People Tree is working with small-scale organic farmer, artisan and tailor fair trade groups in eight countries. This year is People Tree’s 25th anniversary in Japan where I started the organization in my living room. I have been passionate about bringing fair trade to the people who need it most: the poorest of the poor, often women. As a human rights activist and environmentalist, I was determined that trade could bring a voice and economic power to persecuted communities while protecting their environments. In 2014, People Tree was the first international fashion and lifestyle brand to achieve the World Fair Trade Organisation (WFTO) label on its products, guaranteeing fair trade throughout its supply chain.

With a good operational plan and a “critical path” that starts with the design process, incorporating traditional craft skills into product development allows enough time for hand production in the villages. This ensures that orders can be distributed to over 2,000 handknitters in Nepal and handweavers and embroidery artisans in rural Bangladesh and India. We check to see if fair wages are being paid with time and motion studies, to be sure that even the most vulnerable people in our supply chain, the yarn bobbiners, are properly compensated. This needs to be part of an ongoing partnership between us and our fair trade partners in the Global South in order to ensure that fair trade is in place. Quality control and design improvements allow us to produce beautiful clothing, fashion accessories, crafts for the home, and organic and fair trade foods in Japan.

We train small groups on tailoring, measuring garments, making patterns, making alterations, grading sizes, building teams and marketing in order to help support them in becoming internationally competitive. Certification can create a barrier for small groups, but we have learned that with long-term partnerships certification for organic and fair trade is not only possible but is increasingly required by our customers. We also run a Market Exposure Program in Japan and Europe that helps leaders from fair trade groups to learn about the markets where their products are selling. They meet large existing and potential buyers, the buyers who stock their products, and come to understand marketing and distribution from a “first world” perspective. When leaders hear customer feedback and directly meet the media, they understand the challenges and take responsibility to improve their products and business models. Leaders take their new knowledge back to their businesses, which helps them stay competitive, and they invest in infrastructure like waste dye effluent management plants and other initiatives to protect the environment. This interaction between fair trade groups and the People Tree team, sales agents, customers and media also has a motivational effect and builds brand loyalty, too.

The design process starts six months before conventional fashion companies to ensure that craft skills and traditional technology can be used for production and to promote livelihoods in rural areas. The collection, while continually utilizing new fabrics with organic and sustainable fibers, also needs to take into consideration the production capacity and skills of each group. My favorite product is fiber made from the banana tree trunk. Designers need to have excellent knowledge and experience working with fair trade craft groups, and institutionalizing this is part of the DNA of People Tree, which has been key to our success. We hope that other fair trade, ethical and even conventional fashion companies will follow in our footsteps.

Long-Term Planning and Partnering

We maximize the “value-added” of each product in terms of livelihood promotion for the 5,000 people who produce goods for People Tree. Investment in small groups training, innovation, infrastructure and marketing, often before profits are made, is essential to growing a fair trade fashion business. Whether it is improving the drape of a fabric, which means investing in drip irrigation (saving 60% of water) to grow longer cotton fibers, or making a fitted dress in hand-woven fabric, each product improvement or innovation requires a partnering approach to invest in new infrastructure and skills. It also requires mutual respect, creativity and good long-term planning.

Scaling Up Small-Scale Production

There are ten million handweavers in India and Bangladesh; after agriculture, handweaving is the second-largest employer. As it can save one ton of carbon dioxide per handloom per year, there is a moral and environmental imperative to bringing fair trade fashion to these communities and to building markets for their products.

People Tree also uses organic and fair trade fabrics that are machine produced and tailored in social businesses that work to fair trade standards. We designed two labels: a “CRAFT” label and an “ORGANIC” label, and customers enjoy the distinction and read the information behind the product. As we put organic cotton onto the handlooms, it becomes more complicated. In Europe, especially in Germany, Benelux and Scandinavia, we are finding very sophisticated customers who are demanding more social impact, less environmental impact and real transparency from retailers.

At People Tree, we use hand crafted skill symbols alongside the organic Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) and fair trade marks to help customers identify how each garment has been made. I wish more people were motivated by handweaving and the huge social impact it has; paying handweavers double or often three times what they could earn elsewhere. There is a craft revival, with increased interest in traditional skills, but what makes a product ultimately sell is still good design, fit and quality.

Biggest Barrier to Mainstreaming Fair Trade Fashion is Fast Fashion

“Fast fashion” is synonymous with short lead times, synthetic fabrics and cheap labor, where the garment factory worker is under the minimum age and paid below the minimum wage. Directors of fashion companies should be held legally liable if garment workers are not paid at least the minimum wage and are forced to work in unsafe factories where environmental laws are broken. We need to change the future opportunities for small-scale farmers, artisans and tailors. Fair trade fashion companies can compete in the mid-market by making a truly unique product that will be treasured. In a multinational company, up to 6% of sales can typically be spent on research and development, often subsidized by government grants and tax breaks. Why is it then that fair trade research and development receives little or no funding? We should be demanding that our governments make fair trade fashion exempt from the Value Added Tax (VAT) in order to help create a level playing field and give small-scale producers a decent chance to build prosperity and vibrant communities.

Small is beautiful, and small is democratic – and it therefore holds enormous power and strength. Without any doubt, the one natural resource that we have in plentiful supply is peoples’ hands. We have run out of clean water, land and oil – we need urgently to rethink fashion.

Safia Minney launched her new book, Slow Fashion Aesthetics Meets Ethics, in March of 2016.

The post Small is Beautiful: But Can Its Rules be Applied to the Fashion Industry? appeared first on Fair World Project.

