Posted by Joe on: 01.20.2008 /
I was wrong.
There, that wasn’t so difficult.
At university a lecturer told me that it was common for environmentalists to hold equal and opposite beliefs at the same time. Maybe I should have listened a little more carefully.
For most of my adult life, I’ve believed in the myth of fairtrade - which is the concept that poor farmers get a better price for their crops by encouraging thoughtful and good-willing consumers to pay a premium for their products. Initially I thought it was an idea which would change the world. Later I revised that to believe that it was at least doing something positive for the families who grew fairtrade products. At the same time I believed that there was something seriously wrong with world trade when the rich got everything they dreamed of whilst the poor suffered.
Over 15 years (and many, many others have been at it much longer), we wrote letters to supermarkets, held street protests, repeated various stunts to bring the public’s attention to the unfair way that the poorest farmers were treated and the good of choosing fairtrade. Eventually we persuaded the supermarkets that there was an ‘ethical’ market and that consumers would - shockingly - pay more for certain products. Suddenly ethical was mainstream.
And to give them credit, the fairtrade farmer’s lives have improved: a bit. They now have a bit of money in their pockets and some healthcare and schooling, paid for by the honest British public.
But what has been the cost? After all this time and effort (almost entirely unpaid and mostly by angry old ladies at the back of churches), who has really benefited? It is no secret in Britain that the most enthusiastic promoters of fairtrade products are the supermarkets, some of the largest corporations around making some of the biggest profits. The same people that we’re campaigning to pay people properly because they’re screwing suppliers. So why are they so suddenly interested in fairtrade? Mostly because they’re getting the majority of the extra price the consumer pays for a jar of fairtrade coffee - which can be 10-20% or more on the sale price. Meanwhile, the extra bit the farmer receives is a tiny percentage.
Or consider the environmental impact. Not only is fairtrade primarily about encouraging further production of cash crops - rice, coffee, cocoa etc - which in themselves are not doing a whole lot of good to the soil, most are being shipped (and sometimes flown) great distances to our plates.
In an era of global warming, of fuel shortage, of credit-crunches and possible economic meltdown, is it really right to subject the poorest, weakest, most marginalised, most ignored people with the least chances in life to grow things they don’t eat, to feed fat rich people they don’t know, who have living standards far above anything they can dream of. And then to tell them that in order to access these markets, they must send them by aeroplane.
No it isn’t. That isn’t doing the best for these people, that is sacrificing their future for present gain, the antithesis of sustainability. It is throwing them to the wolves of big business.
In our shared future there is no place for international trade, though you’d hardly believe it when looking at the supermarket shelves stocked with millions of products from around the world. Lamb from New Zealand, grain from Argentina, strawberries from China.
We need to face up to the fact that to survive we need to become more dependant on ourselves and our own resources, not constantly expecting others to send us theirs. Not seeking to paper over the cracks in our own failures and historic global inadequacies and pretending that the solution for the poorest is to service the rich.
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Rachel
1 01/20/08 7:05 PM | Comment Link |Thank you for that challenging and thought-provoking piece, Joe. I’m a supporter of fair trade myself, but you are prompting me to think more deeply about this issue.
Comment by: Julie Clawson
2 01/21/08 11:39 AM | Comment Link |Joe - do you really think that International Trade will ever just disappear? That the global/connected world will just all catch a big batch of nostalgia and environmental fervor and just fade away?
I am all for local production of food and pushing the system to allow poor farmers to grow the food they need and not just “cash crops” that don’t pay them much anyway. But I am not naive enough to think that the world will just give up stuff like coffee, sugar, or fruit. So given that there will still be a demand for those commodities I would rather they be produced under fair conditions. If it can be ensured that people are not treated like objects, they are not threated by terrorists, and they are paid a decent wage then I will support and campaign for such a system. Yes markets get rich from fair trade (sometimes) which is why it is not the perfect solution and why change must always be pursued. But there is the future benefit of the fact that awareness has been raised. That the consumer sees that his shopping choices affect the world around him and that shopping ethically and compassionately is always better than shopping ignorantly and selfishly. It is a necessary step away from the lure and lies of free market capitalism, and a required first step for many.
