I visited communities in the most impoverished areas in the world, sat in people’s living rooms and lugged boxes for nearly a decade to learn and tell the stories of the people that made fair trade handicrafts.  I believed a high quality handicraft could tell the story of not only who made it and how, but also the heart wrenching unjust realities due to policies that undermine communities and will only be changed if people are knowledgeable and engaged.

In 2010 I helped to start Fair World Project, which focuses more on our unjust food system and the policies that have forced the world’s commodities to become cheaper and cheaper, exploiting our agricultural producers to the point of no return, ruining entire communities.  Communities around the world are collapsing as a result of  policies and practices that attend globalization, that favor rich societies that over-consume without caring about the true cost and harms of production.   The rich are becoming richer, and producer communities are continuing to live in slum-like conditions – dying from malnutrition and lack of healthcare – from the middle of Mississippi to the Sudan.   However, Fair World Project continues to stress the importance of fair trade handmade crafts that can connect and inspire people to politically engage and help transform trade policies to work for the 99% rather than the 1%, or speak up when atrocities occur like they have in Rwanda or Cambodia.

I realized firsthand how a tangible handicraft could be the starting point for bringing people together and transforming the structures that hold us apart. I felt the power of educating groups of people when I held up a beautiful scarf or bag created by people that were truly marginalized.  Organizing around the production of these beautifully handcrafted items could help to share tragedy and explain complex and unjust policies.   For example, handmade items produced by landmine victims and widows from the time of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia that killed over 2 million (out of 8 million) people; or Guatemalan Indigenous communities exploited and murdered with help from the U.S. government; or handicapped people in Vietnam who are kicked out of their families and left with nowhere to go and no way to survive; or women living in the slums of India that pick through trash dumps to care for their families; or Burmese refugees that are ignored and not protected by the Thai government, forcing young girls to turn to prostitution.  It was important to me to work with, and tell the story of, women in Mexican communities that lost their lands, forcing their husbands to abandon their families as a direct result of the U.S.’s North American Free Trade Agreements (NAFTA) with their only option to migrate to the U.S. in the hopes of sending money back to their families to help support them.  In all of these situations and plenty more, women, children, and their communities survive making traditional crafts using the only resources they have.  Approximately 80% of fair trade handicrafts are created by women that support their children and elders, in communities with little or no social system support.

Fair trade distribution partners work in long-term relationship with these talented artisans and connect and help them tell their stories to ethical consumers in the developed world.  Fair pricing covers pre-payments for supplies, the true cost of production, and community development funds to help build healthier communities. Their stories need to be heard to help shape trade and land policies, so governments and corporations stop exploiting the most vulnerable on this earth.

To get engaged and participate in transforming trade policy visit: www.fairworldproject.org/tradepolicy.

To learn more about fair brands working with artisan groups in marginalized communities that tell these stories visit:

www.fairtradefederation.org

www.wfto.com

The post Craft Politics: Telling Important Stories through Handicrafts appeared first on Fair World Project.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published in The Huffington Post UK on June 10, 2015.

Just a stone’s throw from my own office at Fairtrade International, negotiators at this week’s United Nations (UN) climate change talks in Bonn are working around the clock to hammer out a deal for the make-or-break summit coming up in Paris this December. But as they negotiate into the wee hours of the morning, they might reflect that the strong black coffee keeping them awake is itself under threat from global warming.

Coffee growers from Indonesia to Tanzania to Guatemala are already feeling the heat. Higher temperatures, extreme weather events, and increased pests and plant diseases are all hitting both the quality and quantity of coffee crops. Arabica beans – which account for 75% of world sales – are particularly susceptible to even small changes in temperature. According to one recent study published by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), coffee production in some countries is expected to decline by as much as 25% by 2050. We can all expect to pay significantly more for our daily fix of the black stuff – if we can even get it. As climate expert Dr. Peter Baker said in April at a packed meeting organized by Nicaraguan coffee farmers, “We need a sense of urgency to address the crisis in coffee caused by climate change. And we need a new set of rules to address pricing in the whole sector.”

We might grumble about it, but the fact is we can afford to shell out a bit more for our morning latte. Inevitably, it is the small-scale farmers in developing countries who will suffer the most. An estimated twenty-five million families worldwide depend on coffee production for their livelihoods. One Fairtrade coffee cooperative in Malawi reports that climate change has wiped out nearly half of the ten million coffee trees they have planted since 2003. In Central and South America, many farmers are tackling a devastating outbreak of leaf rust, a fungal disease widely linked to warmer temperatures. In February, I visited Guatemala and was shocked. In every discussion with every farmer, climate change just kept coming up. Coffee farmers there told us that their harvest was down by 40% – and they depend on coffee for their incomes, so imagine the impact.

And it is not just coffee. Crops including rice, tea, wheat, maize, bananas and cocoa are all at risk from climate change. According to the UN, even a small global temperature increase of 1°C would lead to reductions of 5-10% in the yields of major cereal crops. Twelve million hectares of productive land become barren every year due to desertification and drought alone, affecting more than one billion people. Rising sea levels in the Ganges delta mean the soil is becoming too salty to grow rice, threatening the food security of three million people. We met bee-keepers who work in the protected Mayan biosphere, shaking their heads as they showed us empty hives: it was far too cold for that time of year, and the bees were not making any honey.

