All eyes have been on Ukraine as the Russian invasion has caused immense suffering. Behind the headlines of war and troop movements is a conflict that has huge consequences for our food system. Reuters reported¹ that the Russian invasion of Ukraine could fuel a global food shortage. Millions of people around the globe depend on Ukraine’s wheat production, and due to the conflict Ukrainian farmers are not able to tend to their crops. This comes on the heels of increasing food prices due to global supply chain challenges connected to the COVID-19 pandemic. The United Nations is saying that food prices could rise by 20% as a direct result of the Russian invasion.

Naturland Farmer Member Working to Keep People Fed During the War

Fair World Project has been in contact with Naturland, the farmer-owned organic certification and association that was started out of Germany in the 1980s. In 2011 the farmers’ association created Naturland Fair which combines organic and fair trade under one logo that is applied to products from both the Global North and the Global South. Currently they have over 65,000 farmers, bee-keepers, fish farmers and fishermen in 58 countries managing some 440,000 hectares. It’s an organization uniquely positioned to highlight the role of global solidarity in our food system – at the macro level and in small acts of everyday resistance.

Naturland’s headquarters in Germany shared with us the story of how one of their farmer members, Martin Ritter, is working to keep people fed. To date they have delivered 18 truckloads of products to the Ukraine border and they are not stopping there. We wanted to share one man’s story with you of how he is helping people through war and tragedy.

March 25, 2022

For more information on Naturland and the Naturland Farmer-led aid campaign for Ukraine click here.

Sources:

¹https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraines-farmers-stalled-fueling-fears-global-food-shortages-2022-03-11/

²http://wdc.org.ua/en/node/29

³https://today.tamu.edu/2022/03/07/conflict-in-ukraine-fuels-uncertainty-for-agriculture/

The post Naturland Farmer Member Organizes a Large-Scale Relief Operation Amid Russian Invasion of Ukraine appeared first on Fair World Project.

Fair Trade USA Revokes Suragroh’s Fair Trade Certification

Fair Trade USA claims the decertification move was spurred by, “new evidence from trusted sources in Honduras which alleged recent violations of Fair Trade standards at the Suragroh farm.” While Fair Trade USA only saw fit to revoke the certification now, the Ethical Trading Initiative suspended Fyffes in May 2017 for violations in their supply chain.

In addition to Fyffes’ long legacy of documented violations spanning over a decade, ILRF, The International Union of Food and Agriculture Workers (IUF) and Honduran unions had provided ongoing evidence of labor rights violations to Fair Trade USA. Yet the certifier only took action after dozens of farmworker, union, advocacy and ethical organizations sent an open letter calling on Fair Trade USA to decertify Suragroh. Over 6,000 individuals also urged FTUSA to decertify Suragroh since December 1^st.

Organized Workers are the Best Defenders of their Own Rights

Fair Trade USA’s certification of Suragroh was problematic from the start. This case underscores the folly of certifying plantations without the existence of a democratic farmworker union.

Human and labor rights are only as strong as they are enforceable. Farmworker unions can do critical things that Fair Trade USA, or any other voluntary certification, cannot. Workers are the best defenders of their own rights, and farmworker unions are democratically elected by the workers in order to represent the workers.  Farmworker unions negotiate legally binding collective bargaining agreements with local management which concretely hold bosses accountable.  This act of organizing is the only real way to bring justice for people into the workplace.

Fair Trade USA may aim to work with businesses “in good faith” to improve workplace conditions, but that does not replace the internationally recognized right to freedom of association. When workers’ right to organize is respected, labor rights can prevail. Without farmworker union representation and a collective bargaining agreement in place, any company is able to avoid accountability, no matter how many certifications they have or how many Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives they tout.

In fact, what certifications and CSR can do is cover up workers’ organizing through union-busting and empower local management to continue abuse in impunity. This case highlights how an annual audit, in absence of farmworker union representation, is inadequate to enforce workers’ rights, especially in situations where historic conflict exists between workers and management. Our analysis and our partners’ findings on the ground suggest that their current systems are not adequate.

Weak Standards, Poor Enforcement

Our report, “Justice in the Fields” lays out the limitations and risks of Fair Trade USA’s hired labor standards. Over the past few weeks, partners at ILRF have confirmed that Fair Trade USA’s standards lack the requirement of having a democratically-elected farmworker union present – a real life important detail. For example, not requiring unions or worker representation to exist or be present in auditor interviews means that it is much harder for workers to trust or speak freely with auditors. Considering the evidence, the Suragroh case must be viewed not only as a victory against fairwashing, but an indictment against transforming a tool for organized small-scale farmers into a weak fair trade standard with poor enforcement.

In the end, Fair Trade USA made the right decision and revoked Suragroh’s fair trade certification. However, the fact that it took international outcry to call attention to problems when a simple Google search revealed Fyffes’ history of exploitation shows that there are serious flaws in their model.

