“We’re better than fair trade.” “We’re beyond fair trade.” “Ours is direct trade.”
If you’re a coffee buyer trying to choose your brand, chances are you’re familiar with these refrains. How, then, do we sort through all the seals, messages, and marketing promotions to make the right purchase? Clearly, we select our coffee by its quality, the flavor profile and roast, as well as how much comes out of our pocket. But for just a moment, if we set aside our personal taste preferences and economic realities, what do we look for next?
Is it the price which the company pays the farmer that counts? Or how many times the buyer visits the farmer and the relationship that is formed? Perhaps it is the size of the donation for a school or health clinic given to a farming community or a scholarship for a farmer’s child?
There are no obvious answers or roadmaps, no clearly demarcated rights or wrongs… in fact, one could argue that any kind of consumer-producer relationship built in the marketplace that is based on honesty, fairness and integrity already is a huge step forward in today’s hurried, impersonal, and materialistic world.
So how, then, do we sort through the claims? How do we choose?
Personally, what’s most important – and exciting – to me are business models that ignite and sustain the possibility of CHANGE. When a company pays a higher, fairer price to farmers, their standards of living rise and so does their quality of life. New opportunities arise and change becomes possible. Similarly, when farmers and consumers meet, other more subtle changes can occur. Many times consumers told us that their lives were transformed after spending just a few nights in a community with our farmer partners and their families. Changes in attitudes, world-views and perspectives flow from these exchanges. Our understanding of how others live and why, our connections to each other, and our responsibilities to one another also begin to deepen. Valuable new insights get sown, the results of which may be seen tomorrow or in five years.
These life changes are important and we should celebrate any company along the supply chain that strives to bring about these outcomes. But is it enough?
The kind of change I’m referring to goes an extra step beyond those that affect one or more individuals; it’s the larger-scale social change that can happen when people become organized. By working together, and creating a clear vision of the future that extends beyond themselves and their families, farmer co-operative members make investments in their businesses and improvements in their communities. They participate with other organizations in social movements to influence, improve upon, and change national trade and agricultural policies. In this way, organized and well-run small farmer co-operatives can acquire the economic and political power necessary to create lasting and deep-seated change.
When the Fair Trade movement began working with coffee, its leaders understood this vision and commitment to large-scale social change. Activists, progressive roasters and organized farmers recognized the tremendous inequities in the market and the potential for this model to create, support and foster a myriad of changes from higher standards of living and increased cross-cultural understanding; changes in business practices and purchasing behaviors; the empowerment of farmers and consumers; and local community development – here in the U.S. and abroad.
Small-scale farmers and their co-operatives were the heart and soul of the movement.
Why? Throughout Latin America and other regions, local non-governmental organizations, the progressive wing of the Catholic Church, radical governments such as the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and others understood that the deck was stacked against the rural poor. Many farmers worked long hours for little pay as pickers on plantations, indebted for generations to the landowners. Alternatively, some farmers were fortunate enough to have a few acres of land to try and make a living. In either case, the playing field was rarely level. Large landowners benefited from government support: credit, technical assistance, market access, roads, electricity and infrastructure. Small-scale farmers, on the other hand, were generally given no support and were at the mercy of middlemen, the infamous coyotes, and money lenders more interested in squeezing every dime than in giving someone a hand. This system favors the status quo as it keeps farmers divided so that they can’t gain economic or political power, and can’t organize for a higher price, invest in their community or make deep-seated changes.
And so, many people concerned with human rights and economic justice worked on behalf of, and along side, small-scale farmers to demand their rights – for land, credit, and the chance to organize themselves. The farmers’ struggles were long and continue today; much blood has been shed and many lives lost. Others have had to flee political repression and economic crises, leaving their families, communities and countries to forge a new life in the U.S. or elsewhere.
To really understand the key difference between Fair Trade, beyond-fair-trade, better-than-fair trade, direct trade, and just about every other kind of neo-fair trade, it’s important to look back at the historical roots of the movement… and then move forward with a deepened commitment to make substantial changes to the systems consumers and farmers operate in: economic justice, food, agriculture, trade, and the environment.
Why is this history important? The kind of change I want my consumer dollars to support is change which builds on this courageous past. Do my purchases, and ultimately my support, foster an environment for positive collective change or perpetuate the status quo? If I help one farmer, I can certainly feel good; if I get to know one farming family I can change my worldview. But what if I know that through my purchases, and the way I do business, an entire co-operative and their members’ communities can develop according to their own vision?