The demand for certified organic and fair trade products is growing steadily. Consumers want assurance that the products they are buying meet the organic and fair trade standards they value. In recent years, third-party certification has dominated the marketplace for providing consumers with this assurance. However, this third-party model can be expensive, a marketplace barrier for many small-scale producers the world over. Most third-party certifiers are private entities, accountable solely to their clients, and as a result the system has transparency and accountability limitations.

Other models do exist, though. Two such models, detailed in the following articles, highlight the successful experiences of participatory and peer guarantee systems. IFOAM-Organics International and the World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO) provide two looks at alternative paths for producers and consumers. Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) offer a methodology to ensure social and ecological integrity by engaging stakeholders, including consumers, in a transparent system that prioritizes active participation and transparency for all stakeholders. The WFTO’s Guarantee System (GS) offers a “best of both worlds” approach, fusing peer review, member accountability and third-party certification.

Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) – Paradigm Shift in Action
by David Gould

Market guarantees and product label claims are essentially about enabling consumers to make informed choices. Truly sustainable production and consumption are about recognizing that we are all interdependent upon each other and upon the Earth’s natural resources. Fairness is at the core of such relationships. Implicit in fairness is adequate trust and transparency in the systems that bring products from source to consumer. We want to see sustainable production and consumption, and the Principle of Fairness that goes with them, manifest at a large scale – out of “niche” markets and into the mainstream. Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) hold huge potential to realize these goals. PGS are locally-focused quality assurance systems. They certify producers based on the active participation of stakeholders and are built upon a foundation of trust, social networks and knowledge exchange.

To date, most organic product claims come via third-party certification. The organic movement adopted this approach thirty years ago, seeking legitimacy from the dominant market paradigm, as well as improvement of its own consistency of practices and credibility in the market. That strategy has worked – the market has grown and is taken seriously worldwide by the private sector and governments alike. Most other social and environmental programs, including fair trade, have adopted the third-party certification model, and they too are seeing growth and success.

This success, however, comes at a price. One unintended consequence has been to effectively disconnect the producer from the consumer. In a certain sense, third-party certification is a proxy for the trust that comes when the producer and consumer know each other well. Another consequence has been the removal of much of the learning experience and capacity building that occurred previously, because the International Organization for Standards (ISO) norms that guide certification do not really allow such exchanges. Moreover, third-party certification often shows itself to be costly and onerously bureaucratic, posing a barrier to market entry, especially for the most disadvantaged producers.

In light of these limitations and challenges, PGS have become increasingly appealing to certain producers, especially those that operate on a smaller scale and sell in shorter supply chains and/or more local or direct markets. PGS directly engage the participation of farmers and consumers (as well as other interested parties) in assuring that production and handling of goods follow an agreed upon set of rules and guidelines. Basically, instead of having a third-party inspector come and do the checking, the farmer members of the PGS inspect each other to make sure the rules are being followed; and sometimes consumers linked with the PGS also make these inspections. During these visits, there are exchanges about how to make the farm (and the farming enterprise) perform better and more sustainably. Because the integrity and credibility of the whole PGS is at stake, and there is transparency throughout the verification process, there is very little incentive for and incidence of cheating.

The key difference between PGS and third-party certification is exactly this kind of participatory, common-benefit approach, which brings numerous benefits, including: costs of participation are low, with voluntary time taking the place of monetary expenditure, paperwork and bureaucracy are often reduced, learning and improvement are emphasized as an integral benefit of the process, and closer (even direct) contact between consumers and producers engenders trust and a spirit of interdependence.

Experience shows that the credibility of PGS is comparable to third-party certification systems. Recognition of this is growing. In Brazil, for example, the national organic regulatory system legally recognizes products verified through officially-registered PGS as equivalent to third-party certified goods. In India, if goods are sold as organic in the domestic market, the guarantee is almost always through PGS, as opposed to exports, which go through third-party certification regimes. In certain markets, however, the term organic or its equivalent (for example, biologique, ecológico, etc.) is legally regulated, and third-party certification is the only allowable mode of guarantee.
In the U.S. and Canada, for example, Certified Naturally Grown is a PGS officially recognized by IFOAM-Organics International, with a steadily growing number of participating farmers. These farmers cannot actually label their products as organic because of the national regulations, but clear communication with their customers and other stakeholders about their practices overcomes this limitation. In France, Nature et Progrès is the world’s oldest PGS, in existence since 1972, and in many respects is one of the organic movement’s founding organizations. They, too, face and overcome similar restrictions under EU organic regulations.

Nonetheless, experiences in Brazil, India, the Philippines and many other countries, and the overall increasing success of PGS, present significant opportunities for spreading sustainable production and consumption patterns. Worldwide, thousands of farmers now sell their goods through PGS. These are mostly small-scale farmers and farming families engaged in short-chain or direct market channels, which by their very nature address several critical global issues simultaneously. Shorter chains mean more value gained by each link in the chain – and thus better income for farmers and better value for consumers. PGS foster personal relationships among farmers and consumers, which are reflected in their mutual investment in positive outcomes toward their well-being and the care of their natural resource base.

The result is greater empowerment of community-based food systems, where responsibility is shared across value chains. Food chains get transformed from impersonal supply chains (i.e., every link for itself) into value chains (interdependence among links, shared responsibility and benefits) and food systems that enhance local and regional agricultural development, enrich culture and raise public awareness, all in a positive feedback loop. PGS represent a paradigm-shifting approach in action.
The particular arrangements of any given PGS may vary according to locality, demographics and other contextual factors, but they share common, globally-recognizable key elements and features (see infographic). IFOAM-Organics International maintains a common platform for learning and promotion in order to keep their distinguishing features consistent, credible and accessible.