At Fairtrade International, we have been setting our plans to 2020. Indeed it was the producers who put climate change on our agenda: adapting to new weather patterns is a daily reality for them. From Kenya to Peru, farmers are using the Fairtrade premiums they get from the sale of certified crops to research and invest in innovative schemes to help them combat climate change. Tea farmers in Malawi, for example, have been using premium money to plant indigenous and exotic trees in the area to improve the soil and attract more rain. Our Fairtrade Standards include stringent environmental requirements designed to encourage sustainable food production.

Everyone in the global food supply chain has a part to play – that is why, with the help of public and private funding, we’re developing adaptation projects, such as reforestation in Peru and creating demonstration farming plots with tea farmers in Kenya, working together with partner organizations.

We are also currently developing a scheme for Fairtrade carbon credits with The Gold Standard Foundation, to help make farming communities economically stronger against the effects of climate change, while enabling companies to reduce their carbon footprints. Producers will play a key role in developing the projects themselves, and they will receive a Fairtrade premium for each credit sold, which they can then invest in devising more ways to adapt to climate change.

All of this will count for very little, however, if governments do not play their part. So, as those UN negotiators down yet another double espresso to keep themselves going through the night, I hope they remember that there is much more than coffee at stake – indeed the futures of millions of farmers, producers and workers around the world are depending on them to achieve binding commitments and actions in order to keep climate change in check.

Update (as of June 25, 2015): The tension builds. Governments could not move fast enough through the many rounds of wording quibbles, so now it is up to the co-chairs of the negotiations to edit the text and present it anew to countries for approval. The clock is ticking – we have just mere months to crack a deal that will get 196 countries to agree on tackling climate change! We can surely expect many more coffee-filled nights to come …

Understanding Carbon Credit Programs

Organizations across all sectors talk about carbon credits, carbon offsets and carbon footprints. What does it all mean, how does it work, and is offsetting our carbon footprint through buying carbon credits really the best way to address climate change? The basic idea behind carbon credits is that a party creating greenhouse gas emissions pays for another party to engage in activities that mitigate the equivalent amount of emissions. Carbon credits and their markets are an attempt to mitigate the growth of greenhouse gases which scientists overwhelmingly agree is causing climate change.

Carbon credits have long been a controversial component of government policy and international climate agreements. Development organizations are now getting into the carbon credit game to work on climate change with their farmer groups by selling credits to investment firms, allowing them to generate funds for projects related to agriculture, renewable energy, energy efficiency and forest management. There are two main goals: to decrease overall carbon emissions and to help agricultural communities increase their resilience to the impacts of climate change.

Below are some of the arguments in favor of and against carbon credits, gathered from the public dialogue:

THE PROS:

• Individuals that participate in a carbon credit program become more conscious of their CO2 outputs, leading them to educate themselves and take additional actions to reduce their own carbon footprints. In addition, policymakers and practitioners may be pushed to create better and more lasting solutions.
• Farmers in the Global South need support in dealing with the problem of climate change, a problem they did not create. Carbon credits generate necessary funding to mitigate the worst effects of climate change, so at least they do not lose their lands.
• Until better solutions are adopted, carbon credits in the meantime offset some carbon emissions and fund necessary projects such as reforestation. Even if it is not a perfect mechanism, it is better than doing nothing.
• The entry of development organizations and NGOs into the carbon credit market will lead to a focus on the most marginalized farmers, rather than a focus on plantations that support the problematic paradigm.
• Carbon credits push the global economy closer to full-cost accounting for CO2 emissions, allowing companies to internalize rather than externalize their pollution costs.

THE CONS:

• The carbon credit market is poorly regulated with little oversight. Because of this, pricing is inconsistent and vague, there is no assurance that mitigation happens in a timely or efficient manner after payment (or at all), funded projects may create new problems (for example, reforestation with non-native species), and the entire system is ripe for corruption.
• Rather than compelling us to look for ways to change our habits and make the necessary deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, and especially to change the dirty business practices of the largest polluters, carbon credit programs can instead create a sense that we can buy a clean conscience. They help companies avoid dealing with the real problem: the damage that we are causing in the first place.
• The carbon credit market has led to the accelerated displacement of indigenous and agricultural communities from their lands in so-called “carbon grabs,” as investors and governments look to cash in on agricultural and forested lands.
• The burden of solving the problem of climate change is placed upon those who are least responsible for it. Instead of a guarantee of clean air, water and soil, farmers are paid by those who created the problem with the expectation that they now devise the solution.

Let us know what you think about carbon credits.
Send us an email at info@fairworldproject.org. Your comments may be published in a “Readers Speak” section of an upcoming issue of For A Better World.  Please put “Carbon Credits” in the subject line and include your
first name, city, state and country.  We look forward to hearing from you.

The post Climate Change: Coffee Farmers Feel the Heat appeared first on Fair World Project.

In a city with one of the most unaffordable rents and a higher poverty rate than any other metropolitan area in the U.S., raising Los Angeles’ minimum wage to $15.00 per hour by 2020 is an historic victory that will uplift almost one million Angelinos who are currently living in poverty.

