You might think a lot of fair trade coffee roaster peeps are easy-going hippie-types, but they’re not, really.
I mean, they may be easy-going in other areas of their lives, but the’re not all that easy-going ’bout fair trade. They’ve got their strong opinions, and they’re sticking to them, is how these fair trade peeps are.
Meaning that these diehard fair trade peeps were out full force last Thursday, when TransFair USA, the nonprofit that provides the fair trade certification label (left) for the US, put together a 5-hour Fair Trade Forum at the Specialty Coffee Association of America conference.
Luckily, the thing started at a reasonable 1 pm, so I made it. After a buncha stats presented by a nice woman from TFUSA, then some interesting but long (esp. with translation time) talks from coffee producer reps from Nicaragua and Rwanda, we heard a talk from Paul Rice, the CEO of TFUSA.
The name of the talk: “The State of Fair Trade.” Paul gave us some interesting numbers, then talked about some recent breakthroughs — like Whole Foods going fair trade, for ex.
Then Paul went onto talk about some challenges facing fair trade — like the certification confusion caused by Rainforest Alliance, which’ll award lovely certification stickers to very bad companies (Folgers Yuban, owned by Kraft) for meeting very low standards (30% of coffee meeting rather low criteria — meaning 70% didn’t even meet that low criteria)….
Paul delivered some v. good news too: He said he wants to see “further adjustments” to the minimum fair trade coffee price — meaning these prices need to be raised. The TFUSA people pointed out that the average fair trade coffee price was $1.51 per lb — way higher than the recently upped fair trade minimum price of $1.31 an lb.
This means TFUSA’s thoughts are very much in line with those of the activist fair trade roasters and groups in the US, who’d like to see the prices go up.
At the post-talk Q and A, Monika Firl of Cooperative Coffees — a lil group of groundbreaking fair trade coffee roasters, some of who broke with TFUSA a few years ago because they felt certification criteria’d sunk too low — spoke up, saying she wanted to hear ’bout a coherent startegy, a larger gameplan. Basically, she wanted to know what TFUSA was going to do to make sure other stakeholders (i.e. Cooperative Coffees, producer groups) in fair trade were gonna get heard.
Joe Curnow of United Students of Fair Trade chimed in, asking: How can we hold TFUSA accountable? Sure, it’s nice for TFUSA to “listen,” but will TFUSA take any action afterwards?
Paul responded by very clearly stating that that TFUSA is not a multistakeholder organization.
Meaning, while TFUSA’s v. open to listening to other people in the fair trade movement, it doesn’t have — and from what I gather, doesn’t feel it needs to create — any formal structure of input from other stakeholders that’ll dictate, or even limit, what TFUSA decides to do.
This sort of formal structure’s exactly what Cooperative Coffees have said they want. And it’s definitely the first time I’ve heard TFUSA state so bluntly that that TFUSA’s gonna make its own decisions. TFUSA’ll listen to what others have to say and take them into account, but TFUSA’ll go a different way if it disagrees. (right: Larry of Larry’s Beans and Beth Ann of Equal Exchange on the Queen Mary in Long Beach)
TFUSA’s put a few more formal processes in place for listening to what others have to say in the last year or so. And Paul said that he wants TFUSA to do a better job of “looping back” — basically letting people who give input know why TFUSA makes the decisions it does post-input.
But a multistakeholder org, TFUSA is not, and doesn’t plan to be.
For my part, I wonder what the fair trade stakeholders — including Cooperative Coffees — expected and will expect, especially since the companies that want TFUSA to be a multistakeholder org are not multistakeholder orgs themselves. Of course, TFUSA’s a nonprofit that oversees fair trade certification for all of the US, so TFUSA’s organization can’t be directly compared to those of individual coffee companies.
I do have a hard time picturing how TFUSA could be structured as a multistakeholder org. Are there examples of successful multistakeholder orgs out there that’re as big or bigger than TFUSA?