To learn more, please visit: www.ifoam.bio/pgs.

World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO) – A Guarantee System (GS) for Fair Trade
by Michael Sarcauga

The entry of fair trade into the certification business was both a milestone and a bane for the movement. It is a good thing that some products produced according to fair trade standards are differentiated in a label-conscious market, and thus products with certified fair trade labels enjoy recognition and are able to access more markets. But as products labelled fair trade, like coffee, cacao, tea, cotton and other commodities, became popular and slowly entered mainstream markets, other fairly produced and traded products were left behind. It was a different scenario, especially for many non-food fair trade products that did not and could not carry a fair trade label. The majority of World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO) members experienced a kind of discrimination, even within the fair trade market. While fair trade was in their core mission and at the heart of all their practices, their products were not recognised as such because of the absence of a label.

Then why not make a label for their products? This may sound like a question with an easy answer, but in reality not all products that are fairly produced and traded can be certified under the current fair trade certification schemes due to the impracticality and cost implications of the process. This particularly holds true for many products from small-scale artisans and farmers. Thus, at the 2011 Annual General Meeting (AGM) in Mombasa, WFTO members decided that the organization should develop a fair trade verification system that recognizes producers whose activities are fair trade, along with an accompanying fair trade label for their products.

Following that historic decision, the WFTO board commissioned a group of experts in the field of fair trade verification and monitoring. The members of the group came from various organizations, both external and from within the WFTO network, in addition to at least one representative from all regions where WFTO members were operating. The group was led by WFTO President Rudi Dalvai. After two years of intense work and subsequent system testing in both Northern and Southern member organizations, the WFTO membership approved the WFTO Guaranteed System (GS) at the 2013 AGM in Rio de Janeiro after it was presented in the meeting along with results and feedback from pilot organizations.

This brief history of the development of the GS needs to be mentioned, as it illustrates the primary reason why WFTO came up with a new fair trade system in the first place. It also provides some background on the unique features of the system, which were largely influenced by the wishes of the members, a good number of whom have a long track record in the fair trading business.

A revolutionary system
The GS is not only a fair trade verification and monitoring system, it is also a tool to improve fair trade practices of organizations in the supply chain. It builds on WFTO’s time-tested and improved monitoring and membership system. There are five main components of the GS: the new membership application process, the self-assessment, the peer visit, the monitoring audit and the Fair Trade Accountability Watch.

Each component has its own dynamic procedure and allows fair trade assessment from a different perspective. Combined, they make up a holistic approach that has revolutionized modern fair trade without watering down credibility and integrity.

The core features of the GS include:

• Periodic verification. After joining WFTO, trading members follow a monitoring schedule that must be fulfilled in order to maintain membership and to be able to use the WFTO label as a Guaranteed Member. The self-assessment, peer visit and monitoring audit are the different verification procedures to be followed under the schedule. The frequency and timing of the procedures vary depending on the member’s risk category.
• Participatory assessment and monitoring. The GS is a democratic monitoring process that provides space for the member and its peers to participate in the compliance verification process. This allows members to learn from each other and exchange best fair trade practices.
• Continuous improvement. Each verification procedure allows members to see both their strong and weak points. The GS requires the member to prepare an improvement plan addressing weak areas, and progress is reported and assessed in the next monitoring cycle.
• Fair Trade Accountability Watch. This is a special monitoring mechanism that allows anyone to report best practices or non-compliance issues relating to WFTO members. As an online reporting system that is freely accessible on the WFTO Web site, it allows the public to participate in monitoring the fair trade compliance of members. See it at: www.wfto.com/standard-and-guarantee-system/fair-trade-accountability-watch.

A development and business tool
The unique characteristics of the GS make it an extremely useful development and business tool for members. It is a development tool because it enables members to adhere to the principles of fair trade, helps them to realize the goals of fair trade (trade that delivers sustainable livelihoods and a more just economy), and helps them, especially those who are small-scale producers, to escape marginalization.

The GS is also a business tool because it enables each organization to strive for best fair trade practices. The periodic assessment and continuous improvement allow WFTO members to excel in fair trading, thereby making them more distinct from conventional trading organizations.

It is not all about the label
At first, it was the desire to have a distinctive fair trade label for organizations that motivated WFTO members to come up with the GS. But for a label to be credible, especially when it is used on a product, a good system should back the claims of that label. The GS is about more than simply paving a way for a fair trade label. It was developed to be used by any type of fair trading organization, as long as their core mission and the heart of their activities is fair trade, in order to guide them toward best fair trade practices and excellence. The GS was designed by experts with small-scale producers especially in mind – those who may not be able to hurdle a complicated system. As a result, it is a clear, affordable and revolutionary system.

To learn more, please visit: www.wfto.com/standard-and-guarantee-system.

The post Alternative Paths for Consumers’ Assurance appeared first on Fair World Project.

Free trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are massive global contracts created to govern the rules of trade among numerous countries. Unlike the recent global climate agreement, which focuses on one topic and is essentially non-binding, free trade agreements cover many topics – including environmental regulations, health care, agriculture and intellectual property rights – and are legally binding. Governments, along with their trade advisors and corporate lobbyists, spend years negotiating these agreements. The TPP text, for example, was finalized in the fall of 2015 after six years of secret negotiations.