Eliminating Human Rights Violations in Supply Chains

Moving forward, Fyffes must negotiate in good faith with STAS in accordance with Honduran law and ILO standards before recertification can even be considered. Despite the international condemnation, Fyffes’ refuses to take responsibility for the abuses in their supply chain. Considering their long legacy of abuse, all Fyffes’ supply chains, including those other supply chains certified by Fair Trade USA, must be reviewed with increased scrutiny. Supermarkets, like Costco and Kroger, must revisit their respective supplier codes of conducts to ensure that the melons, bananas, pineapple or other fruit that they offer to customers are not violating human rights.

There’s a long history of big fruit companies exploiting the workers in their supply chains. Despite supplier codes of conduct, international agreements, and voluntary certifications, human rights abuses continue. There are models that have made change in the conditions of marginalized workers. Yet just putting a label on a melon does nothing for the workers who grew it. Instead, it undermines support for workers’ campaigns and puts at risk the integrity of the term “fair trade,” undermining the movement built by small-scale farmers and their partners around the globe.

We can do better.

The post Fair Trade USA Decertifies Fyffes – A Victory Against Fairwashing and A Call for Strong Standards appeared first on Fair World Project.

That’s exactly what you choose fair trade certified products to avoid.

When labor rights groups brought the situation to their attention, Fair Trade USA didn’t admit to an error or take action to protect workers. And unfortunately, for those of us who have been in the fair trade movement for a while, that wasn’t a surprise. Instead, it’s consistent with a long-held pattern of putting market growth and corporate partnerships ahead of farmers and workers, the very people fair trade is supposed to benefit.

Fair Trade Growth – At a High Cost

Since 2000, the fair trade marketplace has exploded with growth, with the emergence of many fair trade standards and certifiers, to say nothing of the multitude of phony claims in the marketplace. The organic certified market has thrived, in part, due to a vibrant community of farmers, consumers, researchers, and watchdogs that fight for the integrity of organic standards and products.  Though imperfect, organic standards and process incorporate public commentary and transparent process. As the fair trade market is private and unregulated, anyone can make any claim they like, and terms like “fair trade,” “direct trade,” “fairly traded,” etc., have proliferated. As a result, the fair trade market has become increasingly fractured, diluting the positive impact for producer groups.

Fair Trade USA, the largest fair trade standard in the United States, has been largely responsible for this trend.  Fair World Project(FWP), in collaboration with other fair trade movement organizations, has attempted to hold FTUSA and other fair trade standard holders accountable. FWP grew from a demand by civil society to ensure the integrity in the fair trade market place, resist “fair washing” and ensure that the United States remained an open marketplace for small-scale producers in the Global South.  Since 2010, Fair Trade USA has attempted to water down fair trade standards and monopolize the movement.

In a controversial move, Fair Trade USA broke away from the international system in 2011. FWP opposed Fair Trade USA’s unilateral moves, including plans to certify large-scale plantations, while small-scale family farmers continue to remain without a fair marketplace.

Since 2012, Fair Trade USA has successfully eroded fair trade principles and practices with weak standards, a complete lack of transparency and zero accountability to producer organizations and networks.

“Fair Trade Certified”— but to Weak Standards

Though the fair trade movement originally grew to support small-scale producer organizations, fair trade standards have evolved to include “hired labor” operations, such as the fair trade melon plantation at the heart of the current dispute. FWP’s report, “Justice in the Fields” examined the social and fair trade standards for farmworkers in the U.S. and globally. Fair Trade USA’s standards scored poorly in FWP’s analysis. Specifically, Fair Trade USA’s process and standard, “does not significantly involve workers in monitoring or enforcement or require higher than minimum or average wages.” Nonetheless, Fair Trade USA certified produce from plantations is entering the marketplace at an increasingly fast rate.

A second FWP report, “Fairness for Farmers” examines fair trade standards for small-scale farmers and details Fair Trade USA’s failings vis-à-vis other fair trade and social welfare standards. While Fair Trade USA includes some strong standards held over from the international Fairtrade system, “Fair Trade USA is neither owned nor governed by producers, which makes these weaknesses even more concerning. Other notable gaps in standards include a lack of required long-term commitment by buyers, no guaranteed producer input into pricing, no requirement for democratically-organized entities, and no safeguards to protect markets for smallholders.”

Both reports underscore both the limitations to Fair Trade USA’s standards, and the lack of accountability to stakeholders and the fair trade movement at large.

Growing the Market at a Cost to the Movement

Fair Trade USA has further eroded the spirit of fair trade by certifying a myriad of supply chains without concrete expertise, nor a commitment to true stakeholder accountability. For example, Fair Trade USA has entered the apparel certification marketplace, despite strong opposition from apparel unions and labor experts. FWP highlighted these concerns in 2014, noting, “rather than being a step in the right direction, this type of program misleads consumers, while stunting real progress — and in that way, it is worse than having no fair trade apparel at all.”

Fair Trade Melons—Another Case of Putting Profits before People

Now, Fair Trade USA is complicit in certifying human rights abuses and labor violations in Honduras.

Fair Trade USA certified Fyffes’ Honduran melon subsidiary (Suragroh) in April 2018, despite a long list of serious human and labor rights violations. Those include failure to pay minimum wages, exposure of workers to hazardous agrochemicals, illegal firings of pregnant workers, blacklisting, harassment and illegal dismissal of union members. Workers report the company fails to provide them with statutorily mandated benefits, including denial of healthcare, social security, maternity leave, education vouchers, overtime pay, sick leave, and vacation. These violations have been documented in international press coverage and represent a labor dispute between the company and its workers that go back over a decade.

