A Financial Times article, which sez coffee farm peeps in Peru aren’t even making minimum wage, has got the fair trade world abuzz — and FLO, the org that certifies farms as fair trade, on the defensive.
What the Financial Times article reported: The Financial Times visited five coffee co-ops in Peru with fair trade certification, and found that all farms paid less than the minimum wage. The farms paid 10-12 soles, vs. the min wage of 16 soles.
The main prob here seems to be that some co-ops that’re certified as fair trade are still unable to sell all their coffee to fair trade buyers. Thus, the co-ops don’t make enough moolah to pay their workers — or even themselves — fair wages.
FLO responded with a long note — which was pub’d as a letter to the ed in the Financial Times. A quote:
Fairtrade recognizes that farmers who sell only a small proportion of their crop on Fairtrade terms will often struggle to earn the minimum wage themselves. That’s why our standards state that they must share any benefits of Fairtrade and progressively improve working conditions. These farms were paying workers 25% above what they could get elsewhere, despite selling just 10-15% of their total crop on Fairtrade terms.
Any readers here visited Peruvian coffee co-ops recently? Would love to hear your thoughts on this –
Thus, the co-ops don’t make enough moolah to pay their workers — or even themselves — fair wages. maybe like most businesses in these countries they don’t want to ?
Comment by simon — September 16, 2006 @ 6:58 am
wrong simon. have you read the entire article? or all of FLO’s response or even that of the UK’s fair trade foundation? i guess it’s easier to come up with simple explanations like yours-which automatically assumes that fair trade certified co-ops are out to exploit people…
Comment by max inabaar — September 17, 2006 @ 4:32 am
i guess it’s easier to come up with simple explanations like yours-which automatically assumes that fair trade certified co-ops are out to exploit people… Aren’t you automatically assuming that they wouldn’t?
Comment by simon — September 17, 2006 @ 8:24 am
simon — I don’t think that asking that you read the post and the articles in question before spouting kneejerk reactions is an unreasonable request — especially as you have a tendency to do that on this blog. Of course, max could’ve made the request in a less sarcastic manner himself. Still, responding to that request with another kneejerk, inflammatory Q is just silly.
Comment by Siel — September 17, 2006 @ 11:42 am
Yes I did read the post and the articles. But it would be nice for the same curtasey being extended to me.
If you read my post you will note the word “maybe” now in his reply max said “automatically assumes” which is two different points entirely.
Maybe suggests that maybe they are not getting enough money to pay wages or maybe they don’t want to pay wages. I am not niave enough to believe that everyone using the fair trade logo has the same aims as the yourself and the fair trade association.
Yet max believes that as I questioned the point that I automatically think everyone is exploting people. How is that for reading what people say?
Comment by simon — September 17, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
simon — I did say that max could’ve made his request less sarcastically, and yes, I agree he stretches what you said a bit — though I’m not sure your pessimistically speculative question added much to the discussion. In any case, you both tend to leave unnecessarily contentious and reactive comments, so I guess it’s not surprising you’ve ticked each other off.
Comment by Siel — September 17, 2006 @ 5:34 pm
Basically what I was trying to get at is that the Fair trade movment may be to quick to judge the lack of wages due to poor market condidtions.
That maybe workers are being exploited and the checking mechanism that the Fair trade people use to make sure that standards are being meet are not adequate.
And by simply presumming that the reason is the market, they are burying their heads in the sand on the issue.
Comment by simon — September 18, 2006 @ 10:37 am
And what I’m trying to say is that none of this comes across in your “maybe like most businesses in these countries they don’t want to?” comment.
Comment by Siel — September 19, 2006 @ 1:03 am
I was offering an alternative explanation. The assumetion in the post was the market. I just pointed out that maybe they don’t want to.
Then my “automatically assuming that they wouldn’t” was in referance to the burying their heads in the sand.
Made sense to me in my twisted dyslexic Irish way anyway. :).
Comment by simon — September 19, 2006 @ 1:40 pm
Like I tell my students, think “reader-centric,” not writer-centric, when writing stuff :)
Anyway, the fallout from the Financial Times article’s continuing — I’ll do another post on it soon –
Comment by Siel — September 24, 2006 @ 7:55 pm