees that SBux isn’t minimally committed to fair trade principles. But, everyone should also agree that asking SBux for 100% (or even 50%) at this point is unrealistic.
Moreover, by organizing and forcing Transfair to tell the mermaid to “commit-or-quit,” over time SBux would generate more licensing revenue, thus solving, if only partially, a big gap in certification: Only Co-ops are eligible for it. Yes, many mission-based firms work with or own plantations. But this again fragments the movement as every firm invents its own certification scheme, leaving the consumer not knowing what to believe.
Comment by Fletch — March 27, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
Hi Siel and all:
A good post to question what should mission-based fair trade companies and transfair USA do? I don’t have strong opinions, but I do agree with team-based approach in streamlining goals and fair trade movement in general. Sometimes things are all beyond me about Fair Trade, its movement, and its realities. I received a newletter for example from Globalisation Institute recently and they have an article about FT (and I’m getting more confused):
“Fairer than Fairtrade
Campaigners are rightly concerned about plight of coffee farmers. They old way of helping producers was to pay a few pence extra for a cup of coffee, as sold by Fairtrade companies like Cafedirect plc (who roast and package in Europe). But as the failings of Fairtrade are increasingly being highlighted by left and right alike, it is becoming apparent that farmers deserve a better approach.
Coffee beansCafe Britt, a producer in Costa Rica and Peru, has worked out that there’s a lot of money in the roasting and packaging of coffee: “As a country-of-origin roaster, we are challenging conventional coffee wisdom. We believe that producing countries are more than raw material suppliers to intermediaries in other countries. We believe that these developing countries can export the finished product with all its value added in the country of origin.”
Cafe Britt isn’t all that keen on the Fairtrade mark: in fact, they decided that, despite paying premium prices, the complexity and cost of being on the scheme would be greater than the benefits. In Costa Rica, Cafe Britt produces some of the raw coffee on its own plantation, but buys the rest from a large number of small farmers. In order to be Fairtrade certified, each of these farmers would require individual auditing and certification (as they don’t belong to a co-operative or to Cafe Britt plantation). That’s just not practical. They say:
“Fair-commerce†or “social” certifications were conceived for roasters based abroad, far-removed from the cultural and national identity that coffee has produced in countries like Costa Rica and Peru…
We do not need a certification guaranteeing our fair trade practices, because the very fact that we exist means that a new business model is brewing… a new paradigm in the coffee industry allowing the producing countries and their communities to keep a higher share of the benefits… Fairly traded coffee is our only way. When you buy our coffee you are contributing to the sustainable development of coffee producing countries.
For further information on Cafe Britt. For 100% Arabica which sells the coffee in the UK.”
Cafe Britt: http://www.cafebritt.com/faq/index.cfm?view=1519&ID=4&chkd=yes
Cheers,
Maya.
Comment by Maya — March 28, 2006 @ 7:53 am
Hi Maya,
The G.I. tries to cloud the issue here by 1) Implying that independent fair trade certification means the coffee is not “fair trade” and 2) Ignoring the market structure that most farmers face: Those “processors” that Al and crew would like the farmers to emulate often turn out to be “cayotes.” For more thoughts, check out this and this.
Comment by Fletch — March 28, 2006 @ 8:03 pm
thanks Fletch…I hear you…it’s tough to know who to trust at the end :-| so many takes and versions of stories…
Comment by Maya — March 29, 2006 @ 5:49 am
joebella and Gillian — There’s no question that these 100% companies that left TFUSA are in a lot of ways doing more for the fair trade movement than many of the companies that have the TFUSA certification sticker. And Gillian — I’m talking about mission-based companies that’ve broken with TFUSA in the past over, among other things, transnationals getting the fair trade sticker (here’s the rest of the series, which’ll hopefully help bring you up to speed :)
In any case — Mission-based companies like Co-op Coffees don’t NEED the stamp of approval, but it does make it really tough for many in the fair trade movement to “explain” what fair trade is, and how to recognize a fair trade product, when these 100% companies say the same thing that Starbucks often does — “We’re all fair trade, but not certified.”
Fletch — I too wonder why there hasn’t been more coordination of messaging among mission-based companies…. I hope there can be more of that — Maybe at SCAA next month?
Comment by Siel — March 31, 2006 @ 5:54 pm
I hope so too. SBux obviously isn’t committed to fair trade but if mission-based firms and others can’t clearly say what “commitment” means or doesn’t mean then SBux and Transfair are rightly perplexed even if they want to please them. The first step is agreeing on a common standard – like the five percent solution – and then organizing to lobby Transfair to impose it on SBux. Agreeing on the least common denominator is hard. Organizing and lobbying to make it real may be impossible, but we’ll see…
Comment by Fletch — March 31, 2006 @ 9:29 pm