[pic left from NYT]
So I shoulda posted earlier about this nice article in the Sunday NY Times detailing what’s happening with coffee in Rwanda, but instead I just bookmarked it and took a nap till everyone else wrote about it first. On the upside, more links!
What I thought was most notable: The article shows how co-ops are changing how Rwandan coffee’s grown and sold.
The NYT reports: “Co-op members are able to sell directly to the roaster, cutting out brokers and wholesalers, and learn about buying, selling and bookkeeping in the process.”
“When these prices are paid to cooperatives, instead of to private dealers, the profits go directly to farmers, 20 percent of whom are widows and orphans because of the genocide.”
The financial benefit’s clear, despite the fact that the farmer gets “only” 70% of the profits — the rest of it get reinvested into the co-op “for management, marketing, equipment, training and other expenses.”
I point this 70% figure out because companies like Starbucks — which does buy some Rwandan coffee, but often bashes co-ops cuz the mermaid prefers to buy more cheaply from large estate farms — uses that 70% or so stat to insinuate that something fishy’s going on at the co-ops. Starbucks will say that co-op farmers aren’t getting the money owed to them. Don’t be fooled — at fair trade co-ops, which’re democratically organized, each farmer has to get a say in how the co-op money’s spent.
Anyway — Read the whole article for quotes from Geoff of Intelligentsia, Paul of Thanksgiving Coffee, and others.
If you still want more, head over to NextBillion to examine Ethan’s post on this issue. Sez he about the focus on coffee: “There is a strong case to be made, I think, that economic activity in Rwanda should not revolve entirely around global commodity markets.” Thoughts?
Wanna buy Rwandan coffee? Check out Thanksgiving Coffee’s fair trade certified Gorilla Fund Coffee, which sends $2 a package to the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International to protect Rwanda’s 380 endangered mountain gorillas :)
I was very encouraged that an article on the front page of the NY Times business section not only wrote positively about a co-op but actually did so at great length. For what its worth, the Times business pages almost never discusses co-op’s, even though they collectively represent over $100 billion in US economic activity annually. But that’s another story.
And, yeah, it’s funny (and self-serving) that STBX should make so much out of the 70% figure, yet gloss over the fact that the 30% is going to pay for the expenses and investments of an enterprise that is owned by, and accountable to, the farmers themselves. In essence that 30% represents how the farmers have successfully pulled off the “vertical integration” trick, and have “moved upstream in the value creation process”. And, if you’re going to operate some trucks, one warehouse (or many), drying patios, sorters, an export sales staff, etc, then some of of your export revenue (lets say 30%)will need to go to cover those costs. What’s more, that ownership stake comes with a real, meaningful vote–a democratic element that a STBX barista owning a few shares of “Bean stock” might envy. But I sense I might be getting on my “co-op” high horse again, so I’ll just dismount for now.
Comment by Rodney North — August 8, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
It’s a real prob, this lack of co-op coverage in the MSM. Beyond inadequate coverage, this often means that the info we DO get about co-ops ends up coming from co-ops themselves (i.e. the reason you joked you might be getting on the co-op high horse) or someone with a big stake in co-ops. Despite the fact that the info might be accurate, it’s easy for some to suspect that the info’s biased, since it doesn’t come from a 3rd party. I guess that’s where alternative media comes in –
Comment by Siel — August 9, 2006 @ 7:13 pm