FWP and others in the fair trade movement have long argued that plantations have no place in the fair trade model. And labor rights organizations agree that the best way to protect workers’ rights is by organizing—the very sort of union campaigns that are currently being undermined at the Suragroh plantation. FWP’s open letter to Fair Trade USA highlights the standard’s shortcoming and the organization’s lack of commitment to farmworkers.

Consumers Demand Ethical Products, Not More “Fake News”

Consumer demand for ethical products is growing. But slapping a Fair Trade Certified label on human rights abuses is not the way to meet that growth. Indeed, as global inequality grows and climate change renders our food system evermore precarious, it’s clear that real change is needed. Millions of small-scale farmers around the globe are building strong, resilient organizations to tackle poverty and climate resilience in their communities. And committed fair trade companies are collaborating with them to build supply chains based on transparency, fair prices, human rights, and empowerment. Buyers should be able to trust that these basic values are what stands behind a fair trade label.

Instead, Fair Trade USA has prioritized market share and public relations over substance and accountability. While there may be a short-term feel-good moment in picking up a fair trade certified melon, it won’t last. By certifying these human rights abuses, Fair Trade USA is ignoring the very people whose livelihoods it claims to benefit. They are also risking the integrity of the word “fair trade,” rendering it meaningless and undermining the decades invested by small-scale farmers and their allies in building a movement.

Transparency and integrity are important, especially in a world dominated by the words “fake news.” That’s why we’re asking you to sign onto our letter to Fair Trade USA asking them to drop their Fair Trade Certified label from Fyffes’ melons immediately.

Your favorite grocery store probably also has a way to leave comment cards. That’s why we’re also asking you to share this message with them. Let them know that you’re concerned about fair trade melons, and that you are concerned about the use of the Fair Trade Certified label on produce from plantations in general.

Concerned organizations can sign onto our open letter.

The post Fair Trade Melons: Another Case of Putting Profits before People appeared first on Fair World Project.

Traveling with Dr. Bronner’s & Alaffia

Driving to Accra, Ghana after getting off a long flight from the U.S. was sure to be an adventure. I’m with David Bronner, Cosmic Engagement Officer of Dr. Bronner’s, a $125-million-dollar natural product brand on the way to visit their palm oil project. And to add to the excitement, our travel companion for this 8-day journey to Ghana and Togo will be Olowo-n’djo Tchala, founder and President of Alaffia and a native of Togo. Alaffia is another inspirational high quality organic fair trade body care brand that works throughout Togo and Ghana.

Both organizations believe working with organized communities is the only path forward to building a more just economy. We are all aligned on this journey. There will be a total of eight of us, four Dr. Bronner’s people, three from Alaffia, and then me, Fair World Project’s Executive Director. This will be my third trip to Ghana and Togo to visit Dr. Bronner’s and Alaffia projects. It is not an easy trip but definitely worth the hours spent in planes and automobiles.

Dr. Bronner’s palm oil project, Serendipalm, is the only sustainably produced organic, fair trade palm oil in the world and is used in their bar soaps. I have not traveled to Ghana with David before, but I did travel with Olowo-n’djo to Serendipalm in 2016 and this is when he learned that he could buy Serendipalm’s palm kernels, a byproduct of producing palm oil which Serendipalm had not needed and often sold into the local market.

My job, as Executive Director of a fair trade advocacy organization, is to figure out how to engage people to be politically active citizens and socially conscious consumers. Throughout my tenure in the fair trade movement, I have found that my passion also is connecting like-minded businesses so they can work together, learn and grow from each other and ultimately build a more just economy that benefits local communities. And this was exactly what had happened.

Our 3-hour drive after getting off an overnight flight was tough. But finally, we arrived at the plot of land that Serendipalm has purchased in order to monitor the carbon sequestration. While so much of what we hear about palm oil is about deforestation and destruction, this is the opposite. Here, palm trees grow in a fully integrated agroforestry system where intercropping and cover crops are key to sequestering carbon to help reverse climate change.

A New Fair Trade Charter, An Ongoing Vision for a Just Economy

I return from this trip the day that the new International Fair Trade Charter is released. The document was a combined effort of several fair trade organizations, including Fair World Project, with the goal of sharing with the world the vision of what global trade could do if it was based on solidarity, justice, equity, and sustainable development. The new international fair trade charter deepens our understanding of why fair trade is so important. We’ve reached an extreme of globalization in which large corporations continually chase cheaper labor practices across the globe. Industrial agriculture is expanding, deforesting land around the globe at an alarming rate. Income inequality is on the rise and large corporate actors have ever-greater wealth than small-scale producers.

Yet there’s another way to do business. I’m traveling with two of the most successful soap and beauty products companies in the natural products industry. On the store shelves, conventional wisdom tells us that they are competitors. But here in their supply chains, they’re working as collaborators.