You might be interested in looking at the website for the Fairtrade Foundation in the UK – http://www.fairtrade.org.uk The Foundation is the labelling organisation for the UK and has representation on its board from the organisations that founded it – Christian Aid, Cafod, Traidcraft, plus Divine Chocolate Co, Women’s Institute and a few others I can’t remember offhand. The Foundation holds the granting of labels and auditing of products in tension with the large volunteer activist base that exists in the UK. With over 2500 certificated products now available in the shops and at least 250 cities/towns throughout the UK registered as Fairtrade areas and committed to spreading Fairtrade, this is quite some task. I know your situation in the States is rather different, but it’s good to see the idea spreading – do have a look at the site.
Best wishes,
Sunjo
Comment by Sunjo — May 9, 2007 @ 1:05 am
Siel,
I understand you’re very busy and I sincerely appreciate your attendance at the FT Forum, but I wish that your coverage was a little more in depth. There is a lot more to SCAA than Equal Exchange, Co-op Coffees, and the usual questions from the usual suspects.
I was hoping you’d have more to say about the presentation on the impact of Fair Trade Certification at origin by TFUSA’s Certification Program Manager, Meghan Quinlan (“a nice woman from TFUSA”) The goal of this presentation was to present not only the most recent data on the real financial impact of Fair Trade Certification for producer communities, but to also have co-op representatives share their individual stories. Not only does Meghan gather, analyze, process, and produce this vital impact data, she also knows first hand how Fair Trade coffee co-ops are certified and has visited origin on many ocassions. For your readers who are curious about how co-operatives use the Fair Trade premium, or how co-ops have aided their communities, there are many resources:
The Fair Trade Almanac http://www.transfairusa.org/pdfs/2007FairTradeAlmanac.pdf
Producer Profiles
http://www.transfairusa.org/content/certification/producer_profiles.php
There is another important component to the Fair Trade Forum which was going on concurrently with the in-English industry events in the afternoon. The Producer Forum was an all-day event for the over 120 FT co-op representatives and included presentations from TransFair’s own Global Producer Services department, co-op reps like Merling Preza of PRODECOOP and Fatima Ismael of SOPPEXCA, buyers like Ed Canty of Greem Mountain, importers Jos Algra of TWIN and Jorge Cuevas of Sustainable Origins, and Roy Perizont of FAST, a new alliance to provide financial and management tools to producers. The Producer Forum this year was by far our best-attended and it was a great success due to the hard work of my colleagues in GPS ( http://www.fairtradeimpact.org/ ) The Producer Forum was an all-day event, restricted to producers, and conducted mostly in Spanish, so, you’re excused from not covering it ;-)
I too attended Paul’s address and was standing in the back of the room when Monika made her long statement, which at my count, contained about 10 questions. As you were seated near the front, you may not have been able to see Monika sit down, commence to talk to one of her colleagues, and disregard Paul’s answers.
A clarification: Co-Operative Coffees, the importing association, did not break with TransFair USA. It is still a licensed importer which imports and sells FT beans to some of our licensees. Some of Co-Op’s roaster members, including Larry’s Beans, Just Coffee, and Dean’s Beans (who by the way signed a great new five-year contract with producers on the SCAA convention floor at booth 927-our booth for those without a conference guide) are no longer licensees, but still buy their coffees from FLO Certified producer co-ops.
Last, I would like to point out our Coffee Producers Advisory Council, which was started last year in by TFUSA and includes representatives from co-ops around the world. The idea of this council was to have producers develop their own agendas and topics for discussion and to meet on a regular basis. Paul mentioned this during his presentation and said that the model will be considered for developing an advisory council for movement stakeholders (NGOs, student groups, faith-based groups, etc.)
Before I go off on other SCAA tangents, I appreciate your attendance at the FT Forum this year and I hope the convention was a good time for you.
Sincerely,
Demian Luper
Coffee Account Manager
TransFair USA
1611 Telegraph Ave.
Oakland, CA 94612
dluper@transfairusa.org
http://www.transfairusa.org
Comment by Demian — May 9, 2007 @ 11:54 am
Hi Demian — It was nice running into you at SCAA, briefly — Hope the marketing panel thing you were moderating went well.