These are clearly massive agreements of great importance to governments and corporations. We have noticed, however, that some people’s eyes glaze over when we talk about the TPP and the TTIP. We agree that these topics can sound dry and remote. For that reason, we have compiled a list in order to clarify who may be personally impacted by these agreements.

You do not need to worry about how free trade agreements will affect you, UNLESS:

• You have a job. One study showed that the TPP would mean a pay cut for 90% of U.S. workers.
• You have been affected, directly or indirectly, by climate change. Our current trade system drives the industrial food system, which in turn drives climate change. We cannot break our reliance on the industrial food system without first breaking our reliance on “free trade.”
• You prefer to eat food that you know is safe and free of chemical residues. The TPP and the TTIP would require countries to accept food that meets only the lowest safety standards of the collective participants.
• You would like your local government or school to adopt a “buy local” policy giving preference to local farmers and producers.The TPP would outlaw such preferential buying clauses.
• You are a government official attempting to pass legislation to benefit citizens in your country at the potential expense of corporate profits. Earlier this year, under a provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), TransCanada initiated a $15 billion lawsuit against the U.S. after President Obama blocked the Keystone XL pipeline deal. As free trade agreements expand, we can expect more such lawsuits.
• You want more information about where and how your food was grown, not less. Last year, Congress announced it would repeal Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for meat products after it was challenged under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. COOL is a popular labeling rule that simply requires consumer packaging to list where products and their components are produced.

So, after reading this, if you are confident that you are not affected by free trade agreements, then you can rest easy. But if you are or will be affected, then now is the time to take action!

To learn more, to see sources for the information provided here, and to take action
please visit: www.fairworldproject.org/campaigns/trade-policy.

The post Policy Corner: A Few Reasons to Choose Fair Trade Over Free Trade appeared first on Fair World Project.

The industrial food system is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Industrial agriculture practices like Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), overuse and abuse of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and fossil fuel-intensive transportation all generate significant amounts of GHGs and underpin an inequitable and unhealthy food system. Conversely, small-scale regenerative organic farming emits far less GHG and, adopted at a large scale, has the potential to help reverse climate change by building soil organic matter and sequestering atmospheric carbon dioxide. Up to one-third of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide is from depleted, mismanaged farm and rangeland soils, and it can be sequestered back into soil through regenerative organic practices like rotational cover-cropping, minimal tillage, holistic managed grazing, and not using synthetic pesticides and fertilizers that disrupt soil biota that build soil organic matter.

But despite the serious threat that climate change poses to humanity in general, and to small-scale farmers in particular, government and market support of proven solutions to climate change, like small-scale regenerative agriculture, receives little assistance or safeguards. Supporting and developing small-scale regenerative farming will require significant resources, research and awareness-raising. To successfully confront the challenges of climate change and feed the world, small-scale farmers will have to play a critical role.

Experience has shown that farmers around the world learn best from their peers. Emerging from Central America in the 1970s, the “Farmer-to-Farmer” movement has fueled the training of thousands of peasant farmers by facilitating the exchange of experiences and best practices. This movement is based upon community empowerment, traditional knowledge, and local innovation and cooperation.

Fair World Project (FWP) and the Latin American and Caribbean Network of Fair Trade Small Producers (CLAC) have partnered together to conduct a contest for all CLAC members to share their experiences and best practices in confronting climate change in their communities. Twelve small-scale farmer organizations from seven Latin American countries participated in the contest. Farmer submissions demonstrated impressive steps taken by these organizations to adjust to the growing challenge of climate change adaption, and to also diversify their farm economies, promoting on-farm innovation, including improving soil fertility, among other practices.

Cooperative Sugar Cane Growers of Costa Rica, CoopeVictoria RL won the contest and a $3,000 cash prize to expand and continue their work. CoopeVictoria RL stood out among the proposals for the originality of its experience, the ability to turn problems into solutions, and its focus on involving community members in training, education and awareness, increasing its impact on 3,024 member families. CoopeVictoria RL’s member families have experienced major problems with pest and disease control as a result of climate change-fueled temperature changes. Incidences of erosion have increased in recent years as well, due to unseasonal and intense rain storms. As a result, farmers have seen their production fall and have experienced loss of income. To address these challenges, CoopeVictoria RL is stabilizing and building up soil fertility by recycling sugar cane and coffee waste, returning nutrients to their fields and reducing erosion. CoopeVictoria RL is also mitigating climate change through their biodiesel program. By collecting residential and commercial cooking oil, their communities are safeguarding local water sources from contamination and burning cleaner fuel in their vehicles.

Other inspiring experiences include Colombia’s San Isidro coffee producers. For thirty years, San Isidro has been developing conservation activities, promoting environmental education, and implementing best practices and diversification of agricultural production with the participation of young people. In recent years, San Isidro’s producers have experienced increased severe droughts and insect attacks, both exacerbated by climate change. San Isidro’s producers are not only facing climate change, but local challenges as well, including deforestation in neighboring regions. To address these challenges, producers have taken steps to improve soil vitality and reduce pesticide use, as well as to obtain and manage their own forest preserves where native species, including endangered bird and tree species, are conserved. These preserves also play an important role in ensuring a steady and clean water supply.

Farmer-to-farmer campaigns have proven to be the most impactful and cost-effective method of scaling up and growing skills, like regenerative organic farming. To build off this experience, FWP will continue to facilitate future contests with producer networks, including in-person farmer-to-farmer exchanges.

To learn more and to contribute to this program, please visit:
www.fairworldproject.org/farmerexchange

The post Small-Scale Farmers Confront Climate Change appeared first on Fair World Project.

