Fairtrade failing to deliver benefits ?

've been hearing rumours lately of serious questions about the benefits of FT: that it might not be benefitting people as much as the normal market. Well, it could well be that what I've been hearing was the harbinger of this report -picked up by the Observer here: Fairtrade accused of failing to deliver benefits to African farmworkers.

The summary in one sentence:

Sales of Fairtrade-certified products from Uganda and Ethiopia are not benefiting poor farmworkers as profits fail to trickle down to much of the workforce, says a groundbreaking study.

It does make concerning reading for those of us who have long supported the idea of Fair Trade. However, don't just read the first two thirds or so of the article which lay out the basic findings. You need to read the last part of the article to learn that there may be factors that put it in a different, less alarming, light. As the reports authors themselves suggest, for example:

"One possibility is that Fairtrade producer organisations are always
established in significantly poorer, more marginalised areas where an
accumulation of disadvantages means smallholder farmers are unable to
pay even the paltry wages offered by smallholders in other areas without
Fairtrade producer organisations,

And then a comment from the FT foundation:

When comparisons are based more on like-for-like situations, such as the
study's own analysis of Ugandan coffee in small scale coffee production
set-ups, it finds key areas where workers in areas with
Fairtrade-certified farmer organisations in fact had better conditions
compared with those in non-certified, such as free meals, overtime
payments and loans and wage advances for workers. 

All of which seems to indicate a more complex situation and more research and certainly doesn't mean we should give up FT buying just yet.

All Give and No Take -the dangers of TTIP

 On the basis of this article: All Give and No Take | George Monbiot.

On the basis of it I have just written to my MP. You might do the same, perhaps.

I was pleased to receive your response to my concerns
about TTIP and to learn that you share something of my concern. I would
also not wish to lightly turn down a potentially large amount of
investment and income for British industry and commerce. I am also
pleased to know that you are concerned enough to keep a watch on the
process and its outcomes. However, I remain a little concerned and would
like to mention to you a more precise concern which I didn't think I
saw represented in your response. I hope you'll feel able to comment
further and perhaps reassure me about your own concerns with the TTIP
negotiations.



My concerns arise from the investigations of George Monbiot
(reported here )
in which he says "The most dangerous aspect of the talks is the
insistence on both sides
on a mechanism called investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)(10).

ISDS allows corporations to sue governments at offshore arbitration
panels of corporate lawyers, bypassing domestic courts. Inserted into
other trade treaties, it has been used by big business to strike down
laws that impinge on its profits: the plain packaging of cigarettes;
tougher financial rules; stronger standards on water pollution and
public health; attempts to leave fossil fuels in the ground" This forms
the heart of my concern as it seems to form an effective trump card for
corporations over democratic governments who may wish to steer away from
a corporatist interpretation of neo-liberalism (a kind of government I
would like to help to elect, in fact).



Monbiot goes on to question the value of a clause/section designed
for situations where the rule of law might be inconstant: "what is it
doing in a US-EU treaty? A report commissioned by the UK
government found that ISDS “is highly unlikely to encourage investment”
and is “likely to provide the UK with few or no benefits.”(15)
But it could allow corporations on both sides of the ocean to sue the
living daylights out of governments that stand in their way."



My concern is for proper democratic scrutiny of the TTIP and I
support Monbiot's proposals for that: (1) all negotiating positions, on
both sides, would be released to the public as soon as they are tabled.

(2) every chapter of the agreement [sh]ould be subject to a separate vote in the European parliament.

(3) TTIP would contain a sunset clause. After five years it would be reconsidered

I wonder whether you would be prepared to help press those propositions upon the negotiators?