This trip encompasses what I believe together we can accomplish in the fair trade movement. Working and organizing together in our advocacy work, our production work, our marketing, our promotions, and most importantly, supporting small-scale producer organizations within their own communities under their own rules. Together, we can build a more just economy on the principles of fairness, equity, and justice for all.

The post Connecting the Dots of a Solidarity Movement Through a Trip of a Lifetime appeared first on Fair World Project.

You have probably heard the iconic rallying cry, “Sí, se puede!” but you might not have known the story of Dolores Huerta, the woman who coined it. Co-founder of the first farmworker labor union, the United Farm Workers of America (UFW), alongside Cesar Chavez, she organized the massive grape boycotts of the 1970s and ’80s that earned California farmworkers lasting legal protections. Ms. Huerta has worked for civil rights and social justice for over half a century, and she is finally getting the recognition she deserves with a recent documentary film, Dolores. Fair World Project’s Executive Director, Dana Geffner, was excited to join Ms. Huerta in a wide-ranging conversation in which she shared advice on everything from organizing in today’s challenging political climate, to having difficult conversations, to the ways we can all support farmworkers.

I saw the movie, Dolores, and it was fantastic and inspirational. It has been in major cities around the United States, and I am sure you have had a chance to talk to audiences and communities about it. I was wondering if there is anything that surprised you about the audience’s reaction?

The audiences have seemed to find it very relevant in terms of today’s issues, and they have said that it was very moving and inspiring to them.

Organizing Our Communities

As a veteran organizer, can you share a little advice for those who might just be getting into organizing in their communities? When you are training or mentoring a new organizer, what is the most important piece of advice you give them?

My advice is that you cannot do it by yourself, you have got to have other people there with you to be able to do the job. Figure out what your goals are and what you want to achieve. Even if a goal might be far in the distance, it is important to start making a plan with action steps detailing the work that needs to be done to reach that goal that you are striving for.

Are there other resources that you would recommend for new and emerging organizers and leaders?

Well, the only resource that you must have to organize are human resources – people.

The Dolores Huerta Foundation focuses on community organizing. Can you tell us about the program called Vecinos Unidos?

This is our organizing group that we have. These are people in the community who come together to organize. They decide what issues they want to take on in their community, and then they take on the work that is needed to make it happen. It is a volunteer-based organization.

The movements you have organized with have made so much progress, yet so many of the same battles are being fought again. The current administration is rolling back so many protections; white supremacy, for example, is becoming more visible. Do you have any advice on how to keep up the struggle?

We have to keep organizing and also be hopeful that this time will pass. The fact that white supremacists are revealing themselves as they are makes it a lot easier in some ways. People of color have always been faced with racism; women have always been faced with misogyny and sexism. The one thing that has come out of this is that by seeing who someone is, you can tackle it head on and call upon all of our public and private organizations and corporations to say “this is part of your responsibility” to make sure that we get at racism.

The Path Toward Farmworker Justice

There is a long-standing perspective in some quarters that labor and environmentalists are in opposition, and even today, there is a growing movement around regenerative and organic agriculture, yet once again, farmworker justice is not always included in the discussion. But you have brought these two things together in your work for a long time. Can you talk a bit about what shaped your perspective?

There is one strawberry grower in the Bay Area who grows organic strawberries and also has a contract with the UFW, complete with paid health insurance and pension benefits for workers, but he is probably the only one I know who does that. A lot of organic farmers are small farmers, and, while I do not want to speak for them, I think many of them feel that they do not have the resources to be able to pay farmworkers the kinds of benefits that they would get under a UFW contract.

There are some so-called “organic” farmers that are huge, but they are usually agricultural employers who set aside some of their land for organic farming. We have to remember that farmers who grow fruits and vegetables do not get subsidized the way that the meat and poultry industries do. It would be good if we could get subsidies for organic farmers and get our Department of Agriculture more in tune with sustaining the planet. It would make it easier for some of these farmers, who serve Mother Earth, to do organic farming – they really do not get the kind of help they should get from our government.

There are several labor justice certifications available to help consumers make better choices. Yet most of these certifications do not require unions or worker representation in the fields. How do you feel about certification in place of unions or worker representation in the fields – do you think it can ultimately undermine workers’ organizing if it is not required? Do you see red flags with the certification model, or is this the next step for the labor justice movement?

I think that it is more complicated than that. It takes a lot of time and resources to get union contracts for workers so they can have representation on the job. We know that the evil corporate forces in the agricultural industry in this country are doing everything they can to keep farmworkers from organizing. So, in the meantime, farmworkers need to work in places where they are not being poisoned and are treated somewhat decently.

There are many different models of organizing happening. The Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) in Florida are campaigning to get better wages for workers, and there are other groups like the Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC) in Ohio. There are different standards by farmworker organizations with different goals, but they are all trying to make life a little bit better for farmworkers, and I think that is probably better than nothing.

To get full union contracts, like the UFW has, with pension plans, medical insurance, grievance and arbitration procedures, etc., is a much more difficult goal. Any organizing that makes life a little bit better for workers and consumers is good, and I do not think that we should put down any of them. Having been with the UFW, I know what it takes to get those contracts. It takes a lot of resources and is very difficult. We know that the ultimate goal for workers is to be able to have those union contracts but we also know what it takes.