The victory is especially meaningful to restaurant workers – the restaurant industry was ground zero for the debate, and business groups opposing the wage increase tried vehemently to exclude restaurant servers, claiming that they did not deserve the increase. The reality is that 70% of LA’s restaurant servers make less than $25,000 per year, and 82% of LA’s restaurants engage in wage theft (when employers steal wages by not paying the minimum wage, stealing tips, or forcing workers to work off the clock without pay).

This opposition was led by the California Restaurant Association (CRA), the local arm of the National Restaurant Association (NRA) who is largely responsible for keeping wages at $2.13 per hour for servers nationally. The CRA lobbied city leaders almost daily, and spoke at every public hearing in an attempt to exclude tipped workers from the wage increase and create a sub-minimum wage where servers would make less than everybody else and be forced to rely on tips.

In the end, the power of restaurant workers’ voices rose above the politics. Claudia Chi Ku, a single mother of four and a restaurant server, worked tirelessly to help win the increase. “I’ve struggled with not having enough money to pay my bills, to save, or to even buy something extra for my children. I just want to make a difference in this industry, which means not being scared.” Claudia is a worker leader in the LA chapter of Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC) and leads other workers to transform the restaurant industry.

Darden, parent company to brands like Olive Garden and Yard House, is a major player in the NRA. Betty Vargas, a prep cook at the Yard House LA Live, fought hard for the increase. “My daughter is a great student and it breaks my heart that I can’t afford to send her to college. I want to give her the education she deserves.”

ROC’s membership includes employers as well as workers, and Hassan Nicholas Del Campo, owner of Manifesto Café, also spoke in support of the minimum wage increase. “As a small business owner in one of the wealthiest cities in the U.S., I find it troubling that a majority of workers in the restaurant industry and others struggle to survive. It is in the best interest of my business and my employees that they receive a livable wage.”

The minimum wage increase to $15.00 per hour also includes provisions to combat wage theft which currently robs LA’s workers of over $26 million per week. LA will have its own office where workers can file claims and recover stolen wages.

The CRA was defeated in LA’s minimum wage fight, and ROC is working on a campaign called “One Fair Wage” to eliminate the sub-minimum wage in other states too. Hugo Aleman, a server in LA, is helping with that fight. “I’m lucky … I’ve been a tipped worker in CA, one of the states that doesn’t have a lower wage for tipped workers, for twenty-two years. It’s not perfect; we [won] a wage increase over here, but I can’t imagine what it’d be like to live in a state where being a server means your employer only has to pay you $2.13 per hour. That’s terrifying. Everyone deserves a fair wage, regardless of what state you live in. I’ve worked at several successful restaurants that pay all their employees at least the minimum wage; it can be done.”

The post Tipped Workers Win One Fair Wage in Los Angeles appeared first on Fair World Project.

These are exciting times for those of us working to increase the earnings of low-wage workers. Strong public support for higher wages, building on local and state initiatives and victories – and even a new federal bill – all point to the incredible momentum that the minimum wage is currently enjoying.

The last time Congress voted to increase the federal minimum wage was in 2007, when a Democratic-controlled Congress passed a measure increasing the nation’s wage floor from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour. Since then, no further action on the federal minimum wage has been taken, despite loud calls for raising the wage to restore its lost value.

Various states and some cities have moved on the lack of Congressional action by raising their minimum wages. In 2014, fourteen states and eleven cities passed legislation or approved ballot initiatives raising their local wage floors. Among them were Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota, four solid red states where minimum wage ballot proposals passed with strong public support. And then there are Seattle, San Francisco and Chicago, three trailblazing cities with high rates of $13.00-$15.00 per hour. Currently, twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have minimum wage rates higher than the federal floor.

Local Minimum Wage Ordinances in the U.S.

The general public overwhelmingly supports higher wages. According to a January poll by Hart Research Associates on behalf of the National Employment Law Project, 75% of Americans support increasing the federal minimum wage to $12.50 per hour, and 63% approve of raising it to $15.00 per hour. In addition, 81% support annual adjustments to account for the rising cost of living, and 71% favor gradually eliminating the sub-minimum wage that tipped workers – such as restaurant wait staff, manicurists and pizza delivery drivers – earn as base pay. The current federal tipped sub-minimum wage has been frozen at $2.13 per hour for over two decades. The Hart poll shows public support for these measures that cuts across party affiliation, geographical location, socioeconomic class and other demographic characteristics.

Despite the popularity of the minimum wage, action on the federal level has stalled due in part to partisan politics and the influence of lobbyists, such as those from the restaurant industry. Since 1989, the National Restaurant Association (NRA), the restaurant industry’s trade association, has poured $12.5 million into the campaigns of federal office-seekers, with the lion’s share going to Republicans. Millions more have been donated to political campaigns by some of its highest profile members, including McDonald’s, Wendy’s and Walt Disney. The NRA opposes increasing the minimum wage, particularly in the food and service industries, and relentlessly fights against legislation or ballot initiatives to improve pay for the country’s lowest-paid workers.