In a previous blog entry, “Small-scale coffee farmers: trading partners or suppliers,” I wrote about how our partner CESMACH chose to break a contract with an important U.S. coffee company, because despite being paid a higher price, the company’s practices would have reversed years of hard-won organizing efforts and community development successes. In Nicaragua, our Fair Trade co-operative partner, CECOCAFEN, acquired so much economic power, the farmers in surrounding communities – who were not CECOCAFEN members – began to better understand the market and successfully obtain higher prices from the local coyotes. In southern Peru, CECOVASA has become so strong that the coyotes no longer bother to work in the area. In northern Peru, our Fair Trade co-operative partner, CEPICAFE gained so much political strength, co-op members were able to get Marisol Espinoza elected to Congress where she has consistently advocated on behalf of small-scale farmers. When Hurricane Stan hit Guatemala and southern Mexico, and entire communities were flooded or cut off from all communication by landslides, washed out roads and destroyed bridges, the Fair Trade co-operatives Manos Campesinas, FIECH, and CESMACH were able to raise money from their Fair Trade networks in the north, organize their members into self-help groups, and get much-needed food and emergency medical assistance out to the communities.
Paying a higher price for a farmer’s best coffee and visiting the farmers are important actions and should be recognized as such. But only by sharing a common vision and working in true partnership to achieve this broader view, can more profound, structural change occur – change that happens when people stay focused on their dreams, keep the bigger picture in mind, work together and take risks. Fair Trade coffee – because it continues to support small farmer co-operatives – has the ability to be that engine; but not all Fair Trade is the same and not all “beyond and better than Fair Trade” is, in fact, “beyond or better.”
So, the next time you buy your coffee (and tea or chocolate), think about the company’s underlying message. Look beyond the labels and seals, and ask yourself what kind of change they are committed to and how deep that commitment goes. What change do you believe in? Changing the status quo is never easy and solutions aren’t always clear, but let’s challenge ourselves to ask the difficult questions.
Café owners, food co-op buyers, congregation members, and consumers who understand the broader level of changes that are needed and share this sense of urgency for action play a critical role in this movement. Together, we can use our purchasing, financial and political power to actively support and promote this model which seeks nothing less than creating strong local communities, a just food system, and a healthy planet.
Small Farmers. Big Change. 
I think that this is an awesome post. Reading it has helped me to better formulate some things which I’ve thought a lot about but haven’t fully formed into words yet. There are a lot of misconceptions about Fair Trade. Much of the misconceptions are due to the fact that the realities of international trade are so complex and some of it comes from the advertisements and messaging coming from Fair Trade (and non-Fair Trade) organizations.
This post resonates with me most because it speaks towards changing the system. What is most important about being an alternative trader is a focus on change, the producers, education and justice. Too many alternative trade coffee companies seem to focus on marketing and being different from the herd. When this happens the focus is taken off the farmer and changing the system.
I went into a coffee shop once with a friend and we asked if they had Fair Trade coffee. The barista explained that the coffee wasn’t Fair trade but that it was ok since the roaster knew the farmers. It turned out that the coffee came from a plantation, not a co-operative at all.
I’ve read criticisms of cooperatives as being unfair (“fair trade is unfair because it forces coffee farmers to have to join cooperatives” ) and I’ve heard FT criticisms that said that it is unfair because it “creates competition between farmers”. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry at hearing these comments. It’s hard to think about how to counter these claims. Sometimes people’s misunderstandings seem to form an impenetrable fortress.
The fact remains that coffee producing countries of the world have a long history of colonialism and unfair trade agreements. We need to work hard to change this. Fair Trade is a small but very powerful tool that can make a big change. But it is the reorganizing of our priorities and the way that we think about trade and our relationship with the people that produce our food that will make an even bigger impact.
-Brian O’Connell
This article comes at a good time for me, when I feel a bit bombarded by passive/aggressive and at times specious critiques of EE style fair trade. As a buyer at a natural foods coop, people have a “spiel” to sell me almost every day, and lately I’ve also gone out of my way to hear what people have to say about their coffee, as a way to get more informed on the industry as a whole.
One of the top criticisms is that FT only works with coops, and not with individual farmers/families. How, they ask, can a lone family ever hope to get fair trade and/or organic certified? That must mean this is not “sustainable,” yet another buzzword of our day. How haughty and exclusivist of us to operate this way. Who are we to tell people that they must form these coops?