The other thing we have to remember is this: the only reason that the UFW can get those contracts is because the state of California has the Agricultural Labor Relations Act. Other states do not have laws that guarantee collective bargaining rights to farmworkers, so it is very difficult. In fact, very few states in the U.S. have laws to protect farmworkers’ right to organize. California has those protections because of the hard work of the UFW.

We really cannot put down these other groups if they do not have the final goal of a union contract with all of these benefits, because they do not have the legislative support that they need to get them. To have an impact for farmworkers, at the very least the key agricultural states with the biggest farmworker populations would have to pass those laws, and there is a lot of political opposition. It is very difficult. Maybe someday they will get there, but without legislative support it is very difficult for those labor groups to get union contracts.

Dolores Huerta’s Legacy of Social Change

In the movie, it is very clear that sexism played a major role in making Cesar Chavez the face of the UFW. Can you say what you have learned from confronting sexism and racism throughout your career, and how you counsel others to deal with it?

Well, the only way to handle racism and sexism is to confront it directly, whether it is sexist policies in the workplace or individual behaviors – just calling them on it brings it to their attention. Of course, if it is very egregious, you can always file a lawsuit. In California and in the U.S., we do have laws that protect workers against racism. I know that with the present administration there will not be a lot of enforcement, but many states also have good laws that protect people from racism and sexism. But the main thing is to encourage people, especially working people and women, to have the courage to speak out. Many times women are hesitant out of fear of violence, but, at least in California, they can make complaints and it can be kept very confidential. So, I think people have to look into their own state laws.

Racism is more difficult. It is important to document the behaviors and keep very careful logs of those things people say and do. Then, especially if you get fired and lose your job, and you think it is because of those two elements, then you definitely have a course of action. It is a little bit more difficult, however, when you have to deal with friends and family. Often, we do not want to bring this up because we do not want to embarrass somebody that we know, but one good way to do it is just to take them aside and tell them about their behavior.

There are a lot of times people do not realize that they are making sexist remarks, especially with older people. I know my kids are always saying “Oh, so-and-so said this; he called me ‘honey’,” and that is sometimes what older people used to do and did not mean it to be offensive, so I think the intention is very important. Also, it is important to know that we do not need to keep silent, because if we do, nothing will change – things will not improve.

Can you tell us what is the most significant social change you have seen in your lifetime?

What is happening now with social media and digital technology is transformative. Information can be transmitted and people can research just about anything in a few seconds. It is a great tool that really gives people the type of research they need to work on a particular issue. But it does not replace the person-to-person type of organizing either, going back to your first question that you asked me about organizing. It is good to disseminate information and use it as a tool to bring people together. But when it comes to building an organization, that person-to-person recruiting and educating is vital.

Look for Dolores in theatres in the U.S. in September of 2018, and learn more at: doloresthemovie.com.

Download the Full Article [.pdf]

The post ¡Sí Se Puede! In Conversation with Dolores Huerta appeared first on Fair World Project.

Tired of going through middle men to sell their coffee that set the prices below cost of production and with the understanding of the importance of organic farming, in 1997 a coop was formed with 23 farmers. In 2000, they received their organic and Fair Trade certification (Fairtrade International – FLO-cert). The co-op quickly grew to 600 members and in 2004 smaller co-ops were formed. Today, Tierra Nueva is made up of 7 smaller co-ops; 6 organic coffee coops and 1 honey co-op with a total of 604 individual members throughout Nicaragua. Tierra Nueva is an umbrella co-op or secondary co-op that the members call the union, which provides services to the coop members. Secondary co-ops play an important role in fair trade and in creating an alternative economic system that puts people before profits. As many secondary coops Tierra Nueva works on policy transformation at the national level on issues ranging from gender equality to organic farming.

Tierra Nueva also trains their members on organic farming techniques and quality control and helps them reach international and domestic markets. Currently they only sell 50% of their coffee on fair trade terms the rest is sold into other markets. We were pleased to learn that they are registered with FUNDEPPO, the Small Producer Symbol, the producer-led certification system which Equal Exchange and other committed fair trade coffee brands in the US and Europe are working with to help differentiate small-scale producer products in the marketplace. Tierra Nueva also works with European committed fair trade brands such as GEPA in Germany and EZA in Austria. Tierra Nueva’s challenge today is finding more markets and one strategy is to deepen sales into the local market in Nicaragua.

Our delegation is part of our World Fair Trade Day contest and with me are Olivia Morris and Wendy Silvuis, the winners from last year’s campaign. Olivia created an inspiring video on how she plans to bring back what she learned from going on a trip with Fair World Project to her community. Wendy is a high school teacher and implements fair trade curriculum into her AP geography courses. They are both showing much enthusiasm learning about the true intentions of fair trade and how we as consumers can play an active role in building a more just economy through supporting organized small-scale farming. As executive director of Fair World Project I am thrilled to participate in this journey with them to explore the ways we can be better citizens in this global economy and support organic small-scale farmers. Our next stop is Leon, where we will meet with founder and president of Maggie’s Organics, Bena Burda to visit their organic cotton farmers.

