[My report on issue 0, issue 1.1, issue 1.2, and issue 1.3]
Drinkers of Nicaraguan coffee’ve got to read the latest issue of Just Things (PDF), which profiles both fair trade co-ops and US companies engaged in fair trade practices.
The main topic this issue of Just Things addresses: The last few years, “conventional” coffee prices for relatively high-grade coffee have come close to or equalled prices for fair trade certified coffee.
Why this odd price convergence? Well, among other things, minimum prices for fair trade certified coffee haven’t been raised in 16 years, in spite of inflation. It’s a situation that angers farmers, coffee co-ops, die-hard fair trade companies and activists, and even some employees of TransFair USA and FLO, the orgs that oversee fair trade certification.
As a happy contributor, I’ll admit that there are aspects of this Just Things issue that irk me. For ex, the issue doesn’t clearly distinguish the difference between fair trade and fair trade certification. This distinction is a v. important one: Committed companies like Just Coffee (interviewed for this issue) put the phrase “100% fair trade” all over their packaging — and rightly so — even though the company has opted against fair trade certification (as defined by FLO and TransFair USA). Clearly, “fair trade” sans certification, as defined by Just Coffee, “works.”
The question the issue is really trying to raise has to do with fair trade certification — or more officially, Fair Trade Certification, a phrase trademarked by TransFair USA in the US. This certification process has been under much debate, as many fair trade advocates feel that both FLO and TFUSA are bending over much to the will of big transnational corps like Starbucks and Nestle.
These big corps have been awarded fair trade certification marks for one or two of their products, despite the fact that the vast majority of these companies’ products do not even come close to meeting fair trade criteria. As many consumers confuse the mark awarded to the product as being a mark awarded to the company as a whole, this situation is one that has baffled consumers and angered activists.
So I’d encourage you to read the issue while keeping in mind the diff between true blue fair trade and fair trade certification. If you’re confused or want to find out more, check out my Coffee Crisis series, then the Certification Challenges series, if you can’t get enough :)
My take on the previous issue of Just Things is here.
Siel, the reason I don’t give that much attention to certification is that I’m trying to steer clear of the idea that certification = fair trade. Indeed, much of what the interviews indicate is that certification is no guarantee that trade is, in fact, fair. On the other hand, TransFair and certification have established a floor, however low it may be at this point. That’s still a good thing, even if not as good as other models.
I don’t think there’s a a clear line between what’s fair and what’s not fair. Rather there’s a spectrum of less fair to more fair. I have four criteria of my own that spell out what fair trade means to me, and third-party certification is not one of them. (What the heck, everyone else has their own definition of fair trade. Why shouldn’t I?)
I suppose you could say this issue is about certification. The reason I didn’t bring it up more is that I consider certification a feeble, watered-down understanding of fair trade.
All trade is a subset of relationships, so fair trade must be understood as a subset of fair relationships. Seen this way, it’s actually backwards to define fair trade by the price the producer gets. The price is the *result* of a fair trade, not its cause. The fairness of a trade is measured by the egalitarian and even personal relationship between the traders.
The guys from Just Coffee did a nice job spelling this out in their interview, and there will be another interview that talks about it in the next issue. The following issue (March) will feature ways you can develop relationships with producers through fair-trade tourism.
This has been my view all along. In fact, that’s how the magazine got its name in the first place: as much as we like our fair-trade coffee/tea/chocolate/t-shirts/etc., they are not the point of fair trade. They are just things. The point is the relationships.
Comment by Steve — January 17, 2007 @ 8:55 am
Steve — I think the effort to de-link fair trade from certification is fine — I’m just not sure that’s done effectively in this issue — in a manner that encourages people to continue exploring fair trade while mindful of some of the challenges.
All efforts explored in this issue are sort of grouped under the rubric of “fair trade,” yet most of the critiques have to do with certification. This, in my view, is confusing and somewhat discouraging for people who may not know more about fair trade in general.
My point is that, because of the way certification problems are simply labelled as “fair trade” issues, one gets the impression that “fair trade” as a whole is, as you called certification, “feeble, watered-down.”
Comment by Siel — January 17, 2007 @ 9:29 am
I see your point. I’ll make a sharper distinction in future issues.
Thanks for the constructive criticism!
Comment by Steve — January 17, 2007 @ 10:18 am
Thanks for reading, and for taking my comments seriously :)
For everyone else: Here’s Steve’s post on the issue.
Comment by Siel — January 18, 2007 @ 11:34 pm