Seward Community Co-op is a 42-year-old natural food cooperative located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Seward Co-op has 15,000 owners, and it is looked upon as a leader among natural food cooperatives nationwide.

Unique to Seward Co-op is its “Ends Statement,” which is similar to an organization’s mission statement. Developed by the board, the Ends Statement states that Seward Co-op will sustain a healthy community that has: equitable economic relationships, positive environmental impacts, and inclusive, socially responsible practices. Because of this powerful Ends Statement, Seward Co-op decided to build a second store in the Bryant-Central neighborhood in South Minneapolis.

Unknown to Seward Co-op leadership, however, a group of community residents had formed what they called the Carrot Initiative (CI), the purpose of which was to attract a grocer to the Bryant-Central neighborhood. CI contacted a number of local food cooperatives, as well as national grocery chains, yet none of them were interested in a mixed-income community of color as a site for a new grocery store.

But then CI spoke with Seward Co-op. After looking at several spaces together, CI suggested that the store leadership consider the Greater Friendship Missionary Baptist Church as a location. The site seemed to be perfect for building the new location. Due to the enthusiastic response from CI, it was assumed that the community would be excited about this development as well. So, Seward Co-op began the process of acquiring the property and several surrounding parcels of land.

The announcement
A community meeting was scheduled to announce the project. Prior to the announcement, another neighborhood group, At the Roots, emerged. At the Roots felt that the CI members were not true members of the neighborhood and should not be considered representatives of the community. The majority of residents in the Bryant-Central community are African American and Latino. The CI members are primarily white and are considered new arrivals to the community. Thus, the announcement of the new store was met with mixed feelings, including distrust and hostility. Many people felt that the new store was a “done deal” and were concerned that Seward Co-op could not and would not address issues of racial and economic equity.

The leadership of Seward Co-op was taken aback by the criticism, feeling like they were the “good guys.” They had walked into the intersection of race and class in a community that had been ignored for decades. But, along with the arrival of hipsters and coffee shops, the new cooperative seemed to signal that gentrification had arrived. It was feared that racial equity would be a challenge, as the majority of those representing the cooperative were white.

Addressing racial and economic equity
Seward Co-op had received heavy criticism about everything, from the aggressive building timeline, to the appearance of its operations team and board members, to the cost of the food. The cooperative acknowledged that its employee demographic included just 14% people of color. In order to address the community concerns regarding hiring and jobs, the cooperative had to deliberately tackle its unconscious bias in the hiring process. The leadership began an intense process of gaining cultural competency, and this work led to the development of diversity goals for construction and store hiring.

Most food justice projects tend to focus on the consumer end of the food system when dealing with communities of color. Usually, the effort is around making the food more affordable. While this is important, it ignores the true capacity of the community. Most communities are comprised of residents and entrepreneurs who buy food, but who are also skilled and valuable to local emerging food stores. What many non-profit food projects miss is the connection between food access and fair wages.

So, Seward Co-op developed multiple access points to address food access concerns. One access point is a program called Nourish. While an ownership share of the cooperative is normally $75, via Nourish, anyone on SNAP, WIC or any other government-assistance program can access ownership for only $15. Additionally, a 10% discount on every purchase is available for those who request it. Another access point is the cooperative’s goal of having 32% non-white employees by 2018. Saying these numbers were soft and inadequate, however, community organizers called for a 70% goal.

The new store opened on October 6, 2015. By November 1, over 1,000 new owners had joined at the new location. Seward Co-op also exceeded its 2018 diversity goal ahead of target in 2015 by 3%, and today 61% of the new store’s staff are people of color. Moreover, the owners of the cooperative have confirmed their commitment to racial equity, as five of the nine board members are now people of color, making the cooperative the most diverse one of its scale in the country.

While this success is admirable, it should be noted that this kind of equity work in the food movement is the exception and not the rule. Indeed, it should be the goal of every food cooperative to embrace diversity by strategically working on racial and economic equity.

The post The Road to Friendship: A Food Co-op in a Community of Color appeared first on Fair World Project.

Contributing Writers
Dr. Kristen Lyons & Dr. Peter Westoby

The Paris climate talks at the end of 2015 no doubt left some feeling as though global politics might just have turned a little green. With a climate agreement aiming to keep the global temperature increase to less than 1.5°C, national governments have some heavy lifting to do in cutting emissions to ensure a fair and livable world.

The green economy – including carbon markets and other payments for ecosystem services – is being championed as the “solution” to meeting this target, alongside expanding the renewable energy sector. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) and related projects, with a strong focus on developing countries, are part of what Naomi Klein (2014) refers to as the new “Gaia capitalism.” In this brave new world, making money is directly tied to saving the planet.

In this article, we report on research and action that occurred between 2012 and 2015, focused on the activities of a multinational company operating in Uganda and trading in carbon markets. Our story adds weight to the growing chorus of voices opposing the rollout of Gaia capitalism as a response to the climate crisis and highlights the power of people in forcing global corporations to change their practices.

Our research examined one of the largest plantation forestry companies operating on the African continent, Green Resources. On the basis of nearly eight months in the field visiting villages directly affected by the company, we documented the “carbon violence” on which establishing forestry plantations for carbon offset relies. This work was recently published by the Oakland Institute in a report called “The Darker Side of Green” ’, (www.oaklandinstitute.org/darker-side-green).