The post This is what authentic fair trade looks like: Visiting Tierra Nueva co-op in Nicaragua appeared first on Fair World Project.

World Fair Trade Day is May 10, 2014

Wouldn’t it be great if public policies benefited the public, so everyone could prosper, and so-called “free trade agreements” valued our precious resources rather than exploiting people and the planet? As consumers, we have the power to vote with our dollars, as well as to engage in local and federal policy reform in order to help change and transform our global economy to protect our people and planet.

World Fair Trade Day (WFTD), May 10, 2014, is a wonderful time to be inspired by the great work that many mission-driven companies are doing to support a just economy. While governments and transnational companies favor corporate globalization that benefits only the top 1%, creating larger economic gaps between the rich and poor, you can feel confident that when you purchase products from our WFTD partner brands (Alaffia, Alter Eco, Canaan Fair Trade, Divine Chocolate, Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, Equal Exchange, Farmer Direct, Guayaki and Maggie’s Organics), these ethical businesses put people and the planet before profits. Purchasing their products is a first step towards an ethical and sustainable marketplace.

Fair World Project is calling on civil society to go beyond marketplace action and the power of ethical purchasing to engage in the political process. There are several ways to engage, such as signing online petitions, writing letters to Congress, and organizing events in your community to boycott big transnational companies that put profits before all else.

It is only when the values of our market initiatives and our public policies match that we will see true transformation to a just global economy which puts people and the environment before profits. “Free trade” policies, for example, generally harm small-scale farmers. After the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), more than two million small-scale corn farmers in Mexico were forced off their land, as highly-subsidized U.S. corn flooded the market, decimating local rural economies and forcing hundreds of thousands of people to migrate. Reports show that incomes have dropped for most farmers in North America since the implementation of NAFTA. A new, broader agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is expected to have similar effects on farmers in the twelve participating countries.

In addition, the U.S. Farm Bill allows subsidies for large-scale farmers. For example, U.S. cotton subsidies totaled $32.9 billion from 1995–2012. Because of these subsidies, small-scale cotton farmers in the Global South are forced to compete in an unequal global market. Impoverished cotton farmers in four West African countries have been internationally recognized as victims of trade injustice due to the effects of U.S. farm policy.

Unfortunately, some brands take advantage of fair trade marketing niches, “fairwashing” their image, while continuing to passively support — or even actively advocate for — unjust policies that actually harm farmers. For example, Nestlé markets its “Partners’ Blend” coffee as 100% fair trade, representing a very small percentage of their total sales, with the vast majority of their coffee being conventional, “unfair” coffee. Nestlé is a member of CropLife and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), both of whom have lobbied in favor of free trade policies. Starbucks even has a representative on the advisory committee guiding the U.S. negotiations on the TPP, one of the elite 600 corporate advisors who have been granted access to the secret text.

Oxfam America, in a comprehensive study of the top ten food companies in the market  (www.behindthebrands.org/en/~/media/Download-files/bp166-behind-brands-260213-en.ashx), has noted that Nestlé does not support farmers’ organizations, does not insist that suppliers do business fairly, and has not committed to zero tolerance for land grabs. Nestlé, and companies like it, may point to their fair trade products as “proof” of their support for small-scale farmers, while behind the scenes they promote policies that are very harmful to farmers, workers and consumers.

That is why Fair World Project is working with dedicated brands on WFTD — brands that are committed to a holistic vision of fair trade that supports small-scale farmers every step of the way.
Fair World Project started the WFTD retailer initiative to bring awareness to consumers that their purchasing dollars can make a real difference. Last year was a great success, with over 850 natural product retailers signing on to offer their consumers discounts on products produced by our WFTD partner brands. This year the retailer initiative continues during the first two weeks of May, with retailers around the country offering discounts from our nine partner brands to celebrate WFTD.

Fair World Project supports these partner brands and others like them, advocates for just policies and insists that brands not fully committed to a just economy continue to improve their practices and make only authentic claims of fairness. Visit our campaign page to find out ways that you can take action to push brands to act more fairly, advocate for fair policies and support the pioneering brands that are leading the way to a truly just economy.

Learn More
To learn more about the negative effects of Free Trade Agreements
Visit Fair World Project’s Action and Campaign Center
Learn more about other fair trade organizations that are committed to working towards a just economy

The post Engaging in Trade Policy Transformation this World Fair Trade Day! appeared first on Fair World Project.

The post Written Testimony From FWP Director: Informational Hearing on the Trans-Pacific Partnership appeared first on Fair World Project.

We interviewed Rudi Dalvai, president of the World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO), to learn about fair trade craft certification from the perspective of WFTO member producers/artisans and businesses. The WFTO is a global representative body of over 450 members committed to 100% Fair Trade, operating in 75 countries across Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin & North America and the Pacific Rim.  With elected global and regional boards, WFTO creates market access through policy, advocacy, campaigning, marketing and monitoring.

We also asked three U.S. fair trade craft businesses of different size to share their perspectives of fair trade craft certification: SERVV, with $8.5million in 2011 sales, Global Crafts with $1.87million in 2011 sales and World Shoppe with under $250,000 sales in 2011.