The importance of co-operatives

After a brief history of the Co-op movement mainly in Leeds, there's this comment: "I hope Labour is serious about introducing support and encouragement for the co-operative movement. It could unleash a power for social change which I hope would be irreversible."
I too hope Labour would be serious about this: I fear it's a 'nothing-to-lose-so-what-the-heck?' partial rediscovery of its radicalism on the part of the Labour movement. Unfortunately probably, too little too late and probably looking too cynical.
The importance of co-operatives | Peter Lazenby | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk:

Cadbury Fairtrade: "This feels like a dream"

There will now be a brief moment of rejoicing. (Sound of chocolate wrapper) Cadbury Fairtrade: "This feels like a dream": "100 years ago William Cadbury chose beans from Ghana. A year ago we founded the Cadbury Cocoa Partnership. And from Autumn 2009 Cadbury Dairy Milk will be Fairtrade certified."

redeeming the market in a time of turbulance

I've got to say that this is a very impressive piece of writing by Rowan Williams. He has a very good grasp of the economics and then brings to bear some pertinent themes from the Christian tradition which ground the reflection in theological perspectives very usefully. I was particularly interested in the recommendations he makes for the way that global economics should go. Doubly so as a number of them echo or share perspectives with things I've blogged about on this very blog. Here's a bit of a taste.

(i) Most fundamentally: we need to move away from a model of economics which simply assumes that it is essentially about the mechanics of generating money, and try to restore an acknowledgement of the role of trust as something which needs time to develop; and so also to move away from an idea of wealth or profit which imagines that they can be achieved without risk, and to return to the primitive capitalist idea, as sketched above, of risk-sharing as an essential element in the equitable securing of wealth for all.

(ii) As many writers, from Partha Dasgupta to Jonathon Porritt have argued, environmental cost has to be factored into economic calculations as a genuine cost in opportunity, resource and durability – and thus a cost in terms of doing justice to future generations. There needs to be a robust rebuttal of any idea that environmental concerns are somehow a side issue or even a luxury in a time of economic pressure; the questions are inseparably connected.

(iii) We need to think harder about the role – actual and potential – of democratically accountable governments in the monitoring and regulation of currency exchange and capital flow. This could involve some international conventions about wages and working conditions, and co-operation between states to try and prevent the indefinite growth of what we might call – on the analogy of tax havens – cheap labour havens. Likewise it might mean considering the kind of capital controls that prevent a situation where it is advantageous to allow indefinitely large sums of capital out of a country.

(iv) The existing international instruments – the IMF and World Bank, the WTO and the G8 and G20 countries – need to be reconceived as both monitors of the global flow of capital and agencies to stimulate local enterprise and provide some safety nets as long as the global playing field is so far from being level. They need to provide some protective sanctions for the disadvantaged – not aimed at undermining market mechanisms but at letting them work as they should, working to allow countries to trade their way out of destitution.

(v) Necessary short-term policies to kick-start an economy in crisis – such as we have seen in the UK in recent months – should be balanced by long-term consideration of the levels of material and service production that will provide an anchor of stability against the possible storms of speculative financial practice. This is not simply about 'baling out' firms under pressure but about a comprehensive look at national economies with a view to understanding what sort of production levels would act as ballast in times of crisis, and investing accordingly.

In what I've written before, iii is taken care of, I think, by the suggestion of an international trade currency based on a basket of goods rather than simply trading currencies against one another. I've supported the idea that WTO etc should be subject to democratic control which would probably move them towards what +Rowan suggests. There is positive support in all of this for something like the Tobin tax.

Church Times - Clergy can get shirty over trade

I've not bought a new clerical shirt for ages, but now there is a fair trade option; why didn't anyone thing of this before? Here's the article Church Times - Clergy can get shirty over trade and Simon Butler's rationale: "“About six months ago I was discussing the issue of fair trade with my colleagues, and we real ised there was nowhere you could buy Fairtrade clerical shirts. It seemed ridiculous that clergy didn’t have the option to buy accord ing to conscience when it came to our own uniform. All of my col leagues are com mitted to fair trade, and it got my mind buzzing about doing some thing about it.”"
Good, eh?

Fair trade really is fair

For a while now the Adam Smith institute has been criticising the Fair Trade movement. In last week's Church Times, Giles Fraser reported the criticisms thus;

The Adam Smith people argue that it is all a con. First, most of the farmers who are helped are in relatively wealthy places such as Mexico rather than in poor places such as Ethiopia. Second, it benefits a few farmers at the expense of their non-Fairtrade neighbours, who then have to compete on unfair terms, and can be left worse off. Worst of all, that “little extra” that kind churchgoers are happy to spend actually works to keep poor people poor. It sustains uncompetitive practices, and discourages farmers from diversifying into areas of more profitable economic activity.