I had one friend of a friend tell me about her experiences in the peace corps, in Honduras. This showed her how the coops are a bad idea, as she saw how they crumbled due to infighting, and that they created groups that were more affluent than others. She pointed me to a gourmet coffee-oriented cafe across town, that sources from individual farms and pays them handsomely for this coffee which they have worked so hard to craft. A trip to this cafe revealed that the owner goes through a roaster just like anyone else, and that rather it is the roastery that goes down and picks which farms in Latin America to supply.
This owner had a lot to say about how FT was not a good idea, again because of the above considerations. His spiel was long-winded and dizzying, but he makes his case very convincingly. You can begin to feel that THIS is the true place to get coffee. And as a barista, yes, he may well be the best in the Twin Cities. And I like what he/the roasterie is doing, but I don’t see how it would work in a retail environment like mine. What I would like to see is folks doing more work like he is, and yet not have to disparage the other forms of ethically-based commerce.
Similarly, another potential coffee vendor recently lambasted EE for being such a large company, and owned by folks other than the farmers. HIS organization is owned by directors of farmer coops, and thereby all decisions get made by them. This is TRUE worker ownership.
Well that’s neat. I like it. What I wonder is, when his company finds success, would they want to be dropped because of the fact that they had got too big? Somehow I don’t think so.
I was chatting with a friend about this stuff yesterday, and I found myself thinking that the point of these critiques is to justify being something other than fair trade. They want the points for ethical trading, but the situation doesn’t allow for FT certification (so be it, this happens, says I), and in addition to describing themselves, they see it as necessary to try and lower what’s currently being done.
I also say, yes, the top-down approach of telling people how to be organized is flawed. But that’s not how it happens! Farmers in many Latin American countries have had to get organized in order to create change, and this process has taken decades. Some coops are newer, but its building on the work of others, and going through the grueling work themselves, that lets them get to the place where they can make their own buying agreements rather than with the coyotes.
And I will leave it here for now, but if others would have more to add, I’d love to keep this going. Cheers,
Nicolas
Seward Coop
Bulk Buyer
Hi Nicolas,
Thanks for writing and for your thought provoking comments.
I’d say you could criticize Fair Trade for a variety of things:
• the minimum price to farmers is still very low;
• companies without much commitment to the values underlying Fair Trade are allowed to purchase a minimum amount and then heavily market themselves as “Fair Trade companies”;
• the certifiers seem to place a greater value on supply than on movement building (education, action, and co-operative development);
• the entry of plantations and multi-national businesses into the Fair Trade network conflicts with the original values of the movement (a true desire for social change and social justice) and places small farmer co-operatives (and small 100% committed roasters) at a competitive disadvantage; and finally,
• a tremendous burden is placed on producers with regards to organizational and financial transparency, and the amount of social, environmental, and economic measures they must comply with and report on, while comparably very little is asked of us in the North.
These critiques of Fair Trade are valid and many roasters, activists, farmer co-op representatives, and others in the movement have been actively involved over the past years to make changes in the system. Last year, for example, after much hard work, we were able to successfully raise the Fair Trade minimum price of coffee which had been at the same level since the Fair Trade certification system was created. (Equal Exchange raised our own minimum price even higher than the Fair Trade minimum.) Of course, the reality is that most roasters today are paying prices above the Fair Trade minimum in order to ensure a continued supply of high quality, organic, Fair Trade coffee.)
But I will say that to critique Fair Trade because the system only works with co-ops (in coffee and cacao) shows a lack of knowledge about the history of much of the global South, the widespread injustices and oppression that small-scale farmers have faced, the years of organizing, struggle, and civil wars that have been fought to demand their economic, social and human rights, a dignified life, and a democratic political system.
The histories of most coffee producing countries are filled with these injustices. Government representatives often took land away from the farmers, and offered it to transnational companies, or large landowners, even foreigners as an incentive to come and “develop” the coffee sector. The farmers, many of whom were indigenous, were then picked up under vagrancy laws, and forced to work on these plantations or be thrown in jail for “delinquency”. The new landowners were given tremendous tax benefits, credit, technical assistance and services (roads, electricity, etc.) to ensure a “healthy” coffee export sector. (Read some of these country histories on our web-site, http://www.equalexchange.coop.)
The founders of the Fair Trade movement understood this history, the unacceptable conditions in which many small-farmers lived, and the trade and agriculture policies that kept the deck stacked against them. And so, the Fair Trade movement began specifically to create an alternative form of trade to support the efforts of small-scale farmers democratically organized into co-operatives) as a way for them to build healthy organizations and communities. It was an attempt to support farmers, not through charity, but simply by paying a fair price, offering credit (most banks won’t lend to individual small farmers) and by changing the terms of trade that through history have favored wealthy landowners and multi-national businesses.