First, in regard to your “clarification”: I wrote SOME of the members of Co-op Coffees people broke off from TFUSA, NOT that Co-op Coffees itself did. I’m guessing you skimmed over that part?
As you know, this is a personal blog. I write about things that I find interesting that others will too, and what I think is exciting or new, but I don’t write about anything and everything that is related to fair trade. I think it’s very clear that this post is NOT a blow by blow account of what went down at SCAA — and I don’t think it needs to be.
What I find interesting will often differ from what you specifically, or TFUSA as a whole, would like others to focus on. For ex, the fact that I didn’t go into depth re: Meghan’s presentation doesn’t mean I don’t think her work’s unimportant. I didn’t write about it because what she gave are basically stats re: FT certification, which weren’t all that surprising, and which are, in any case, avaliable on TFUSA’s website for anyone who wants to look at them. You’ll notice I didn’t cover all the numbers Paul talked about either, nor many of the points he covered.
‘Sides, you guys have your own blog. Perhaps TFUSA might consider putting some timely updates on that for info you’d like to disseminate, instead of feeling disappointed I didn’t give TFUSA enough props in my short account. Who knows — Maybe TFUSA’s blog readership will spike up when you put up a very fascinating post — of statistics :P
Comment by Siel — May 9, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Siel,
Your points are well taken. You are correct. This is a personal blog and if you don’t find something interesting, you won’t write about it.
Comment by Demian — May 9, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
I’d like to go back to that question “what the fair trade stakeholders — including Cooperative Coffees — expected and will expect, especially since the companies that want TFUSA to be a multistakeholder org are not multistakeholder orgs themselves.” I wasn’t at SCAA…I’ve only been there once because in the Fair Trade universe I’ve been mostly involved in crafts, and more recently chocolate, working for groups like Fair Trade Resource Network and CRS. But I can say that what Fair Traders have a right to expect, from my personal perspective, is that TFUSA will do more than listen, they will learn, from the perspectives of others, including innovative, 100% FT business models.
Beyond the coffee world, there are plenty of multistakeholder groups such as my old group FTRN that has crafts wholesalers, retail business owners, and coffee mavericks on its board. One of TFUSA’s past transgressions was it thought it was THE movement forgetting craft producers, NGOs, faith based groups etc who laid the groundwork for the movement that the label inherited. What I want from Paul and others–and there has been some recent movement in these directions which I commend–is for TFUSA to see itself as one spoke in the movement wheel that centers on making consumption responsible for both producer and consumer.
Certainly each organization and individual has to weigh decisions based on a variety of perspectives and inputs and then claim its own vision and act in its own ways. TF doesn’t have to always follow the lead of others–especially trail blazers like Cooperative Coffees–but they shouldn’t dismiss or belittle them or the producers they are in partnership with by taking some pro-corporate posture…again I wasn’t in Long Beach and don’t want to criticize for things that have been addressed already (i.e. producer representation)
But Fair Traders who endeavor to live a fair trade life believe we all have a stake in certification and we all have the right to be heard.
Comment by Jacqueline DeCarlo — May 10, 2007 @ 10:20 am
I think the question about stakeholder representation gets at the heart of the problem TransFair USA is facing. The simple answer to your question about whether there are other multi-stakeholder groups that could serve as a model is: yes, absolutely.
A longer answer: There are international standards for standard-setting processes. In other words, there are standards bodies whose business is to set standards for how standards are developed and operationalized.
Just like FLO (the Fairtrade Labeling Organization) is the international umbrella for the national fair trade standards agencies like TransFair USA, ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is the international umbrella for ANSI (the American National Standards Institute).
ISO, and in our case ANSI, has standards that classify certifications like Fair Trade – although they are currently only applied to “ecolabels”, i.e. certifications of environmental claims, but not those having to do with social justice issues. In any case, the classifications include, in part, whether the certification criteria were developed through a “balanced” stakeholder group.