There may be a few die hard souls who will step off the grid and cross their fingers in hope that the entire world will return to substance farming, and perhaps that is the ideal scenario. Others of us want to reform and redeem a system that we don’t think will just disappear anytime soon.
Comment by: joe
3 01/21/08 12:24 PM | Comment Link |Well, no I don’t see the whole system collapsing immediately.
But yes, it will in time. Eventually the environmental damage will be too great and the farmers will grow tired of being pushed around by rich people.
I guess it is a choice: either we jump or are pushed.
Comment by: DHFabian
4 01/21/08 1:20 PM | Comment Link |One point that does get overlooked in this general discussion is that so many Americans can’t afford those “premium prices”. Also, people don’t have the time to research the production of the items they buy. They need something, go to the store and select items on the basis of value. The real issue behind “fair trade” is excessive corporate power.
Comment by: Julie Clawson
5 01/21/08 1:31 PM | Comment Link |Actually most people could easily afford the “premium prices” they just aren’t willing to make it work. They pass the cost onto others and see saving a buck as much more important than caring for other people or the environment. Fair Trade is as much about education and awareness and pushing people beyond their selfishness and enslavement to corporations as it is about helping others. To constantly to labeled as elite or luxury sends the message that ethical living and compassion isn’t for everyone, just the rich - that’s it’s okay to be a selfish consumer if you think you are “poor” Sure it requires sacrifices and work to care about these things - but it can be done in small steps and with help.
Comment by: joe
6 01/21/08 1:48 PM | Comment Link |My point is that fairtrade is not half as good as we think it is.
We’d be better spending time sourcing local products.
Comment by: Benjamin
7 01/22/08 12:41 AM | Comment Link |love the debate.
sourcing local products is really hard for some things. I’m pretty sure noone in Washington State nor, for that matter, on the whole west coast of the U.S. and Canada, is growing Cocao. Or sugar. Coffee I’m not *super* sure about.
god. now I’m gonna have to poke around and do a bit of an inventory around here. Thank you Joe =)
Comment by: Joe
8 01/22/08 6:14 AM | Comment Link |I guess the question is whether coffee, cocoa and sugar are essentials worth the damage caused by transporting them around the world.
Comment by: Rachel
9 01/22/08 9:25 AM | Comment Link |And that’s where it really gets tough, Joe. Because I’m willing to purchase only fair trade, shade grown, organic coffee and chocolate (which is really no big sacrifice because it costs more but tastes fabulous). But at this point, I’m not willing to give up my coffee and chocolate completely.
Have you and your wife come to any conclusions yet about consuming these products? Do you know people who have totally given them up for ethical and environmental reasons?
Comment by: Joe
10 01/22/08 9:35 AM | Comment Link |Well to be totally honest, my brain tells me to stop eating these things. I’d be better off finding small farmers in Africa and giving them money/low interest loans/whatever rather than pretending to myself that by consuming I’m doing anything very much except filling my stomach and inflating my self image.
On the other hand, there is a lot of work to be done to only eat food from within 100 miles. At the moment that appears to be an impossible challenge. We’re going to try in Lent and see what happens.
Comment by: David H
11 01/22/08 12:53 PM | Comment Link |It does take research but there appear to be companies that avoid the corporate structure in conducting fair trade. As an example, Starbucks claims it sells fairly traded coffee, but it is a publicly traded company and it’s stockholders didn’t buy that paper so the CEO could ship their profits to some little farmer in distant Ethiopia. Pura Vida is a private company that opens its books to anyone and attempts to deliver most of its “profit” back to farmers via more pay, training, building schools & clinics, etc. There are also groups dealing in providing loans and other business growth exchanges funded by rich westerners for poor people in other countries. Mennonite Central Committee has at least one program, but I’m sure there are others. Yes, research is important. Anyone can claim they are doing things like this, the issue is whether they are willing to be open enough for me to be sure.