Clearly there are co-operatives that are poorly administrated. Yes, corruption unfortunately exists. I understand the reticence of your friend who saw some of this during her time in the Peace Corps. I don’t think, however, that blanket cynicism is the best response. No social movement is without its weaknesses; yet, no one would say the civil rights movement, the labor movement, or the women’s movement weren’t worth supporting when individual wrong doings were discovered.
Ultimately, I guess it’s about how you think change happens. At Equal Exchange, we strongly believe in the value of democratically organized, transparent co-operatives of small farmers who understand that united they can create stronger, healthier organizations and communities, as well as offer a better, more dignified future for their families. Although the co-operatives we work with are in the business of providing the highest quality, earth-friendly, products; most were formed to offer a better life for their members. The histories of many of these groups are rooted in social movements, supported by the progressive church, non-governmental organizations, political parties, and others. We are proud to share this vision and commitment with our farmer co-operative partners.
Thanks!
Phyllis
I think it’s important to think about what makes fair trade different from other kinds of ethical trade. In my view, fair trade is about creating change – an alternative to the current trade system dominated by multi-national corporations and wealthy individuals.
Many of us have looked at how the current trade system is inherently unfair because corporations have amassed resources, government influence and structures that support only one thing: making money. They exert all of this power to achieve this goal and to the detriment of small producers, the environment, natural resources, less developed countries and consumers.
But what is the person at the end of this chain supposed to do? How can an individual not perpetuate and participate in this corporoate controlled trading system and connect with those at the beginning of this system? I feel that real empowerment comes from people at the beginning of the chain having a choice to stay in their countries, meet the needs of their families and become participants in their communities and consumers having a choice to support them.
If you are one person/family stuck in a cycle of poverty, then there is almost no chance of creating change for yourself. If, however, you are able to work with your neighbors, pool your resources, organize yourselves and reach out to the world then there is a chance that you can become powerful enough to make people listen to you and acknowledge you. I think that democratic co-ops are the best way to achieve this, even though it is not a perfect system, because the power is shared among all of those doing the work.
How is fair trade different from other kinds of ethical trade? Usually those kinds of trade are not looking to connect with the most disadvantaged people and change the balance of power. Their focus is often either only on prices paid, worker rights, environmental sustainablity, or running a North American business in a decent way. Does that make them bad (etc)? I don’t think so at all. It just makes them something different, with different goals.
I wish running a decent, responsible business that meets human rights standards wasn’t something so unusual. But does that make it fair trade? In my personal opinion, no. Does that make it better or just as good as fair trade? I think that is a debate worth having.
The way I see it, cooperatives are the most powerful form of assembly that operate at the grassroots level. But I want to return to the point that Nicholas worries about and address the concern that so many fair trade-weary people have voiced about how fair trade discriminates against small individual farmers who do not want to be part of the cooperative system and can not be fair trade certified. First, there is of course the issue of the money from the higher price that fair trade requires. Arguably, the income a family earns from growing coffee could potentially end up entirely in the hands of the male patriarch of the house hold. On the other hand a coop, with its inherently participatory structure, has more checks, balances, and ways of monitoring and enforcing a more equitable distribution of wealth. While some coops are corrupt as the women who was in the Peace Corps noted, if a coop is not allowing active participation and control from all of its members it is obviously failing at the base level in being a coop. One need not look any further than Equal Exchange’s coop as an example of how a more democratic workplace can enable a group to adapt and evolve as needed and ultimately still be successful after 23 years of being in an ultra-competitive industry. Furthermore, similar to the more equitable distribution of wealth amongst producer coops, Equal Exchange has a 4:1 top-bottom pay ratio.
Another concern I recently heard about cooperatives and even fair trade in general is that the quality of the green beans sourced from fair trade producers, for what ever reason, is not as high. Without getting in to the details of fair trade standards and an argument about quality (although any one that values the quality of their morning cup of Joe over some one else’s life has questionable priorities), I will say that the beauty of a cooperative structure is that even if this were true, the producer coop would have much more power in improving their product than an estate/plantation or individual farmer because of the dynamic nature of coops.
Undoubtedly, forming a successful coop is no easy task and can take many years before it is profitable. Furthermore, the benefits that a coop may accrue may not trickle down to the greater community where the coop is located anymore than a standard business might spread its accumulated wealth. However, the probability of a coop benefitting a larger community is much greater with a group, who by definition, should care about cooperation, than individual farmers who may care but often lack the resources to be as powerful.