I reference these ecolabel categories (they are called Type I, Type II, and Type III) as an example because they show how there is a range of credibility in certification claims, from simple “self-declarations”, e.g. “my product is ecogroovey cause I said so,” to “multi-attribute criteria developed by a large, balanced stakeholder group, and which are independently monitored and verified.”
Here’s a link to a page that describes the three types of labels:
http://www.greeningthescreen.co.nz/management/action/labels/
“Multi-stakeholder group” to me is just another way of saying “democracy.” The problem with democracy is that we are ill-practiced at it, so we don’t really know how to *be* democratic. I’ve experienced several cases in point, where eco-labels have been developed through large multi-stakeholder processes and because people are unfamiliar with being democratic, the process took a very long time and lots of money to complete. Ultimately though, stakeholder buy-in is what will make or break a certification. So I think it’s worthwhile to do the process right. TFUSA hasn’t gotten it quite right (although FLO is by and large governed with multi-stakeholder representation). But I also think it should be acknowledged that it is VERY hard to get it right. Just look at our own government as a an example. We are, perhaps, the longest standing democratic government in the world. But just look at our last two presidential elections – is our democracy working?
In fact, despite its flaws, TFUSA does a pretty good job compared to many other labeling schemes. Consumers Union (publishers of Consumer Reports) is a good source for comparing labeling claims. Their eco-labels.org website gives TFUSA high marks. But there is always room for improvement, so I’m glad that people keep pushing TFUSA, though I don’t always think the pushing is done in good-faith – but I suppose that’s the problem, there is a lack of faith amongst some of the stakeholders. And that’s why clear, multi-stakeholder processes are important. If you all agree to the rules of the process, then you have to accept the outcome. Which is why we didn’t have an armed rebellion when George the Lesser was “elected.” We all agreed to the process, as flawed as it may be. TFUSA’s processes don’t formally include all stakeholders, and thus their outcomes are not accepted by all.
Okay, hope that wasn’t too long-winded. I really enjoy talking about this stuff!
Cheers,
Chris
Comment by Chris O'Brien — May 11, 2007 @ 7:23 am
Wow.
I am really sorry I missed all of this. “The State of Fair Trade” is always an entertaining, and often informative, speech.
The multi-stakeholder issue could be put to rest very easily and without too much hassle. TFUSA should have a number of board seats that are elected from the broader Fair Trade community. Why would this be a good idea? It would give credibility to an organization that is perceived by many as being insulated and not accountable to the broader movement. Why would TFUSA not want to do this? Maybe Paul or Demian could speak to that?
Fair Trade is about democracy, transparency, and accountability. To have the certifier of FT practices not living up to these standards is pretty absurd, IMHO.
I think it is really important to grasp what TFUSA does within the larger FT community. Not only do they certify a product and how it gets from producer to consumer, they also license companies to carry the FT mark. The companies that use the mark create much of the public perception of what fair trade is. That is a huge responsibility and it demands some sort of sytematic input by others in the FT movement. We need to realize that we are part of a larger movement for social and economic justice. When we give credibility to bad actors that other activists are trying hold accountable for their actions, it hurts everyone involved. I am talking about corporations like SBUX, P&G, Coca Cola, and others. Is it economic justice or simple brand creation that we are interested in here?
And finally, I cannot believe that Monika was perceived as being long-winded by the TFUSA crew during Presidente Paul’s “State” address. We Co-op Coffees folks are normally so demure and to the point!
Let’s keep talking people…
-Matt
Comment by mateotemprano — May 11, 2007 @ 10:24 am
Hmmmmmm….