However, this has not deterred workers and advocates from launching minimum wage campaigns throughout the country to demand fair pay. Campaigns are currently ongoing in several states, including Washington, Oregon and California, and in various cities, including New York City, the District of Columbia and St. Louis. Several other campaigns are being explored, with launches expected in the next two years. In addition, workers in low-wage industries, such as fast food, retail and health care, have been organizing to highlight tenuous working conditions and poverty wages in these industries, and to demand pay of $15.00 per hour and the right to organize. And they are winning. Illustrative of this is the decision by industry giants, Facebook and Aetna, to raise their minimum wage to $15.00 and $16.00 per hour, respectively, and by Walmart and McDonald’s to voluntarily raise their pay above the federal minimum wage.

Taking a cue from these victories and campaigns, congressional democrats introduced a new minimum wage bill that calls for increasing the federal wage floor to $12.00 per hour by 2020, and indexing the new rate to the median wage. The new bill, introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Rep. Robert C. Scott (D-VA) in April, also seeks to gradually eliminate the tipped sub-minimum wage so that all workers are paid one fair wage.

Summary of Research on Effects of Raising the Minimum Wage at Local Level

If efforts to raise the federal minimum wage are successful, more than thirty-five million workers would benefit, the overwhelming majority of whom (89%) are adults. Nearly half (47%) are workers of color, 56% are women and 27% are parents raising 23% of the nation’s children. Single parents comprise nearly 3.9 million of those affected, and half of all affected workers have family incomes of less than $40,000 per year.

Two decades of rigorous research shows that raising the minimum wage boosts the income of low-paid workers without reducing overall employment. According to researchers, businesses are able to pay higher wages without reducing employment due to a range of factors, including reductions in employee turnover and increases in productivity – two effects of robust wages that can lower the direct and indirect costs of running a business.

To learn more and to take action on raising the minimum wage, visit: https://fairworldproject.org/campaigns/raising-the-minimum-wage/

The post POLICY CORNER: National Landscape on the Minimum Wage appeared first on Fair World Project.

At the height of the Great Depression, workers in the United States organized and created huge momentum to obtain historic “New Deal” laws, including the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Both laws made significant improvements to legal protections for many U.S. workers, including the right to organize, collective bargaining, overtime pay, minimum wage laws and significant restrictions on child labor, among others.

However, to enact these New Deal laws, including other historic economic and political reforms, the Roosevelt Administration was forced to compromise with powerful politicians and economic interests, including congressional representatives from the South. Farmworkers, among other sectors like domestic workers, were essentially excluded from the protections and benefits of the NLRA and the FLSA. Members of Congress in the South, and other states with strong agriculture production, sought to preserve the prevailing economic and social conditions of the day that maintained farmworkers in a state of poverty. The compromise essentially enshrined social and racial discrimination in agriculture, especially for Blacks in the South and for Latino and Asian farmworkers in the West.

The impact of these policies on the lives of farmworkers in the U.S., numbering over three million, has been devastating. Farmworkers regularly rank as one of the lowest-paid sectors, and farmwork is one of the most dangerous jobs. Farmworkers earn poverty wages, averaging approximately $18,000 per year, far below the federal poverty line for the average family in the U.S. Most farmworkers lack basic protections like workers’ compensation and disability insurance, as well as legal rights such as earning a minimum wage or joining a union to bargain collectively.

Child farmworkers are especially at risk. According to the Food Chain Workers Alliance, “Approximately 400,000 children are employed in agriculture in the United States. Loopholes in U.S. child labor laws do not protect the children of migrant and seasonal farmworkers the same as children that work in other industries. ” Thousands of children, as young as twelve years old, work long hours under dangerous conditions, including exposure to toxic pesticides. If farmworkers are the most vulnerable workers in the U.S., then child farmworkers are the most vulnerable of the vulnerable.

Farmworkers are often undocumented migrants, forced from their home communities by unjust trade policies. Undocumented farmworkers, numbering in the millions in the U.S., form the backbone of the food system but live in a state of constant fear of labor abuse and deportation. Agribusiness corporations often utilize labor contractors that knowingly hire undocumented workers in order to avoid paying minimum wages or implementing basic health and safety controls. When workers clamor for their rights, they are often fired, or even deported, with no protection under the law.

With few exceptions, like California, states have failed to create legislation safeguarding farmworkers or ensuring their right to organize, collectively bargain and unionize. Though the FLSA was amended in 1966 to make minor improvements related to minimum wage protections for some agriculture workers, farmworkers remain for the most part vulnerable and unprotected under federal law. For human rights violations to end in the fields, farmworkers must be protected under national legislation.

The post Farmworkers and the History of U.S. Labor Law appeared first on Fair World Project.

In 1975, in the Republic of Paraguay, the Cooperativa Manduvira Ltda., a credit union with thirty-nine partners, was founded for the purpose of facilitating access to credit for small producers and teachers. After overcoming a few financial difficulties, in 1990 it changed its bylaws to become Cooperativa de Producción Agroindustrial, working mostly with 120 sugarcane producers who manufactured sugarcane honey. The biggest challenge was that these small sugarcane honey facilities used inefficient, vanishing traditional handcrafted processes, and were unable to compete in the global sugar market.

In 1983, in the Arroyos and Esteros, a fuel-grade alcohol plant was built that would later become the Otisa Sugar Mill in 1994. With the help of German and Swiss technicians, organic sugar was produced for the first time in the world.

