Fair Trade is rather big business. In order to be true to its name, it needs to be complemented by small scale or even individual fairness. Fair Trade most certainly helped to create trade and will do so even more when large corporates - such as Mars, Verkade and Sara Lee - seek Fair Trade ingredients. However, it doesn't necessarily help those without land who work it for the farmers that own it.
Fair trade merely facilitates trade and cannot support small or no structures at all. It doesn't interfere in remuneration policies for farm-hands. And almost by definition, it will progressively exclude small farmers. At its best, Fair Trade can be effective on a general economic level, but not - as Western consumers would expect - on an individual human level.
Big Fair Trade as it has grown up, isn't wrong. It's just not what we think it is: aid for individuals. On that level, Big Fair Trade's ways of campaigning and advertising need closer scrutiny. Consumers have a right to know in whose pockets ends up the Fair Trade premium they pay for.
During his stay in Nicaragua, Bart met Will Burke who tries to trade fairly in a way realising fairness and trade at the same time. Will founded a Chicago based fair trade company called Sol Simple. It imports dried fruits, coffee and nuts from small farmers. Will isn't interested in the Fair Trade label (the only one he likes to use is the US kosher-warranty). He just wants to make a living trading fairly and doing what consumers intuitively expect when they buy fair stuff.
Bart asked Will to state his feelings about Fair Trade. Something new and fair seems to be in the making.
This is how Will responded:
Thank you very much for your inquiry regarding fair trade. There are two kinds of fair trade: Trading fairly and trading fairly and certifying it. Not all products are able to be traded fairly. The reasons are that certified fair trade goods must come from a cooperative that has gone through the evaluation and expense of the Fair Trade Labeling Organization (FLO) evaluation and documentation. Most cooperatives, especially in Nicaragua, are not willing to commit to the effort. Fairly traded products cannot come from corporate farms either.
There are two ways to trade fairly: Pay at least an extra 10% than the market price so the cooperative uses the funds to support their community/member producers. This is the only way it can be certified. Or pay fairly, but also pay in advance; draft contracts that extend a year with quarterly reviews of the market price; promise to buy entire harvests; work only with small farmers whose product costs more than those that come from large scale or corporate farms.
I work directly with large NGO's that have a budget to help start cooperatives and get them certified for both fair trade and organic production (they often go hand in hand).
What we do with the cashews, pineapple, mango and banana is guarantee contracts and pay over the market price. For example, mangos are going for about 35 cordobas per 100 right now. I pay 50 cordobas per 100 mangos. Pineapples are usually around 50 cords per 12 pineapples, while I pay around 70 per 12. I do this and honor written and verbal contracts with all my producers. They prefer to sell to me and I get a better product as a result. I do not buy from medium and large scale farms, only small producers.
Lastly, my products in the US cost no more than our competition. In most cases, we are cheaper, so there is no extra profit margin that we can either enjoy ourselves or give back to the community.
So, fair trade does not necessarily mean that the producer in the end is getting more money. It also means that they are being guaranteed a sale, getting paid in advance and can plan their production for the following harvests with companies like mine because it's a partnership.
I hope that helps. Please let me know if you have any questions.
With thanks,
Will
As Will Burke is happy to participate in our discussion, please don't be shy and let's stick to English in this thread
Please note that it relates very much to the mindset of Olivier de Schutter and Niels Roling in De Rode Hoed last week. Mainstream Fair Trade might be part of a mechanistic paradigm to save the poor in general, while leaving too large a number truly needy individuals in distress and aggravating their destiny.
Nog 3
Je hebt 0 van de 3 kado-artikelen gelezen.
Op 4 juni krijg je nieuwe kado-artikelen.
Op 4 juni krijg je nieuwe kado-artikelen.
Als betalend lid lees je zoveel artikelen als je wilt, én je steunt Foodlog
I think it is really important in the moving world of fair trade to know the stories from the field independent stories.
The fair trade sector needs a more independent feeling to come back to the roots of fair trade, trade what is fair and what we can measure. On this moment my personal opinion tells me that the Fair trade certification and Fair trade producers are not in balance.
More independence from for example Oxfam and Max Havelaar are necessary for a sustainable Fair trade industry.
Bart, I am not sure I understand what you're trying to say in your plea for 'independence'. What's wrong with the independence of Oxfam or Max Havelaar?
I'd rather say they put too much trust in trade producing fairness as a 'natural consequence'. They have faith in liberalism, whereas field experts feel liberalism is 'outdated' - I am quoting United Nations Olivier de Schutter - as a model for bringing fairness, justice and food to those who need it.
Dick, their independence is ok, and a basic need for the whole idea of Fair Trade, but I've some question-marks by the "independence" between certification and products branded by the Max Havelaar organisation itself. As described by Will certification is too expensive and the outline is not suitable for Nicaragua (I see Will as independent producer in Nicaragua).
I like the idea behind the 'Fair Trade principals' but those are really far away from the reality of a certification body.
I think the question of Fair Trade as Liberal is an engaging one. Maybe it is necessary to change our 'Fair trade' behavior and ideas, but how?
I am quite sure, people would be suprised to learn that Fair Trade has been too confident in the spontaneous benefits that, in theory, would arise from its trade generation by a certified trade mark. I guess Fair Trade is being perceived as rather 'social' if not socialist. So they'll be even more suprised to learn that it needs ' re-socialisation'.
...There are two ways to trade fairly: Pay at least an extra 10% than the market price so the cooperative uses the funds to support their community/member producers....
Just to make things clear.
I understand from the e-mail conversation between Bart and Will, it is the producer who gets a higher price directly from the Sol simple. The fair trade organization gives a certain amount of money to support community/member.
So the difference is that money goes directly to the producer or money is given to the community. I'm wondering then if one of them is worse then the other? The both help isn't it (or does fair trade only larger companies? so small will always stay small and can't grow?). Then larger companies have profit of fair trade and it doesn't really stimulate small growers of products.
So if I've the choice between the 2 (Sol simple and another fair trade product), which one should I buy? For me, being the "average" consumer (as I walk in a supermarket) think to know that Max Havelaar is 'fair', gives just that extra bit to the producer and that is why I would buy it. For me that's the image of Fair Trade food products. Should this image be changed/made more clear?