When Paul Rice has the audacity to give a speech entitled “The State of Fair Trade”, as if TFUSA and specifically Paul himself, represents the FT movement in its entirety, he is more than subject to scrutiny by anyone willing to ask questions, especially questions involving TFUSA’s accountability to other FT stakeholders. After stating several times how he wanted to keep his speech short in order to hear from those of us in the audience, he only took three questons after all, one from Monika Firl (Cooperative Coffees), one from Joe Kurnow (United Students for Fair Trade), and the last, after attempting to blow him off, (unfortunately for Paul, no one else raised their hand to ask a question) from Bill Harris (Cooperative Coffees).
I was the colleague that Monika was talking to when she sat back down. Apologies for being rude. However, as predictable as Paul’s responses to the questions asked of him were, they were still disappointing and I suppose we were having a hard time containing our aggravation. It sounded to me as though Mr Rice just wanted to get out of the room as quickly as possible, giving vague answers containing the typical double-talk about increasing TFUSA’s accountability to other stakeholders while somehow not really increasing its accountability to other stakeholders, and how the major weakness in Fair Trade was the diversity of opinion among the stakeholders, later saying that the strength of the movement going forward was the diversity of opinion among stakeholders.
And… As far as “the usual questions from the usual suspects” comment is concerned: If meaningful answers to these questions and/or change in the way that TFUSA operates ever arises than maybe Paul Rice won’t be bombarded with difficult (the usual) questions from those of us that would like to see some progress on the part of TFUSA when he chooses to come out in public and answer questions.
-Jim Earley
Comment by jim earley — May 11, 2007 @ 11:30 am
I was at the “State of Fair Trade” presentation, as well, and saw the debonaire presentation of Mr. Rice.
I left his talk with a heavy heart. I agree with Chris O’Brien . . . if we all agree to the rules of the process, then we must accept the outcome. This is democracy in action. Clearly, we don’t all agree to the rules. In fact, many of us feel like we didn’t get have a voice in the establishment of the rules (in the U.S.A., at least). As a member of Co-op Coffees, I am very proud of Monika, Bill, our pals at Just Coffee and Dean for their untiring efforts to push the envelope for the future of fair trade. I watch our group of 100%ers working so darn hard in relentless pursuit of genuine systemic change and wonder whether our passion will prevail. I feel like Mr. Rice’s strategy for engaging large companies can be likened to a package of subsidies that were paid for with the sweat and hard work of activists, business owners and consumers in the fair trade movement.
Many of us have spent the better part of our adult lives talking to anyone who cares to listen about the injustices of trade and offering up real solutions. I really wish that TransFair USA had been inspired enough to rally behind us.
And it would have been nice if TFUSA had established the same rules for all players in the game. Shortly after leaving the presentation I was told by a rather large TFUSA licensee that they haven’t paid TFUSA a penny in licensing fees. And this wasn’t the first time I’ve heard these types of remarks. So my recommendation to TFUSA is to, please, sort out the rules and make sure everyone is playing by them. Make the reporting easy and quick. And good luck with your strategy. As a person who understands the inherent value in treating farmers/artisans with dignity and respect, I imagine your work to convince those who don’t to be very difficult.
Comment by coffeeforthepeople — May 15, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Hi. I am new to blogging and came across your blog this week. Sunjo made a good suggestion about the Fairtrade mark. Definitely worth a look to help with establishing such schemes in the US. On my blog I have posted a story that has been critical of the Fairtrade scheme as some of the accredited suppliers have been shown to exploit migrant workers here in the UK. It is terrible as the scheme is fantastic and it goes to show how a few bad apples can undermine and detroy what is essentially good. The message is clear though. If you want an ethical trade scheme, make sure you are rigorous and ruthless in your auditing, otherwise some will use it as a badge to make profit and exploit others less able to protect themselves. Good luck!:-)
Comment by Chris — May 24, 2007 @ 2:10 am
Hi Siel,
We appreciate your enthusiasm for certified coffees and helping coffee growers worldwide. Rainforest Alliance and Fair Trade are two complementary certification systems – Rainforest Alliance certification improves farm management practices, and Fair Trade guarantees a price premium.