This week, Paul Vallely gives a nice rebuttal which is worth bookmarking when it comes off subscriber only into general release, just to send to the silly s*ds who think that the Adam Smith Institute is the last word.

"The first fairly traded coffee was exported into the Netherlands in 1973 from small Guatemalan co-operatives. Third World goods were first imported into the UK at “fair” prices in 1974. The quality of the products was poor at first, then it became variable, and now most of it is good, and some of it is of gourmet standard. [This is replying to the factual inaccuracy of the ASI claim that fair trade is a 1990's thing]
The idea that Fairtrade benefits a few farmers at the expense of others misunderstands the nature of the arrangement. Fairtrade offers not a fixed price, but a minimum one as a safety net. When prices are above that, as now with coffee, all farmers benefit. When it falls, the safety net ensures that the most vulnerable people in the supply chain can cover their costs in time of crisis. There is no meaningful sense in which others lose.
It is not true that most of the farmers who are helped are in relatively wealthy places such as Mexico rather than in poor places such as Ethiopia. In 2007, from a global total of 63 Fairtrade producers [I think a few noughts are missing in the light of the following figures, I suspect 2 or 3 noughts], just 50 were in Mexico, compared with 242 in Africa. Nor does the system favour middle-income landowners over poor landless labourers. Fairtrade works with smallholders on coffee, cocoa, sugar, nuts, and cotton, but it concentrates on strengthening hired workers’ rights in larger commercial farms in tea, fresh fruit, and flowers, where markets are more diverse."

Sometimes the myth of perfect competition seems to intrude and feed the criticisms, prompting the response.

The idea that Fairtrade prices sustain uncompetitive practices (by discouraging farmers from giving up on poor products and growing something more profitable instead) is fine economic theory. In practice, poor farmers simply do not have the additional resources, knowledge, or markets to diversify instantly.

The real injustice of the ASI position is captured in Paul's remark towards the end of his article, as usual it amounts to the west asking the rest of the world to do what it does not do itself.

free trade is not on offer at present, only trade weighted towards the rich. Fairtrade is a useful corrective in that — and a growing one. Fairtrade projects now touch the lives of seven million poor people. They cannot be abandoned while the ideologues of free trade argue for a truly free system that never seems to arrive.

And of course, let's not forget the irony:

The idea that small vulnerable producers need to be sheltered in their early years from the harsh winds of full competition from big business is not a Fairtrade notion; it was first enunciated by that high priest of free trade, Adam Smith.

Touche.
Church Times - Paul Vallely: It is not perfect, but it helps millions:

Fair trade communion wine

One to celebrate: "a Staffordshire wine-merchant has imported what he claims is the world’s first Fairtrade communion wine. It has been created for him by the Los Robles Winery, in Curic�Chile." Reported in Church Times - A fair wine for the vestry cupboard. I must draw the attention of our college chaplain to this.

Tate & Lyle sugar to be Fairtrade

Hoorah!: BBC NEWS | UK | Tate & Lyle sugar to be Fairtrade:
"To earn a Fairtrade label, firms must pay local producers a fair price, and invest further to improve working conditions and local sustainability."
There's still some work to be done: "The switch to Fairtrade affects the firm's packs of sugar sold in shops. The cane sugar the company provides to manufacturers is not yet included in the Fairtrade conversion plan. "
Now recall that fair trade is also about community development: "Carlos Magana from the Belize Sugar Cane Farmers Association told BBC News 24 that the link-up with Tate & Lyle would not just benefit farmers. "It will enhance education, health and other community projects," he said. "

Outsourcing: just colonial chickens coming home to roos

This article, They've sold off their souls is a quick intro to the way that the big global funds players are fastening down the profit motive hard into the companies they buy into and buy up. The result being that considerations that humanised capitalism in the recent past, about how the company's ethos was, keeping stakeholders sweet, motivating workers through vision and so forth, are being shed along with expensive first world workforces.