In 1995, we were visited by representatives of TransFair International, who spoke to us about how the fair trade system was seeking to empower small producers by leasing sugar mills to produce and export directly. And so the dream was born – the vision – and the spark was lit: the idea that we could do more. We contacted two sugar mills that flatly refused to lease out their plants; perhaps they thought it was a joke. So the dream was set aside and placed on standby.

As of 1999, the trade union had received a fair trade certificate, but the situation with the local sugar refinery was very difficult, as they monopolized sugarcane processing, leading to the exploitation, abuse and payment of low prices to small producers. The situation became unbearable in 2003, and with an original group of six people, we started a campaign to assert the rights of small producers.

By talking with the producers about the need to work together and peacefully voice our demands, we successfully joined our forces. In 2003, through intelligent and strategic negotiations, we were able to get the sugar refinery to pay a higher price and increase our market access. During that time, we made the appropriate connections to reopen a sugar mill called Censi y Pirota, which had been out of operation for three years and was located ninety kilometers away, to promote competition, open up new markets and work towards achieving our dreams.

We, the producers, realized that only by working together would we get ahead, and with renewed strength, we began to rekindle the dream that had been out of reach for years. Since then, Cooperativa Manduvira has led all the work in connection with sugarcane and has experienced exponential growth.

In 2004, we earned our own organic certification with 100 producers, known as the “First 100 Rebels,” a huge step towards achieving our independence, since until that time all the farms were certified by the sugar companies. The next step was leasing a plant, producing and exporting – but it was a big challenge. We had many supporters who encouraged us, as well as many who said it was impossible, that nothing like that had ever been done in Paraguay, that we were crazy, that those projects were not for the poor. There were others who made fun of us, and called us “jagua-i estrella” in Guaraní – the puppy barking at the new moon and thinking he can reach it. They thought that what we intended to do was impossible; so much so that we inevitably felt even more encouraged to move forward. We did not have the money or the experience to take such a leap, but we had a dream and were determined to turn it into reality.

After much persistence and negotiation, in 2005 we were able to get a one-month lease on the sugar mill, producing and directly exporting 234 tons to two clients in Canada, one in Belgium and another in Italy. Our contracted production grew from 1,500 MT in 2006 to 6,200 MT in 2008. At that growth rate, we started to experience a good problem, since the factory we were leasing had already reached its maximum capacity, yet the market demand was three times as much. From then on, we set out on a long and hard road towards our next goal: building our own sugar mill.

With the support of many fair trade participants, investors, clients and producers, construction began in December of 2011, and on April 24, 2014, Azucarera Manduvira officially opened its doors as the first organic sugar mill dreamed of, designed and built with the guidelines and standards of organic production in mind, and the first and only sugar mill in Paraguay owned by 900 producers. Today, we are working with twenty-eight clients worldwide in our own mill, with a production capacity of 20,000 MT of the highest quality organic sugar; and we are making a positive impact on the lives of 25,000 people – socially, financially and environmentally.

The post The Sweet Revolution appeared first on Fair World Project.

The fair trade movement was born from small-scale organized producers working in solidarity with Global North consumers, activists and alternative trading organizations, together pursuing the goal of creating a fair and transformational trading system. Small-scale producers are a core part of the founding principles of fair trade, and they have traditionally struggled to overcome a lack of land rights, extortion by intermediaries, a lack of human and indigenous rights, deficient education and healthcare infrastructure, and repressive governments. They are vulnerable, excluded and under-resourced in the global market.

The fair trade concept was for small-scale producers to organize and work together with solidarity partners in the Global North, so they could take advantage of economies of scale and more easily access markets and capital. By organizing, they could work towards creating sustainable changes through policy work and building communities. In order to increase sales and awareness, a fair trade label was created as a “guarantee” to help solidarity consumers support organized small-scale producers through their purchases.

Over the last decade, fair trade certification systems have added large-scale agricultural or plantation production into their schemes. This trend started by only including commodities that were not traditionally grown by small-scale producers, but it has since expanded to compete with traditional small-scale producers of coffee, cocoa and other fair trade products. We wanted to hear from some industry experts about whether this is the right direction for the fair trade movement.

We asked Rob Everts, co-president of Equal Exchange and previously a union organizer with United Farm Workers (UFW), Rosa Guamán, a small-scale producer, co-founder and manager of the cooperative association of medicinal and aromatic plants in Jambi Kiwa, Chimborazo, Ecuador, and president of the board of the Small Producers’ Symbol, and Tim Beaty, Fairtrade America board member and Director of Global Strategies at the Teamsters Union, to answer five questions regarding hired labor situations and fair trade:

1. We know that most farms, even those that are small-scale, rely on extra hands at least occasionally. This ranges from a few family members or neighbors for many small-scale farms to large numbers of seasonal workers for many large-scale farms. What essential labor principles should be upheld at any scale?

• Rob Everts: At any scale, a minimum wage is necessary, which feels minimalist but, having spent years working with small-scale farmers who barely are able to make a living, to declare a higher aspiration feels unrealistic. The other basic principle that even the tiniest family farms should uphold is providing safe working conditions.

