by The Good Dr on December 9, 2009
“La Via Campesina”
Many thanks to Patrick from SharedInterest for allowing me the opportunity to be a part of this conversation on what is now a rhetorical question… ‘Should Fair Trade be Mainstreamed’.
Many would argue that the dominant version of fair trade, the FLO-fairtrade system, is already well and truly mainstreamed. For those of us who see this context as at best an incomprehensible paradox and at worst a deceitful exploitation, the real question is “Can Fair Trade be Unmainstreamed – And is it worth the effort”?
But the perceived worth or lack thereof in the FLO-fairtrade system is not the topic of this conversation. On the question of ‘Should’… my answer would be an unequivocal NO WAY!
Rather than get into the now familiar arguments exposing the multitude of risks and damages to credibility, value and viability that a ‘mainstreamed’ fair trade development path may expose, I would like to reflect on the less common exploration of “what is it that is “unfair” about the mainstream system of trade and how mainstreaming fair trade will reduce or overcome this unfairness”.
To begin, lets be very clear about what we mean by this thing called ‘mainstream’ that so many in fair trade just can’t wait to embrace! The mainstream system to which we refer is the globalized industrialised agriculture regime controlled by huge corporate agribusiness enterprises through their institutional mechanisms of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Make no mistake, this is the only ‘mainstream’ that exists out there.
The Top Four “Mainstream Unfairs”
‘Unfair’ No 1: The massive global transfer of economic and political power away from national governments (particularly those in the Global South) and into the hands of global corporations and the trade bureaucracies they helped create.
Mainstreamed FT Reduction Impact: None – May have the opposite impact and be seen to be supportive of this action.
‘Unfair’ No 2: All global trade and agriculture rules falling under the controlling influence of the “Quad Powers-US, EU, Canada, and Japan” (the Global North) resulting in the systematic exclusion of and bias against developing or Southern governments.
Mainstreamed FT Reduction Impact: None – May have the opposite impact and be seen to be supportive of this action.
‘Unfair’ No 3: All prices are controlled by large multinationals and directed to placing shareholder benefit above, and if necessary to the exclusion of, the needs of all others and take no account of the social and environmental cost of production.
Mainstreamed FT Reduction Impact: None/Negative – May result in reduction in or removal of current FLO versions of a ‘fair’ price and the utilization of the ‘social premium’ exclusively for corporate determined product ‘quality’ improvement measures (Note: trends already apparent in both these areas).
‘Unfair’ No 4: The increasingly rapid replacement of local, decentralised, small-scale food systems connected to traditional cultures, climates, geography and ecosystems managed and nurtured by local communities of small farmers (campesinas) with a highly centralised, global system of industrialised agriculture focused on exports and monoculture and managed by an agriculturally-uninformed collective of profit-focused, international trade lawyers, economists and logistics experts.
Mainstreamed FT Reduction Impact: None/Negative – May result in (1) the loss of what limited impacts the voices of small farmers and local communities have in the existing FLO fairtrade system (2) an increased emphasis on exports and monoculture at the expense of the reestablishment of sustainable small-scale local food systems (3) the increasing survival dependency of small farmers on income provided by single ‘export’ crops over which they have less and less control. (Note: trends already apparent in all these areas)
With this brief exploration of just these top four “mainstream unfairs”, it is abundantly clear that any positive outcomes in current fair trade practices are diminished by the continuing pursuit of the fraught fair trade development policy of mainstreaming.
The most pressing question still remains. We currently have a fair trade system rigidly controlled and managed by a small, austere group of certifiers, auditors and marketers seeking to promote their brand of ‘fair’ and sell their ‘fairtrade’ products within the very mainstream markets whose ‘unfairness’ fair trade originally sought to overcome. Within this context we must ask…
“Can Fair Trade be Unmainstreamed – And is it worth the effort”?
by The Good Dr on November 3, 2009
Poverty is not the problem. The problem is an unjust and irrational system of trade. Fair Trade’s current focus on the effects of the system (i.e. poverty) and not the means of changing it (developing the values and principles necessary for creating a new type of market) reflects a major crisis for the fair trade movement.
This is a view expressed recently by fair trade legend Francisco VanderHoff Boersma, co-founder of ‘Max Havelaar’ (the first fair trade certifying body) and the prominent, small-farmer, Mexican co-operative UCIRI (Union of Indigenous Communities of the Region of Isthmus). Speaking on behalf of poor producers, Francisco argues that the ‘fair trade project’ as it was envisioned by the members of the UCIRI in 1988 must be an urgent priority of all those involved in current and future fair trade practices.
For the poor and marginalised members of the UCIRI, fair trade is first and foremost about the creation of a ‘different’ type of market. It is about creating a market that seeks to redress the devastating consequences of ‘neo liberal’ economic rationalism and challenge the market principles of globalisation and the capitalist system.
“These communities offer an alternative vision, a utopian perspective in the best sense of the word, as the potential for a creative and just society in which markets provide a means for meeting human needs rather than defining the essence of what it is to be human.”
What this “Different Market” is NOT!
- A development project paternalistic in nature and overtly focused on poverty alleviation – a project that seeks to help the poor, while not taking their perspectives seriously or recognizing that they are the best agents of their own development
- An alternative market that embodies any notion of charity, relief work or any other non-reciprocal form of aid
- A transitional market designed for enabling inefficient producers to develop the capacity to compete in the mainstream market – it is not a training ground nor an apprenticeship
- A market limited to marginalised producers who need some form of price protection, but one for all “in the conviction that the accumulation of knowledge and wisdom of marginalised production has become the foundation of the market in its entirety”.
- A ‘niche’ market that coexists with the larger capitalist market, but rather one where alternative trade begins to correct and create new conditions within traditional structures and practice.
What this “Different Market” should seek TO BE!
- A market where all costs (including social & environmental) are internalized and reflected in the price of products
- A market where people are not just another factor of production, but are the very subjects of production
- A market that is effective and efficient in a socially responsible fashion where quality products meet market needs; where production methods make the best use of available resources
- A market that is ecologically sustainable
- A market that is socially sustainable where the entire range of social costs are incorporated into the price of products; where local producers have greater control and solidarity with the supply chain
- A market that ‘re-embeds the economy into society’, where reducing the social distance between producers and consumers fosters the formation of authentic alliances of mutual support and benefit.
The Changes Required of Fair Trade Now
- Move the focus off ‘poverty reduction’ and back to building the values and principles necessary for the ‘different market’ to flourish – The ‘Northerners’ in charge of the fair trade market “are more often committed to the goal of poverty reduction than they are to upholding the values and practices of the alternative market. As a result, they often seem to be selling products ‘at any cost’…a cost to which small producers are totally opposed”.
- Promote ‘real’ democratic practices within all fair trade institutions and in their dealing with other organizations- this is the only way to facilitate true dialogue that includes all producers and consumers
- Seek to learn from and demonstrate respect for the collective wisdom and experience of the small producers who are in a privileged position to see and understand the ‘real’ nature of the problem – charity and exclusion are no longer acceptable nor viable options
And finally and most importantly…
- Stop pushing, posturing and promoting ‘fair trade’ as ‘the best and better than all the rest’. Start repositioning the fairer trading movement and market as a small, emerging interdependent entity within a far wider struggle for social justice.
Join up, connect, make alliances and create collaborations with all those ‘others’ who are seeking better, more workable alternatives to the neo-liberal trade regimes that guarantee an ‘unfair future’ for us all.