One of the comments (the 6th) is very much to the point, imho: "To talk about out-sourcing is missing the point. The issue should not be about trying to privilege ourselves by refusing to give jobs to overseas workers: the issue should be why we allow ourselves to retain a system that produces such startling inequality of wealth. The system has always been hugely unequal, but in the past we, the workers of the West, were bought off on the proceeds of screwing over the Third World: but now, as profits get inevitably tighter and tighter, our chickens have come home to roost."

Of course, the irony would be that this process could kill the goose that lays the golden egg: while most disposable income is in the west that's where the markets are -but only as long as people are employed and paid relatively well. Outsource too quickly and recession hits. It is probably true that there needs to be a global redistribution of income; this may be one way it could happen. The issue is how it can be managed so that chronic decline doesn't cause even moGuardian Unlimited | Comment is free | re suffering and so that many can be lifted out of poverty largely by their own efforts?

I need to reflect on this more, but I'm not sure, in the grander scale of things, outsourcing is necessarily a bad thing.

Global diet

"Do you eat meat?' asks Jo�o Meirelles Filho, a Brazilian conservationist ... 'Yes,' I reply, ... Filho surprises me with the venom of his next remark. 'Then you are responsible for the destruction of the Amazon,' he says, 'because 95 per cent of deforestation is caused by cattle ranching. I would love it if every one of your readers boycotted Brazilian beef.'"
The rest of the article is about a new fruit which could help the situation in Amazonia.

One of the company's best-selling fruit smoothies contains a small amount of pulped açai (ass-eye-ee), a berry that grows only within 25 yards of the Amazon's banks. To harvest it, the palm on which it grows does not have to be cut down; better still, it thrives in the shade of other rainforest trees such as rubber, Brazil nut, cabbage palm and miriti palm, encouraging growers to mimic nature rather than plant açai in endless regimented rows - the kind of monoculture that destroys biodiversity.

Can the discovery of new fruit used in smoothies save the rainforest? | Food monthly | The Observer:

The wages of corporate sin ...

It's what some expected, some feared and most would like not to know. Major British clothes retailers (and therefore almost certainly this applies to North American retailers and the rest of the EU) have had their supply chains investigated and ... "wages paid to garment workers were as low as £1.13 for a nine-hour day. This fails to meet their basic needs, according to factory workers and Indian unions and so falls below the minimum international labour standards promised by the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), a code of conduct which sets out basic rights for employees across the supply chain. Marks & Spencer is a member of the ETI, as are Mothercare, Gap and Primark."
To find the report and the organisations behind it visit here.
The sweatshop high street - more brands under fire | Business | Guardian Unlimited Business:

Avaaz.org - The World in Action

I just emailed my trade minister about the fishing crisis. I hope you will, too. In a few weeks, the World Trade Organization will come forward with new rules to govern global fishing --and if enough of us raise our voice, we can help end the unfair and unsustainable fishing system, in which rich countries subsidize corporate fleets to overfish the oceans. It's unfair to fishers in poor countries. And if it keeps going, global fish populations will collapse. (Already, 90% of big fish like tuna and marlin have disappeared.)

Click on the link below to sending a message to the trade minister--and help defend our oceans and our future.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/make_fishing_fair/tf.php?CLICK_TF_TRACK

Thanks!

A few years ago, I was a pisco-vegetarian, on the basis that while meat is an resource expensive way to feed people, fish at that time didn't seem to be such a problem. It's different now. And aside from not being right keen on fish, it seems to me that eating fish is just not a particularly good thing to be doing at the moment: we should be leaving it for those who really need to make a livelihood from the sea. ...
Avaaz.org - The World in Action

Children exploited in Olympics goods factories

I suspect that this could become the symbolic heart of campaigning for workers' rights in the 'outsource destinations' of our global economy. "Research inside China found widespread abuse of workers producing licensed goods carrying the logo of the 2008 Beijing games. Mr Barber said: 'Children and adult workers are being grossly exploited so that unscrupulous employers can make more profit. Their actions tarnish the Olympic ideal, and we don't want more of the same when the Olympics come to London. The IOC must add respect for workers' rights to the Olympic charter."
More info as I find it.
Children exploited in Olympics goods factories, says TUC | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited: