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”?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi, I’m currently beginning an MA dissertation on the impacts of fair trade on sustainable development and am curious to know your references for the lack of impacts/negative impacts that fair trade is having due to its mainstreaming. From the journals I have read so far, there has not been evidence of this and it has been shown that fair trade (normally) has a positive impact, especially through the premiums received for community development.
Hi Vegetalista,
As you might have guesses I have moved away from fair trade over the last 6 months but can offer you the following!
There is quite a bit of commentary and research on the perils of mainstreaming fair trade. 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). In the May 2008 Journal of Business Ethics he published this article: “The Urgency and Necessity of a Different Type of Market: The Perspective of Producers Organized Within the Fair Trade Market”.
Also any work by Gavin Fridell from Trent Uni; Anne Tallontire University of Leeds; Darryl Reed York Uni (What do Corps have to do with Fair Trade?); Anil Hira & Jared Ferrie Simon Fraser Uni.
To give your work a broader, more grassroots, producer perspective of the issues with the current Global Food Regime can I suggest you read the works of Raj Patel, Walden Bello, Peter Rosset, Jerry Mander, Martin Khor, Dr Vandana Shiva.
And finally, for a great “reality check” on what globalisation is all about, can I suggest you read the works of John Perkins “Confessions of and Economic Hit Man” and “Hoodwinked”
Hope this helps you to form an informed perspective and not the moralizing, feel good, ‘greenwashing’ propaganda of the Fairtrade Foundation and FLO, as they continue to serve their OWN interests first, and move closer and closer to the very regimes they originally sort to redress.
Thanks for the references. I will certainly take a look them.
From what I have currently read, however, I think it is an unfair accusation to state that the FLO is serving their own interests first and simply greenwashing with their claims of positive impacts. There are many articles from various journals (including the Journal of Business Ethics) which have shown the positive impact of fair trade on producers’ livelihoods, especially from the premiums recieved. This includes improvements in community infrastructure, ecological sustainability (in production methods and use/regeneration of resources), diversification of crops to supply to local markets, and expanded non-agricultural forms of income). Furthermore, in areas where there is a high concentration of fair trade producers, the positive impact in terms of increased prices for produce has been shown to spread to non-fair trade producers also.
Although there are clear risks, challenges and barriers, I do not see the ‘mainstreaming’ of fair trade as necessarily a bad thing. The trade system needs changing, but this cannot be done without a wider influence. Many, if not all, of the Fair Trade Organisations that make up the FLO lobby governments and the WTO etc to change the unbalanced economic system. They also claim to be increasing participation of producers in defining the movement (although, admittedly, I haven’t come across any evidence behind this yet).
If you don’t think that careful mainstreaming is the way forward for fair trade, then what do you think they could do to achieve the deep and wide influence they need in fighting against the inequalities in the global economic system?
Hi Vegetalista,
I hear and recognize your perspective and do accept that there are many supporters of the whole concept of fair trade and the work of FLO. What I found in my research however, was that these voices were not the voices of those most drastically affected by policies and practices of the current corporate controlled global agribusiness regime, the poor and marginalized, small family farmers in the Global South.
The only legitimate voice I have found in this context, and the one that we at Reciprocity seek to promote is that of ‘La Via Campesina’ (representing the authentic voice of over 500m farming families around the globe), and their policy and practice solutions based on the concept of “Food Sovereignty”.
There is now much written about this concept as the only real solution to the unfairness of the current food system. Even on a cursory reading of this concept, you will note that any emphasis on or promotion of ‘export’ trade and cash crops of ‘luxury commodities’ for the rich in the Global North”, the basis of a ‘mainstreamed’ fair trade model, are practices that actually exacerbate the problems of the poor and marginalized producers.
For a great overview of the reality and not the usual FLO propaganda, can I recommend a further reading “Invisible Government—The World Trade Organization” by Debi Barker: http://www.bioneers.org/presenters/debi-barker-1
Best of luck with the research and the masters and perhaps reflect on the possibility, as I had to, that you, like many others may have a vested interest in the credibility of fair trade as a concept for change: an interest that can significantly influence your interpretations of “what is”
Cheers
Scott
Hi Scott,
Thanks for the further clarification and information.
I was considering comparing fair trade and food sovereignty as mechanisms for challenging neoliberal globalisataion, but it appears someone else has already done this (although not very well) a few years ago at my university. Moreover, I only just discovered about La Via Campesina a couple of days ago and this hasn’t given me time to include it in my proposal!
From what I understand by talking to a PhD student I know (although this was admittedly a brief conversation), food sovereignty does not exclude the possibility of exporting to other countries. So long as the food needs are met locally, regionally and nationally, then it is still considered legitimate. I do see that fair trade does not contribute sufficiently to food sovereignty (far from it) and some of the real issues affecting the poor, but personally, I would still avoid naming what the FLO say as propoganda or greenwashing. That would imply they are intentionally misleading people and I would not like to make such accusations. Have you encountered people (when you went to the fair trade conference) or other evidence that has led to this strong assertion of yours?
Hi again Vegetalista,
It is up to you, after you have done some substantive research, to draw your own conclusions about the legitimacy of fair trade and the motivations of FLO and others associated with the ‘fairtrade’ market. I will be interested to hear you final conclusions!
My one piece of advice at this stage of your work is that the ONLY credible path to legitimate answers to your questions about the value of fair trade and the massive challenges facing small, marginalized, peasant farmers in the Global South is to begin your own journey of ‘otherdiscovery’, seek out THEIR voices and speak to THEM as directly as possible.
In my experience, asking anyone else, regardless of their motivations, will provide a response that is biased and directed by their own beliefs, values and interests. That is the nature of our quantum, subjective and imperfect world!
If you need any further support or wish to discuss other sources or research ideas, please feel free to contact me by email at drjohn@reciprocity.com.au and I will be more than happy to offer my equally biased, subjective and imperfect view!
Cheers
Scott