Fair trade lite: Fair Trade USA moves away from worker co-ops
by Twilight Greenaway.
Compared to so many other purchasing
decisions — like which humane meat label to trust, for instance — the “Certified Fair Trade” logo has
made buying ethically produced coffee a relatively simple choice. Most of us
either buy fair trade or we don’t.
But that’s all about to
change. As The New York Times reported earlier this month, Fair Trade USA (FTUSA) is
breaking away from Fair Trade International, its global parent, and creating
new, less stringent standards. For American coffee drinkers, this will soon mean
two fair trade labels — one that will stick with the movement’s original
intention to work only with small coffee-growing cooperatives, and FTUSA’s new
label, which will most likely include coffee grown on larger, plantation-sized
farms, and products with as little as 10
percent fair trade ingredients. (See the
draft of the new standards.)
This split over the definition of fair trade doesn’t only risk confusing
conscientious U.S. coffee buyers. It also exposes a rift at the heart of this
movement over the best strategy for making coffee farming a more sustainable
and humane enterprise.
Paul Rice, the chief executive of FTUSA,
is positioning the shift as a question of growth and accessibility for the
movement. In the Times article above he asks: “Do we want it to be small and
pure or do we want it to be fair trade for all?”
Clearly, Rice’s organization has hired
a good brand strategist. When Rice says “fair trade for all” he means two things.
Including larger operations will undoubtedly make much more fair trade coffee
available to many more businesses. (Green
Mountain Coffee Co. has already signed
on to working with the new label, and Starbucks, Walmart, and Whole Foods are
probably not far behind.) In other words, these proposed changes will allow
fair trade to grow even faster than it already has in recent years. The National
Coffee Association (NCA) reports that consumer awareness of fair trade has grown by an average of 33 percent every year
since 2003. By 2012, the U.S.
retail value of fair trade products is projected to exceed $2.25 billion — and
more large plantations mean more income for FTUSA, whose certifying fees are
based on poundage.
The Fair Trade for All plan also promises to
benefit more workers. But what that will really mean is up for debate. Many in
the fair trade world are concerned about the dilution of what they see as a
credible brand based on truly democratic power to workers.
Reporting on an early, candid discussion with Rice about the new standards, Michael Sheridan of Catholic
Relief Services’ Coffee Lands Blog wrote:
Fair
Trade for All aims to generate social and economic benefits for groups that
have been marginalized by current Fair Trade coffee standards, namely estate
workers and unorganized smallholders.
In their draft
standards FTUSA defines worker empowerment as: “Workers are able to represent themselves effectively in
their negotiations with management for improved working conditions.”
Where “worker empowerment” is a vague
term, however, fair trade veterans like Jim Kleinschmit of the Institute of
Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) — the organization that founded Transfair
USA, before it became Fair Trade USA — point out that the word “cooperative” is
far from vague. IATP has issued a statement about
FTUSA’s recent moves, stating they fear that the new approach has the potential
to dilute or undermine the fair trade
movement, precisely because it threatens to abandon established coffee
co-ops — and with them their core principles of transparency and democracy.
“We’re not in any way
disputing the need to spread these benefits to farmworkers on plantations,” Kleinschmit told me recently. But he believes there should be a
way to do that outside of the Fair Trade moniker. One key distinction is this:
While co-ops are democratically run and built with year-round community development
in mind, coffee plantations are seasonal operations that employ people for the
brief harvest and are therefore much less likely to foster a stable community
equipped with things like schools and reliable health care.
“It’s not as clear how that
benefit would be passed on in a seasonal, migratory labor situation,” he says.
FTUSA’s Rice is a fair trade veteran
who helped form an early coffee farming co-op in Nicaragua called PRODECOOP, and he clearly hopes to see the
market for fair trade grow in such a way that doesn’t pit the two labels
against one another.
“I am not going to be the guy who
abandoned co-ops. I can’t do that given everything I’ve done,” he told Sheridan.
On the other hand, it’s clear that the
co-op model, which often requires consensus and democratic decision-making, is
too messy for the well-oiled plantation-based system that Rice is moving toward.
As Sheridan wrote on the Coffee Lands Blog:
Paul
believes that by easing the requirements for participation on the grower end of
the [fair trade coffee] chain, the system will achieve the kinds of
efficiencies necessary for bigger players in the market to make bigger
commitments to [fair trade coffee] sourcing.
Ironically, one of the more outspoken
among Rice’s critics is a woman named Merling Preza, the general manager of PRODECOOP (she also spoke with Sheridan for the Coffee Lands Blog).
As Preza sees it, until now, the co-op ethic has shaped the entire fair trade
movement — right down to the leadership of Fair Trade International (the
decision-making body that governs fair trade internationally and represents 322
co-ops worldwide). Half, or 12, of the 24 members of FTI’s governing body are farmers.
“With Fair Trade USA, we participate in advisory committees but not in decision-making,”
she told Sheridan. “Fair Trade USA does not want representation of farmer
networks on its board. Why not? Because it means empowerment.”
The schism in fair trade land ultimately
echoes many recent conversations in the organic movement and elsewhere.
Less-stringent standards are nearly always promoted as a way to engage
corporate interest and grow a movement.
But, as we’ve seen throughout the food
chain, once you consolidate within an industry, it’s very difficult to move backward.
No one is sure that the coffee co-ops (which have thrived by taking a
collective approach at odds with Western individualism) will go away. But it’s
also likely that FTUSA’s new standards will cause a slow, quiet erosion of
their market share.
As Sheridan put it:
[Merling Preza] fears
that once FT4All is out of the gate, it will be hard to turn back, and even
harder to help cooperatives cope with the fallout.
“If Fair Trade for
All affects our cooperatives, who will compensate us?” she asks. “If we lose
market opportunities? If our cooperatives weaken or dissolve?”
Here
in the U.S., Jim Kleinschmit worries coffee drinkers will be caught in the middle
of a confusing set of messages. “At the
end of the day consumers are the ones who determine the success of any labels,”
he says.
While FTUSA
appears committed to their new standards, they have put the draft on their
website in Spanish, Portuguese, and English, and they’re still officially taking
comments from
stakeholders until Dec. 30. Which
is why IATP didn’t mince words in its latest release about the importance of
FTUSA’s impending choice.
“For the sake of the entire fair trade
movement,” the statement reads, “we encourage Fair Trade USA to reconsider its
decision.”
Related Links:
Toying with the Happy Meal: Is McDonald’s evading the law?
Eating horses is legal now, and PETA loves it
View full post on Grist.org – the latest from Grist