Interview with Rudi Dalvai, President of the WFTO
Dana Geffner: What do you mean when you say crafts

Rudi Dalvai: First craft has to do with tradition; tradition of technique and tradition of culture.  There are also crafts being developed that are transforming local material into items used daily in the fields, like baskets. Crafts are made by hand and are part of the traditional life of people. Crafts were developed thousands of years ago before there were machines.   I do not define machine made products as a craft.

Dana Geffner: Do all your members want fair trade craft certification   Who does and who does not

Rudi Dalvai: No, not at all, there is a clear difference between the desire for a fair trade craft certification from our producer members in the south and traders in the north.

Producer members in the south are very keen to have a certification. Many of them think that, with the label or a certification mark, markets will open up for them. There are people telling them that if their products had a label they would sell like hot cakes. They are not telling them that other qualities as well are necessary to have success in the marketplace, such as a product needs to be of high quality, delivered on time and priced right so that people will buy it.  Therefore, our members in the south have false expectations that a certification label will automatically provide them with access to  more  markets.  I am not saying that the label will not help to sell the product but it cannot be compared with certification labels on food products such as cocoa and coffee.  There is a huge difference between the market for commodities such as coffee, and niche markets such as baskets and jewelry.

In the North several members don’t see that a label will help increase sales because most products are selling to fair trade shops and not in the mainstream.  A lot of people have tried to go into the mainstream with handicrafts but very few have succeeded.  Several northern companies are in favor of the label because they understand producers want it.  They mainly support it for this reason.  Some of them feel the label could help; for example I had a conversation with the owner of People Tree, a UK Fair Trade clothing company. She talked about needing the FLO label for her products if she wanted to sell her clothing as fair trade and get them to the mainstream market. It depends a lot on the country, in the UK it is required on textiles, but for musical instruments – even in the UK – it does not matter much.

Dana Geffner: In your view point, what are the benefits and downfalls of implementing a certification

Rudi Dalvai: In commodities, not handicrafts, producers have seen volumes increase substantially through FLO certification.  They benefit from increased market access and in some ways they are a little more protected.  In the early years, Fair Trade Organizations (FTOs) worked in partnership with producer organizations.  Today the big players are coming into the fair trade market with no clear regulations to monitor and inspect them and mostly their main objective is to make profit.

Generally profit is what you make when you buy cheap, sell high and keep wages low.  Selling high is not easy and so you have to buy cheap and pay low wages. For example: a big cocoa buyer in Europe was buying about 50 containers of conventional cocoa from one producer organization in Latin America.  The buyer wanted access to the fair trade market in Europe and started to buy 10 containers under fair trade conditions from the same producer organization.  He had to pay the fair trade price to be certified by FLO. He then went to the producer and asked for a discounted rate on the 50 containers since he paid such a high price for the 10 fair trade containers.  I can tell you a lot of similar stories.  On one hand certification has contributed to increased sales for fair trade producers and on the other hand it has reduced the advantage that fair trade brings to them.   FTOs are idealists; they still make mistakes and are not always efficient, but normally they don’t deliberately try to exploit people in the name of fair trade.

Another negative point is that fair trade certification gets extremely complicated for small producers and some times it is not easy to fulfill fair trade criteria.  When you have certification in accordance with ISO standards, it can be too strict because the world is a little bit more complicated than a set of standards and criteria.  When you certify based on ISO standards with closed eyes you sometimes expect something from producers that is unrealistic. This can make life much more difficult especially for small producers.  Another negative is that certification is too expensive and bureaucratic for small producer organizations, but not for big plantations.

Traders in the mainstream market can gain access to new markets if they start selling fair trade certified products.  Fair trade certification also protects FTOs from unfair competition.  Costs are higher for traders that are fulfilling all the fair trade standards.  Therefore, if someone claims to be trading using fair trade criteria but is not, their costs are lower because they are not paying for such things as fair wages, training and supporting community development.  Therefore certification reduces unfair competition and puts all people that are certified on the same level.

Similar to the negative mentioned to producers, certification is also a burden for the traders for the same reasons,  it takes alot of money and also alot of extra work.

For the consumer it is a bigger guarantee.  Before FTOs were very small and comprised of very committed people.  People knew each other in the movement and the guarantee was based on trust.  People don’t trust any longer because there are big players on the field. The consumers are far away from the traders and even farther from the producers.  It is not a coincidence that the consumer organizations are asking for a label for a certification to give a guarantee for the consumers.

By Bob Chase, CEO of SERVV
In the early days of the movement, fair trade was a niche market at best with few importers and distributors. The entire supply chain shared a common commitment to reducing poverty through trade, guided by fair trade values. Almost all of the participants in this process were nonprofit organizations with clear developmental agendas. Artisans and customers knew and trusted these organizations and their leaders, whom they often knew personally.  Most of the customers were far more interested in supporting social change and economic justice than in the actual products they were purchasing.

The organizations which made up the fair trade community during its early years were part of a close knit community, one which met informally often, shared information openly and which held each other accountable to their shared values.