• Rosa Guamán: We cannot compare the situation of small farmers, who mainly use family labor, with that of large producers and businesses that depend entirely on hired labor as a means of production. For our families, smallholder production is part of our ancestral culture. We work the land collectively and share our home and food, integrating the workers who come to support us when needed. In a private company, there is no such equal relationship. In any case, it is important to give decent treatment to workers.

• Tim Beaty: We have worked for a hundred years to educate U.S. consumers that the existence of a union with a collective bargaining agreement is the only just and efficient way to ensure fairness and a voice for workers in the sourcing, processing, logistics and sales of a product. There is no means other than a union to guarantee labor standards that support the democratic organization of workers so that they sit as equals with employers in negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment. There are a number of models of union representation for seasonal agricultural workers out there that begin with a dialogue involving the appropriate part of the labor movement.

2. All advocates of social justice wish to see exploitation eliminated from agriculture. What are some considerations that are important to include in standards and auditing of larger farms with hired labor and their eligibility for a market-based ecosocial program that may not be important for a smaller-scale farm?

• Rob Everts: Since large-scale farms are rife with wage abuses, documentation of payment and hours worked should be expected. Freedom to organize and to have the ability to negotiate collectively is also essential. The same standards and auditing should be applied to labor contractors, since they provide large companies with protection from accountability, keeping their businesses at a distance from any abuses. Semi-bonded servitude situations leave people deeply in debt. Auditing schemes need to guarantee that housing is sanitary, structurally sound and not disproportionately priced. Often, if housing is part of the arrangement, workers must buy food from the company store at exorbitant prices and get charged to be driven to the fields. These abuses keep workers from making money, workers who are often kept against their will.

• Rosa Guamán: It is clear that all forms of human exploitation are bad and must be combated. In a private company, the owners by definition base their profits on the exploitation of labor. In these cases, it is important to me that the legal rights provided to workers to enable a life of dignity are respected. For that, there are national laws and international labor conventions. Any worker should be entitled to protection under those laws.

• Tim Beaty: The standards designed for small-scale cooperatives did not transfer well to larger holdings. For example, a premium committee on a plantation often hinders the organizing of workers. I joined the Fairtrade America board because Fairtrade International recognizes the labor movement as the voice of workers. Our input has improved labor standards, and more importantly implementation, so that workers actually have access to their labor rights. For example, we have changed the rules so that some of the premiums can be added directly to workers’ incomes. We have not solved all the key obstacles yet, but Fairtrade International is getting closer, with labor as a respected partner.

3. Although there is general agreement that all agriculture should be free of exploitation, there is disagreement about whether “fair trade” is the correct model and terminology for large-scale farms or plantations, especially those that utilize seasonal or migrant labor. Do you believe that there is value for producers, workers and/or consumers in distinguishing between small-scale “fair trade” and larger-scale “fair labor” in the marketplace? At what point, if any, is a farm too big to be considered a “fair trade” farm, and what are the factors that would exclude a larger farm from inclusion in fair trade?

• Rob Everts: In hired labor situations, plantation owners already have access to the market and to capital, and they can take advantage of economies of scale. We believe that fair trade, at its core and true to its founding, aspires to be transformational: it challenges the prevailing model of international trade, which is dominated by large players and where smaller-scale producers are isolated from the market. At Equal Exchange, we always believed that only through supporting the democratic organization of small-scale farmers to gain direct market access can this transformational vision be realized. The larger corporate players will not relinquish their advantages, and no fair trade participation can change that, so if you subscribe to the fundamental purpose of what fair trade was originally for and what we aspire to be, then moving those players into the system, even if they are treating their workers a little bit better, does not address the core objective that many of us are trying to achieve.

• Rosa Guamán: Unfortunately, fair trade has become something different, without the agreement of small producers. Now we see that fair trade can represent huge private flower or banana plantations. That is why we now again claim our identity as organized small producers within the fair trade movement through the Small Producers’ Symbol. It would be better if the term “fair trade” were not used to talk about trade that is respectful to workers of private plantations, regardless of size. Our image of small producers has been used many times to sell other ideas, and we are not going to play that game anymore.

• Tim Beaty: Unions are important stakeholders in many of the fair trade movements in Europe, promoting fair trade among their members and serving on governing bodies. I am advised that when expansion was first considered, labor did not propose or promote the idea of expanding certification to tea, bananas and other products primarily sourced from large farms. Nor did we encourage the trend towards ever-larger growers being designated as small-scale. When worker rights are respected on plantations, small producers have fairer competition. Fair trade advocates want sustainability and the end of corporate exploitation in agriculture; workers empowered through the union can be a powerful ally of smallholder cooperatives in working towards those goals.

4. Building on the previous questions, describe what you see as the ideal marketplace for social certification schemes for large-scale farms. For example, should they remain in the current fair trade system (and, if so, what improvements would you recommend), should they be distinctive from fair trade in standards and labeling (for example, labeled as “fair labor”), or should market incentive labels be reserved only for small-scale farms? What are the key factors that inform your view?