Our work describes the extent to which communities have historically relied on the land that is now licensed to Green Resources for vital livelihood activities, including grazing animals, cultivating food crops and accessing sites of cultural significance. Yet these peasant farming families have now been constrained and/or denied access to this land, with acute outcomes for their lives and livelihoods. We met many villagers who described moving their livelihood activities onto more marginal (and less productive) land, such as moving grazing animals onto wetlands, riparian and other ecologically sensitive zones, and moving crop cultivation onto steep and rocky slopes.

Yet in recent months, the failure of Green Resources to live up to its own claims of corporate social responsibility has caught up with it. In a win for people and the planet, the company’s failure to comply with its own ideas of best practices and international standards has been exposed as paltry in terms of regulatory usefulness – resulting in the company being locked out of the international carbon market, for now at least.

How did this happen?

After mounting pressure over many years of research and advocacy by international non-government organizations (NGOs), in September of 2015 a Swedish television crew traveled to one of the sites Green Resources operates in Uganda to learn more about the company’s social and environmental impacts. Their story, “The Forbidden Forest,” ran on Sweden’s Channel 4, reporting on community members’ loss of access to land vital to grow food, graze animals and secure access to safe drinking water.

The response to this story, building upon ongoing research over a number of years related to Green Resources, has been significant, showing intolerance to companies who cut corners to enter the carbon market. The Swedish Minister for Climate and the Environment, Asa Romson, has spoken out strongly against Green Resources’ conduct. In response, the Swedish Energy Agency has frozen payments until significant changes in corporate practices are made, including enabling community members to access land to grow food crops and graze animals, recognizing local peoples’ land rights, and introducing improved grievance mechanisms, road maintenance and more.

Sweden’s response sends a clear message to the world: climate solutions that ignore the rights of local peoples are not acceptable. This is a concern that organizations, such as the Indigenous Environmental Network, Friends of the Earth International, Timber Watch and the No REDD in Africa Network, among others, have raised for many years.

In championing the financialization of nature through carbon markets, the recent global climate agreement ignores the violence on which it is so often built. At the same time, it ignores the fact that carbon markets fail to address the key challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While governments are distracted by the lure of carbon markets, fundamental concerns about the voluntary and non-binding nature of the agreement rise. So, too, do criticisms of its failure to make compensation provisions for the world’s most vulnerable communities already affected by climate change, as well as its sidestepping calls to take a position to end coal mining for fear of causing offense.

For now, we are waiting to see what this global plantation forestry company will do in response to being locked out of the carbon market. With its poor practices recently exposed, now is the time to write to Green Resources demanding that they take seriously the requirements outlined by the Swedish government. Add your voice to this campaign; write to Green Resources today, and let them know how important it is to you that they do so. Poor people in Uganda, and in other developing countries, cannot be shortchanged in the flurry of excitement around carbon trading initiatives.

Letters can be sent to Green Resources Board Member Kristoffer Olsen at: kristoffer@jfp.no.

To watch the full version of “The Forbidden Forest,” screened on Channel 4 in Sweden, please visit: www.youtube.com/watch?v=COoPVXlNbqQ.

References:  Klein, Naomi. This Changes Everything. London: Allen Lane, 2014.  Lyons, Kristen, C. Richards, and Peter Westoby. The Darker Side of Green: Plantation Forestry and Carbon Violence in Uganda. Oakland: Oakland Institute, 2014. (www.oaklandinstitute.org/darker-side-green.)

The post The Other Side of Green! appeared first on Fair World Project.

Small-scale Producers Building Powerful Fair Trade Programs in Latin American Universities.

Contributing Writer
Marco Coscione

For the first time in the fair trade movement, a small producers network, The Latin American and Caribbean Network of Fair Trade Small Producers (CLAC), is leading an advocacy campaign “Latin American Universities for Fair Trade” to disseminate the principles and values of fair trade. We are promoting direct relations between universities and small producers organizations, introducing new teaching and education courses, and encouraging responsible consumption. At the same time, we are also creating a solidarity market through institutional procurements in universities.

We knew it was going to be difficult and slow, and could generate many concerns, but gradually the campaign is progressing and becoming known in social networks inside the global and Latin American fair trade movement and academic circles. The Latin American proposal follows the example of similar campaigns in other countries; however, it has a strong focus on advocacy, awareness and education. This responds to the need to develop the fair trade movement in a continent where the concept and practices of fair trade and responsible consumption are not yet well-known or developed.

In universities reside future political and business leaders. Universities are fundamental for learning, research and development. For these reasons, among others, they have enormous potential to build more just, solidarity-based trade relations. We want students to understand the impacts and challenges of fair trade, as well as the need to build direct links with small agricultural and artisan producers, and the differences between small-scale family farming and agribusiness – differences in social, environmental, economic and alimentary terms.

Raising the awareness of citizen-consumers about more sustainable patterns of production and consumption inevitably involves education, and thus academic institutions play an important role in this process. Through better course content and procurement policies, they can provide a concrete example of how to build a more just economy.

From the beginning, we received great support from the Uniminuto University of Bogotá, the first to be declared a “Latin American University for Fair Trade.” In Colombia, the campaign has moved faster than in other countries, also involving the Cooperative University of Colombia, the Universidad del Norte and the Universidad del Valle. In Brazil, the Universidade Federal de Lavras of the Minas Gerais, the most important state for the country’s coffee production, joined the effort. In Costa Rica, both the Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE, or Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center) and the Universidad Técnica Nacional (UTN, or National Technical University) integrated into the network as well.