I wanted to correct some errors in your posting. First, You mention that the Rainforest Allliance works with Folgers. Folger´s is not Rainforest Alliance Certified and Kraft does not own Folgers, P&G does. P&G owns Millstone though, and Millstone offers both Rainforest Alliance Certified and Fair Trade products.
Second, Rainforest Alliance certification standards have always included stakeholder input. All stakeholders, including producers, can continuously comment on our standards and criteria, as well as constructively comment on the draft versions of new standards or additional crop criteria in development during the public consultation periods. The public consultation process is based on active outreach to stakeholders through e-mail, internet and local workshops. Another opportunity for engagement in the Sustainable Agriculture Network´s (SAN) process of standard development is the active participation in the International Standards Committee (ISC), which is composed by a majority that represents producers, NGO´s, communities, researchers, technicians and other stakeholders interested in SAN`s standards.
Finally, Rainforest Alliance certification standards are indeed the most comprehensive farm management standards around. There are some 200 standards and indicators, 80% of which MUST BE MET to achieve certification, including several mandatory criteria dealing including the following:
1. A chain of custody system is necessary to avoid the mixing of products from certified farms with products from non-certified farms.
2. The farm must have an ecosystem conservation program.
3. The integrity of natural ecosystems must be protected; destruction of or alterations to the ecosystem is prohibited.
4. It is forbidden to hunt, gather, extract or traffic wild animals.
5. The discharge of untreated wastewater into bodies of water is prohibited.
6. The depositing solid substance in water channels is prohibited.
7. Farms must not discriminate in work and hiring polices and procedures.
8. Farms must pay legal or regional minimum wage or higher.
9. Contracting children under the age of 15 is prohibited.
10. Forced labor is not permitted.
11. The use of personal protective gear is required during the application of agrochemicals.
12. Only permitted agrochemicals can be used on certified farms.
13. Transgenic crops are prohibited.
14. New agricultural production must be located on land suitable for that use.
For more information on standards and stakeholder input, please click http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/programs/agriculture/certified-crops/standards_2005.html
Thanks for providing a forum for dialogue about these issues.
Thanks,
Jennifer Vogel
Communications Manager
Rainforest Alliance
Comment by Jennifer V. — May 30, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
Hey Jennifer — I meant Yuban (owned by Kraft), not Folgers. Thanks for pointing it out; I’ll update the post with the correct brand name.
I’m glad to hear that RFA takes stakeholder “input.” However, as you can see from the discussion about TransFair USA in this post, taking “input” doesn’t actually make RFA (or TFUSA) a multistakeholder organization. In that sense, TFUSA and RFA appear v. similar — Input is encouraged and accepted, but final decision-making is done by the orgs themselves.
While I appreciate your effort to outline what RFA’s environmental criteria are, I feel the wealth of information you provided really has little to do with the actual critiques I brought up. I never argued that the areas certified by RFA did not meet certain environmental criteria.
What I AM concerned about is the consumer confusion that the RFA label causes — especially as coffees that have less than a third RFA certified beans are given the sticker. Neither of these points are really addressed in your comment.
I haven’t heard anyone — aside from RFA reps –refer to RFA certification as a “complement” to fair trade certification. I’m sure that RFA people aren’t naive to the fact that many people are unable to distinguish between the certification labels. Many would-be ethical consumers simply see a label, and assume the coffee in the packaging’s sustainably produced.
This becomes a big problem when RFA makes it so easy (inexpensive) for companies to get the RFA seal by setting the bar so low, putting the RFA logo on coffee cans when 2/3 of that coffee may’ve come from places with despicable working conditions that further environmental destruction.
Comparatively, TFUSA’s standards are quite high, requiring 100% certified coffee beans for its products — yet TFUSA’s still critiqued for certifying products, not the whole company, which some believe allows entire companies to halo their image with just a few certified products. If you apply that critique to RFA certification, the RFA label on Yuban serves to halo Kraft’s image, despite the fact that even most of the coffee in the Yuban cans don’t even meet RFA’s own criteria.
Comment by Siel — June 2, 2007 @ 11:35 am