As for turning back the clock on global trade and the like. That may be ideal, I’m sure there are arguments about that, and it may be inevitable (debate once again). But it is close to impossible now. One couple that managed wrote this book. A writer in NYC has written a book about his multi-year quest to do just that. He claims it took all of his time and energy (he didn’t work except to jot notes for his book) during the time of his natural experiment. He felt it also robbed him of time with his family and almost drove him crazy. He gave up, claiming it has made him a more educated and concerned consumer but not someone who is able to single-handedly sustain himself and his family (can’t track back to story I heard on the radio).
For some reason this debate has reminded me of something I read from the great spiritual thinker Tony Hillerman ;-). Yes, Hillerman writes detective novels set in American Indian country. Most of his books focus on a pair of Navajo policeman, one of whom wanted to be a Shaman for his people. In one book, that officer, Jim Chee, talks about the crux of Navajo faith — Harmony. People must be in harmony with themselves, the land must be in harmony with nature and all needs to be in harmony with the other. Many Navajo ceremonies have to do with restoring harmony. Navjo cleansing ceremonies, which may be sought after a disease or even an act of crime, are to restore the cleansed to harmony with themselves and their community.
One of the things noted in the book is that corn know it can’t grow in the desert. It is only the farmer who doesn’t know. If the farmer keeps trying to grow corn that is evidence of a sickness in him that will require a restoration of harmony. But he may not be willing to have that restoration until he his life fails completely.
The issue, it seems, is balance and each of us must seek it individually. But while we may use our lives to point toward the benefits of such balance, a larger balance probably isn’t achievable by just one or a few or (perhaps) even lots of people making such a choice. Most will choose convenience over harmony until they can’t make any other choice. Then restoration may be inevitable.
Comment by: Joe
12 01/22/08 1:46 PM | Comment Link |Yey, I like Tony Hillerman.
Thanks for the link - interesting reading.
Comment by: Rachel
13 01/22/08 5:08 PM | Comment Link |Joe, I hope you will report back to us on how it goes.
David, I love Pura Vida! We have been buying our coffee from them for several years and it means a lot to me that the company is not for profit. We buy chocolate chips, baking cocoa, and other products from Sweet Earth Organic Chocolates. We even got fair trade Halloween candy from them. And as long as I am going to buy these luxury items, I want to buy ethically sourced products.
Comment by: Ron
14 01/25/08 1:10 PM | Comment Link |The ultimate irony here could be that the person using your loan for their corner market is actually perpetuating the very system you’re seeking to end (e.g. the sugar and chocolate and coffee they stock on their shelves isn’t traded fairly or grown sustainably). I don’t say this to argue, only to point out the intricacies of the situation.
As long as we’re “name dropping,” we just started purchasing our coffee from http://www.groundsforchange.com, which is a company committed to the triple bottom line and nearly all (if not all) of its coffee is fair trade and grown organically and in shaded conditions. They also provide coffee that is apart of the Cafe Femenino project, which seeks to empower women coffee growers and workers.
As far as chocolate, I would also recommend http://www.yachanagourmet.com and look into what Yachana is doing in the Ecuadorian Amazon to help many of the rural and indigenous communities there, everything from education to medical care to micro-enterprise to sustainable farming to environmental conservation. It is amazing, and all of the money they receive from sales goes back into funding the school and clinic and gourmet programs (e.g. the for-profit projects were created to sustain the non-profit ones): http://www.yachana.org.ec
Okay…the advertisement is over now. :)
Comment by: joe
15 01/27/08 10:08 AM | Comment Link |Not sure I follow, please explain more.
Comment by: Seren
16 02/2/08 5:14 AM | Comment Link |replacing cane sugar with honey, corn syrup and maple syrup/ sugar would be one way people in north america could lower their food transport miles.
Comment by: Benjamin
17 02/2/08 10:22 PM | Comment Link |honey! great idea. Lots of honey made *right* close by here.
BTW, It’s a pleasure to see you here at JaC, Seren!