In August of 2014, CLAC launched this campaign, knowing that many universities already have some relationships with fair trade small producers organizations. In just fourteen months, by the end of October of 2015, we had seven universities actively involved in the campaign, which generated international interest. For example, we received an invitation from the University of Ghent in Belgium to be part of an international research network on fair trade. If that research proposal is approved, FLACSO-Ecuador, UTN and CATIE will participate in it. CLAC will also help with its producers and networks in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Through this campaign, we are strengthening existing fair trade links and building new relationships, because we are convinced that universities, professors, researchers and students are all important allies in the fair trade movement. We will continue to expand this network and build relationships among all Latin American universities working on fair trade, responsible consumption and the solidarity economy, so that they can share their activities and establish links with other universities and similar campaigns around the world.

RELATED LINKS

• Uniminuto University of Bogotá (www.uniminuto.edu)
• Cooperative University of Colombia (www.ucc.edu.co/Paginas/inicio.aspx)
• Universidad del Norte (www.uninorte.edu.co)
• Universidad del Valle (nortedelcauca.univalle.edu.co)
• Universidade Federal de Lavras (UFLA) (ufla.br/portal/administracao/reitoria/curriculo-do-reitor)
• Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE) (www.catie.ac.cr/es)
• Universidad Técnica Nacional (UTN) (www.utn.ac.cr)

The post What a Fair Trade University Should Look Like appeared first on Fair World Project.

The film The True Cost is a story about clothing. It is about the clothes we wear, the people who make them, and the impact the industry is having on our world. The price of clothing has been decreasing for decades, while the human and environmental costs have grown dramatically. The True Cost is a groundbreaking documentary film that pulls back the curtain on the untold story and asks us to consider: Who really pays the price for our clothing?

Dana Geffner, Executive Director of Fair World Project, sat down with the Director of The True Cost to learn why this story was so important to tell and what we as consumers can do to stop exploitation in the clothing industry.

Q:  Why did you decide to make this movie and tell this story?

Andrew:  I do not have a background in fashion and never thought about making this kind of film. I started to become interested about the role that business plays in the world in relation to human rights, extreme poverty, inequality and environmental impact. I began to believe that solutions to our problems will invariably be through business. As a filmmaker, it was too big to tackle, and I could not get my arms around that film. Then I picked up the newspaper and read about this clothing factory collapsing in Rana Plaza [in Bangladesh] and read that, at the time of the collapse, they were making clothes for major western brands that I knew. I read this horrifying account of how something I interact with every day in my world is having this unseen impact in other peoples’ lives all over the world. That instantly grabbed me, and within a week, we decided this was a film we wanted to make.

Q:  The film shows locations from all over the world. Where did you go, and whom did you interview?

Andrew:  We filmed in thirteen countries. This needed to be a global film because it is one of the true major global issues of our times. It does not matter what country you live in, this affects human beings, and I wanted to make a film that went to so many places that you almost forgot where you were. So the focus is not really on the place, but rather that it is our shared home. So that took us to really rich, beautiful parts of the world. We filmed during all the major fashion weeks in London, Paris, Milan, New York and Los Angeles. It also took us all over Southeast Asia: Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Japan, India and Uganda. The focus was really on the stories of the people we followed.

We followed a twenty-two year-old garment worker named Shima Akter who works in Dhaka, Bangladesh. We followed a woman named Safia Minney, who owns a fair trade clothing company called People Tree, in London and Tokyo. And then we followed a cotton farmer in Luc, Texas named Lorey Pepper. Around those three stories we met a whole bunch of experts, from economists to really big influencers in the fashion space, and both activists and traditional designers, people like Stella McCartney and brands like Patagonia.

Q:  How has the fashion industry changed?

Andrew:  One of the startling facts is that the world consumes 400% more clothing right now than it did two decades ago. The world now makes between 80-90 billion new articles of clothing each year. This has created a real shift; clothing historically has been something we made with great intentionality and integrity, something we held onto our whole lives and even passed on to our children. It was something we valued.

The impacts of a global economy have allowed us to offshore labor, cut costs and produce mass quantities of clothing much more cheaply. Clothing has now become a commodity that we see as disposable, and that is really brand new in the history of fashion. It is a very modern concept to be able to buy things that are so cheap that it means nothing if they fall apart after a few wears. That volume increase and shift in mindset have turned up the dial on some already very problematic issues, making it now nothing short of a state of crisis or emergency in a lot of areas.

Q:  The term “fast fashion” is talked about in the film. What is fast fashion?

Andrew:  “Fast fashion” is a term that parallels “fast food” and implies that it probably is not very good for us. Fast fashion was initiated when brands began to copy design looks from runway shows. They put them through production and manufacturing at lightning speeds in order to have them in stores within weeks, and sometimes days, after they were seen on the runways.

But this supply chain is dangerously fast and precariously volatile. We are incentivizing a constant state of rush, a constant state of “How fast can we get it there?” and “What corners can we cut?” Those cut corners led to the egregious and extreme cases of human exploitation and tragedy that have recently grabbed the world’s attention.

Q:  Why is fast fashion happening? Who is demanding it?

Andrew:  From one standpoint, we live in a market-driven, consumer-based, consumption-fueled economy. The mandatory ingredient for our economy to grow is for consumption to be kept very high all the time. Our standard economic model only measures profit, while many of the costs that go into making things are unseen. We do not factor in the use of natural resources, like water and other resources that are increasingly scarce in parts of the world where things are being made. People want to buy the cheapest things. As consumers, we judge products on whether they look good and are cheap. So, in that regard, the market incentivizes the lowest-quality product.