• Rob Everts: As I mentioned previously, the larger players will not relinquish the advantages they have as a virtue of participating in fair trade. So, if you believe as we do that fair trade seeks to end the dominance by big players of entire industries, sectors, regions, crops and countries, then having a role in fair trade is anathema to that. I would not house a hired labor scheme in any fair trade system, because those farms already have market access, access to bank loans, relationships with governments, and economies of scale – all of those things that small players do not have and that fair trade was originally designed to help achieve. Workers also need protection from environmental abuses, such as pesticides, but since for this discussion we are mostly talking about social aspects, it seems like a fair labor scheme would be appropriate, be it unionization in every case or not, just like in our situation with cooperatives, where not all are legally established as cooperatives, but where the key is democratic association in which people have access to power and decision-making.

• Rosa Guamán: Plantations, however just they may be, represent a model that today competes strongly with organized small producers. They have lower production costs, but they also have fewer values and social, economic, ecological and cultural impacts than do small producers’ organizations. They are different things.

• Tim Beaty: Fair trade and the labor movement share core values, including dignity at work, global solidarity and a living wage. When we work together, I believe labor and fair trade can educate and organize consumers to become a potent force for social justice. The U.S. labor movement encourages consumers to use their purchasing power to “Look for the Union Label” and boycott anti-worker employers. Fair trade empowers small-scale farmers organized in cooperatives by linking them with consumers through a market incentive label. Most consumers expect that a company marketing a product as fair trade cares about commercial, environmental and worker injustice.

5. What are the challenges for a fair trade (or fair labor) system for hired labor in countries with national laws that limit worker rights or the rights of migrant workers?

• Rob Everts: Just as migrant workers were excluded from the national labor laws in the 1930s and from prevailing minimum wage laws in this country, workers are exploited and at a large disadvantage in many countries with limited worker protection laws. Organizing is fundamental, whether under the legal framework or extra-legally. In the 1960s and 1970s in California, when farmworkers organized without the benefit of labor laws, strikes were broken, and workers ultimately had to go to the court of last resort – the boycott – calling on consumers. And they ran effective boycotts that produced union contracts; as brutally difficult as that path is, it may be the only viable path to make these types of gains in large-scale agriculture overseas.

• Rosa Guamán: It is important to show solidarity with the workers’ struggle for their rights. There will always be a need to put pressure on governments and companies to respect the rights of individuals and peoples; they will not do it by themselves.

• Tim Beaty: At our end of the supply chain, labor laws in the U.S. are weak; thus we urge the fair trade community to respect labor rights in processing, logistics and retailing in the U.S. When Theo Chocolate deploys union-busting experts to repress organizing among their Seattle workers, and IMO certifies them anyway, everybody loses. Migrant worker access to their labor rights in agriculture is a challenge in most countries – good laws or not. This is another opportunity for fair trade and labor to coalesce.

The comments and answers provided by the writers represent their own views and should not be taken as endorsed by Fair World Project.

To better understand the credibility of certification schemes in the marketplace that claim to be fair trade, and to differentiate between fair trade and worker welfare programs that are striving to protect workers, see our Reference Guide in the download version of this publication.

The post DEBATE: Should the Fair Trade Model Accommodate Hired Labor on Large-scale Farms appeared first on Fair World Project.

Certification labels for consumer products are a tool that serve, on the surface, a simple purpose: to distinguish products that otherwise appear similar from one another. A conventional apple and an organic apple may taste and look identical, but a consumer may wish to choose the organic apple based on the lower environmental impact and/or lack of pesticide residue. Similarly, although fair trade and conventional bananas may look similar, a consumer wishing to be assured that the farmers who grew the bananas were paid a fair price, are part of an organized structure that received a premium for community development projects, and have met standards for environmental protection and worker welfare, may choose fair trade bananas.

In practice, it is not quite this simple. For one thing, fair trade certification no longer guarantees that small-scale organized producers are at the start of the supply chain because most fair trade certifiers have opened up their programs to large-scale farms, at least for certain crops and sectors.

On the one hand, this reflects good news in the larger picture. Where farmworkers are historically largely invisible and disempowered, there is a growing awareness globally that they endure some of the most dangerous and low-paying work there is, usually without significant protection or safety nets, despite performing some of the most important work in agriculture. Clearly, we need to do more for farmworkers.

However, it is not necessarily good news that fair trade programs have jumped into the void. Most are not equipped to create standards or monitoring systems for large-scale farms or factories. This is reflected first and foremost in their governance structures, as no traditional fair trade standard-setter has significant labor representation as part of their top-tier governing or decision-making bodies.

Some of the certification programs have tried to correct this by reaching out to labor NGOs and unions to improve their hired labor programs. Fairtrade International (FLO) provides the best example of this, and upon recommendations made by their Worker Rights Advisory Committee (WRAC), made up of union representatives and labor rights advocates, they have improved their requirements in key areas such as collective bargaining (now a requirement, not just a right) and living wages (now must be benchmarked and assessed, rather than just presented as an unattainable ideal).

Though in some cases there has been progress in improving requirements for workers on large-scale farms, in the marketplace products and ingredients from these large-scale operations are confusingly labeled “fair trade,” presenting a new obstacle for organized small-scale farmers who originally developed the term to distinguish themselves. Fair trade labels were intended to open up new markets for small-scale producers, allowing them to compete in a global market that favors larger-scale farms and consolidated buyers. Now, once again, fair trade producers are being forced into competition with large-scale farms using the very same fair trade label, and they are understandably worried. So worried about this trend, in fact, that a group of small-scale producers has now launched a new label, the Small Producers’ Symbol (SPS), to recreate the market advantage that fair trade was intended to provide.