But Alternative Trade has become Fair Trade and the movement has grown, attracting the attention of a growing number of producers, importers, distributors and retailers. As a result established organizations with long resumes and strong credentials find it increasingly difficult to differentiate themselves from organizations which may be making unsubstantiated claims regarding their adherences to fair trade principles.

Discerning consumers can certainly verify the credentials of the organizations from which they purchase through their membership in the Fair Trade Federation and the World Fair Trade Organization and they should expect these organizations to provide them with detailed information about how they adhere to all 10 fair trade principles.

But the reality is that as interest in fair trade grows, consumers will require and deserve third party verification of fair trade claims. Some continue to say that it is not possible to establish measurable standards for handmade products. Others feel that requiring home based artisans to be paid a fair hourly wage will price their products out of the market. And some feel that the systems necessary to assure compliance to a certification system will leave poor producers and small importers at a disadvantage in competing with much larger organizations.

These are the same arguments which have been made consistently to oppose minimum wage laws and fair labor standards in our own country. Developing meaningful certification systems will require ingenuity and creativity and there will be costs involved in adopting and adhering to a certification system. But these costs should be seen as an investment in insuring the integrity and sustainability of the fair trade marketplace.

Handmade products gave birth to the Fair Trade movement and have changed the lives of millions of poor artisans in dozens of developing countries. The market has changed offering new opportunities to tens of thousands of artisans. Certification is a small price to pay to assure that these artisans, and not the intermediaries, truly reap the benefits from the purchases of consumers desiring to support economic justice with their purchasing dollars.

By Kevin Ward CEO and owner of Global Crafts
Certification is often held up as the panacea of fair trade.  Following the success that labeling of agricultural products, such as coffee, has undoubtedly had on the sale of fair trade products, handicraft producers are eager to see similar results. Handicrafts are fundamentally different and even if we were to take the success of fair trade labeling at face value, it would not transfer to the handicraft sector. Furthermore, the success of fair trade labeling in commodities has also caused some significant and largely unavoidable problems that we in the handicraft sector may be best avoiding.
For now, let’s assume that the certification and labeling of commodities has been a success that we should seek to emulate.  The question shifts to one of results; would a craft certification and label have the same positive effect in the marketplace   I am a coffee drinker and a passionate believer in fair trade. The act of buying groceries and making the decision to buy fair trade over other coffees is fairly straight forward.  I am not a coffee aficionado; I am a coffee drinker who buys fair trade coffee.

Will consumers buy one bracelet over another because of a label as I do with coffee No, the label is just one small part of a much larger decision making process based around, quality, aesthetics and an array of other factors.

Even if you disagree and believe consumers will choose to buy that bracelet because of a label, is the price we will pay for a reliable certification system worth it   The craft sector is lucky enough to see from our commodity-based friends the negative impacts of fair trade certification and labeling.

For a label to have meaning it must be trusted and backed up by a strong certification system. The cost of these systems is high. Others will argue that it can be done at a lower cost, but frankly, you get what you pay for. If we want a system that is credible it will be expensive. The cost of coffee certification excludes small scale farmers from the system, leaving them to try to sell their fair trade coffee without the label next to the big brands that have the label. New businesses find entry much more complex and expensive, with the added burden of attaining certification.  Fair Trade has long been criticized by those on the outside of membership organizations as an exclusive club. Certification will only make this worse.

Finally, it is relatively easy to cost commodity production.  Craft production is a very different story.  A model that establishes fair pricing for jewelry making in India has no relevance to basket making in Uganda.  Craft production is simply much more diverse and in many ways complex than commodities.

By Megy Karydes, Owner of World Shoppe
Ideally, one certifying body would oversee a craft business from beginning to end and provide (or not) its stamp of approval. Similar to what occurs in the organic movement. The appeal of such certification is tantalizing.

In our case, craft certification would benefit us because it would allow us to legitimately put our stake in the ground and say, yes, our products are fairly traded. We work directly with our artisans, ensure they are paid a fair wage, work with them on a long-term basis and treat them as partners. Right now, our best option is membership in the Fair Trade Federation.

When we began wholesaling our jewelry from South Africa and Kenya, well-meaning retailers asked us if we were certified, incorrectly assuming that all fair trade products could be certified. I would explain, best as I could, that while we are an active member of the Fair Trade Federation, we were not “certified” as such because we are not a commodity-based business. One retailer showed me TransFair’s logo on a bar of soap. Try having that conversation with a retailer who isn’t involved in fair trade daily, how that’s not the same thing. She doesn’t care. She wants to see that logo so she can show her customers.

But what is happening in the fair trade movement nationally and internationally with regards to certification frightens me. Organizations are splitting off and creating their own certification criteria. National and international media is paying even more attention and providing more airtime and ink space on the topic of fair trade certification and what it really means. Consumers are becoming even more confused.

Craft certification from a legitimate organization which has the artisans’ best interests in mind would be ideal. It would be powerful for them to be recognized for more than just making stuff. Fair trade is so much more than that.

The post Challenges of Certification for Fair Trade Crafts: Part 2 appeared first on Fair World Project.