We can also look at it in another way – a lot of essential items have become more expensive, like insurance, homes, a college education and healthcare, while other things have become less expensive, like clothing. So when my life feels less in my control, I can find therapy in buying something super-cheap. So, as the middle class gets squeezed and is unable to control the prices of these essential items, then there is a natural movement towards feeling in control by buying these cheap pieces of clothing.

Q:   What is fast fashion doing to workers around the world?

Andrew:  The fashion industry is where some of the most vulnerable people are systemically exploited. The fast fashion industry did not create the idea of offshore labor, very low union representation, or very low worker rights standards; that happened when we moved into a globalized economy. Fast fashion has taken a fragile situation and pushed the pedal down as far as it possibly can go. It has created the most egregious example of business trampling on the rights and needs of the most vulnerable people.

Q: What can consumers do to help workers in the apparel supply chain?

Andrew:  First, start to think about your personal choices. As someone who did not think about this a few years ago, it is quite daunting and intimidating … but I think about these things a lot now. I meet a lot of people who believe deeply in the value of human rights, of women’s rights in this industry particularly, and of environmental care and protection. So when they see the film or we have a conversation, they say “I never connected those values to my individual choices.” I think this can be an exciting gateway for people to say “Wow, I am a human being and make choices every day, and those choices add up, and they have an impact … and while I can advocate for things globally, it is powerful to start thinking individually.”

I have stepped off the treadmill of bringing cheap disposable clothes into my life. I did not really love the things I was wearing. I have now made clothing a more conscious decision – really thinking about the pieces that I want, the pieces that I need, that I am going to love, and that will last. It has given me space both mentally and financially.

We can make better-informed choices and support brands that honor the people who are making our clothes. I think more brands are doing this, and each of us should seek out those brands that care. I think it starts with reducing the sheer quantity, and then beginning to buy quality and appreciating the “story” that you are wearing.

Q:  What government policies should be in place to protect workers?

Andrew:  We are working on this with the United Nations. The problem is that we live in a globalized economy, but we are operating under a nationalistic set of rules and laws pitting developing countries against each other and creating a race to the bottom. So, how can we begin to raise the bar at the bottom?

We are creating national and international wage agreements. From a U.S. perspective, we can do this through import laws. For example, there are certain laws in place for the types of chemicals that can be used. We think it would be good to also include responsibility for the conditions under which the products are made. We can start with what is coming in and make profound improvements. It is not going to be simple, but it starts with political will, which I think starts with awareness, which is where we are now.

A lot of people buy clothes – not bad people, just people who have not heard this story. I hope the story starts to seep in, so that we will have the will to make those choices.

Q:  Where would you send people to get active in government policies?

Andrew:  Presently, you will find many of the best groups out there linked on our Web site under “Learn More.” Labor Behind the Label is a good one, as is the International Labour Organization’s program under the United Nations called Better Work. Another big one is Fashion Revolution. They have an annual event on Fashion Revolution Day, which takes place on the anniversary of [the disaster at] Rana Plaza, April 24. It is a growing international hub and the central force right now.

Q:  What did you learn that surprised you most while making the film?

Andrew:  The experience of telling this story completely re-oriented my view of the world and my role in it. One of the most surprising things is that we had a false sense of knowledge when we were going through pre-production. We were doing all of this research and calculating all the data and analyzing it on a macro-level. The first country we started in was Bangladesh, and it was there that we began to see it and feel the effects of it.

I once read a quote that said “When you look at poverty from a great distance, you become arrogant.” I think for me it was the startling, heartbreaking, urgent reality of what inexcusable extreme poverty feels like and looks like in real life. When we got to know the folks who were working their hearts out, unable to provide the basic necessities, while fueling companies and an industry that report profits in the billions and trillions of dollars, that hurt really deep inside. I knew we had several issues here going in, important issues to examine, but I was unprepared for how great of a toll I think this industry is taking on individuals and their communities.

On the flip side, there is a lot of hope because if we get this right, we can open a lot of doors. Fashion is such a trend and a creative, forward-facing, consumer-touching, platform-raising industry, that to me this is a really good place to start facing a lot of the important issues of our time.

To watch The True Cost now, please visit:
www.truecostmovie.com.

Tips to Transform the Apparel Industry

Here are a few ways that concerned consumers can participate in transforming the apparel industry.

1) Look for apparel brands that are creating alternatives and improving supply chains:

• Global Mamas is a non-profit apparel company that provides training, benefits and good pay to more than 500 women in Ghana.
  (www.globalmamas.org)
• Marigold works with women in the slums of Mumbai. They also work with organic farmer organizations in India where indebtedness and suicide rates are quite high.
  (www.marigoldfairtradeclothing.com)
• Maggie’s Organics has developed their entire supply chain to use organic and fair practices. They have worked to transition farmers to growing organic cotton and have been vocal critics of free trade agreements such as the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
• Marketplace: Handwork of India is a non-profit apparel company committed to building leadership for social change, building capacity and empowering the artisans with whom they work in India. (www.marketplaceindia.com)
• Mata Traders is an apparel company working with producer groups in India and Nepal. (www.matatraders.com)
• People Tree invests in livelihoods and the environment at every stage of production, from the growing of cotton and wool, through the final production of apparel.
  (www.peopletree.co.uk)
• Under the Nile is a baby clothing company that uses organic and fair trade Egyptian cotton. (www.underthenile.com)

2) Get involved in policy activism and fight for fair policies:

• www.fairworldproject.org/campaigns/trade-policy

3) Support Fashion Revolution:

• www.fashionrevolution.org

The post Interview with Andrew Morgan: The Director of The True Cost appeared first on Fair World Project.