Two solutions have been proposed within the movement to counter this dynamic. The first is to set the bar for large-scale farms even higher in order to level the playing field. If standards for large-scale farms required true democratic organization (not just limited participation on a committee to discuss premium use, which is often the case now), and true living wages, along with empowerment, long-term commitment and other fair trade principles – rather than simply focusing on improved health and safety, as many do – it would be more costly and difficult for large-scale producers to achieve and therefore would help reduce competition for small-scale farmers.

The second solution is to call these hired labor programs, the best of them at least, “fair labor” rather than “fair trade.” Right now a consumer has no way of knowing just by looking at the label whether their fair trade avocado comes from a large-scale plantation or from a cooperative of smallholders. This would eliminate any confusion for consumers who believe they are supporting small-scale farmers with their purchases. Mounting evidence suggests that small-scale producers globally are the key to feeding the world while protecting the environment, but that they also need better support systems through both policies and market access.

Another increasing problem with fair trade certification schemes concerns multi-ingredient products: some labels require as little as 20% of the total product to be certified. A consumer choosing between, for example, two bottles of iced tea labeled with the same fair trade label may in reality be choosing between one that contains 100% fair trade tea, sugar and mint from small-scale farmer cooperatives and one that contains only 20% certified tea from a plantation with no other certified ingredients. Thus, a label alone is not adequate to demonstrate that key principles of fair trade have been met.

Meanwhile many brands are going above and beyond what certification requires, and labels do not do an adequate job of distinguishing these dedicated fair trade brands either. For example, two different chocolate brands, a fair brand and a conventional brand, may buy cocoa from the same cooperative on fair trade terms. The same exact farmers benefit from both purchases of that ingredient. However, the fair brand buys other ingredients, like sugar, on fair trade terms from other smallholder groups around the world, while the conventional brand likely buys sugar through cheap and exploitative supply chains and also lobbies to keep U.S. sugar subsidies intact and therefore global prices low. Low global prices mean profits for conventional brands and poverty for small-scale farmers. The fair brand is helping to build a just economy, while the conventional brand is not, even as they carry an identical label on some chocolate bars.

This is why many of the brands that are doing the hard work of creating a just economy are de-emphasizing fair trade labels or even leaving them off product packaging entirely, instead talking about what comes “beyond certification” – that is, how to have accountability, transparency and distinction in the marketplace without relying on the imperfect tool of certification.

Does this all mean that certification is meaningless? Not at all. Third-party certification to rigorous credible transparent standards is an important component for consumers to understand and trust ecosocial claims. While many certification standards fall short of the fair trade principles they are supposed to uphold, even the World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO) is implementing third-party certification of its trading members in order to meet consumer expectations for even the most dedicated fair trade companies. These companies often blaze the trail that certifiers are wise to learn from and follow.

For example, Patagonia, known as a leader in ethical apparel, is taking admirable steps to address labor abuses in its supply chains that most ecosocial standards do not even try to touch. The Atlantic magazine recently covered the story of Patagonia’s efforts, which were a result of their own internal audits. Though Patagonia has not released the audits, the public discussion of their results represents an unusual degree of transparency, and transparency is part of their plan to address the issues they have uncovered.

One of the findings reported is that the most serious labor abuses happen not in cut-and-sew factories, but further up the supply chain in ginning and spinning mills, for example. As The Atlantic article points out, most audits and certification standards, as well as public attention, focus on the cut-and-sew factories, ignoring these other stages of the supply chain.

The article does not mention fair trade certification at all, but one of the most interesting aspects of the story is the relationship between Patagonia and Fair Trade USA (FTUSA). Patagonia has adopted FTUSA’s “fair trade” apparel program, even though it falls short in significant ways (for example, no labor representation in governance, a focus on large-scale factory production, and a focus on health and safety rather than on democratic organization and living wages). Even more problematic, FTUSA’s apparel program also awards a fair trade label, even though they only monitor the cut-and-sew factories. This means that any labor abuses in earlier stages of production, as uncovered by Patagonia’s own internal audits, are overlooked in “fair trade factory” certification, and thus some products could contain fabric spun by children working in deplorable conditions. Based on information in The Atlantic article, it appears that Patagonia recognizes the limits of their existing fair trade certification program, and the company is investigating deeper into their supply chains, working with the labor auditor Verite, to create transparency and leverage supplier contracts to bring about true change.

Fair trade is a social movement, and certification is the tool used to verify claims. The resulting label gives us some information but rarely the complete picture. As a society that thrives on sound bites, this should not surprise or dismay us. But all too often these certification programs are weak and certify companies and products to a low or incomplete set of standards. As a movement, we need to continually evolve all of our tools to better meet the needs of producers for empowerment and of consumers for clarity – indeed that is what is required to bring about lasting change.

To read the entire article written by The Atlantic on Patagonia’s supply chain: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/all-your-clothes-are-made-by-exploited-workers/394658/

The post Certification: A Tool with Limits appeared first on Fair World Project.