During this period of turbulence and challenges in the Fair Trade movement, it seems appropriate to reflect on the mostly separate but parallel trajectories of fair trade and organic. Fair trade is at the crossroads and organics has been there before. This article hopes to shed some insights from the experience of the organic movement.

Of course, the Fair Trade and Organic movements have much in common. Today, much of fairly traded coffee and chocolates are dual-certified as both fair trade and organic. The Grower Group model that allows small farmers to form cooperatives or democratically–run grower groups and seek group certification, rather than each small farm needing individual certification, has been a huge boon to thousands of small Global South farmers by gaining honest access to both the growing organic and fair trade markets in the North. Both are born from passionate commitment, both these movements share a strong sense that just opposing the wrong is not enough – we must build the sane alternative.

Both trace their recent revival periods to the last century when the excesses of corporate agribusiness-as-usual became all too visible and painful. Both movements have been bottom-up grassroots responses with a lot of sweat equity and minimum mainstream support, until recently. Both movements are dependent on continued strong consumer and stakeholder support and trust.

While both started out with market claims – each had very different goals. Fair trade has pursued the goals of empowering marginalized small farmers in the Global South who have suffered from corporate concentration and unfair trade practices. Organic set out to offer the alternative to destructive pesticide-based agriculture through holistic environmental, social and humane stewardship practices. Both were about meeting an un-tapped consumer demand by doing good.

Both movements required the development and on-going maintenance of marketplace architecture that did not exist – standards -setting, verification mechanisms and transparent and accountable market labeling claims.

However, the two movements have taken very different routes and means to achieve their relative marketplace successes.
The story of the institutionalization of organic through governmental regulations is not meant to imply that fair trade should or even could take this approach. It is simply to state that when organics was at a critical crossroads and could not see how to “self-organize” sufficiently to manage growth and protect consumer confidence – we chose the governmental route.

As market demand grew beyond localized markets, it became clear that organics would need harmonization of standards and third–party verification systems to ensure consumer confidence. In the 1970’s the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) was created to develop community–owned standards for organic and to use stakeholder-driven processes to promote and develop organic worldwide. The idea was to have strong community standards that would push and hold governmental standards accountable. There were participants from different parts of the world but the EU clearly dominated. However, the challenges of managing two-front strategies while staying ahead of consumer demand and creating truly global standards that meet diverse needs of regional organic practices has remained daunting – to say the least.

In the 1980’s faced with expanding markets but with many different standards and definitions of organic world-wide, Europe was the first to take the approach of creating governmental organic regulations to standardize the claim and create market clarity – setting the stage for a global rush toward governmental organic regulations. Today, there are organic regulations in over 60 countries and the challenges ahead are harmonization and equivalency.

On this side of the Atlantic during that same period, there were mighty debates about the pros and cons of a “governmental solution” to the problem of how best to institutionalize organic, to build and very importantly to continue to pay for, protect and maintain our standards and market integrity. The central issue was – could we organize ourselves sufficiently and fairly such that we could manage this rapidly growing movement without governmental intervention?

The US movement tried its best to learn from the EU experience of governmental regulations. We eventually chose the governmental route as an inevitable outcome that we should make the best of because we did not have the resources, the structure or the cross-sector unity needed to protect organic integrity as it grew. We set out to create a “public/private partnership” by establishing creative solutions to old school governmental regulations. A national citizen board (the National Organic Standards Board or NOSB) made up of all stakeholders with no one-sector dominating shares statutory powers with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). The USDA cannot add materials not approved by NOSB but can remove if found to be harmful. The USDA National Organic Program and its accreditation division must be reviewed and recognized by a third party evaluator to ensure their compliance with the organic law. Because of organics contributions to society as a whole, there is some taxpayer support. This still represents one of the most creative, enlightened and fully participatory and transparent regulations in US history – flaws and all.

In retrospect this was probably the most viable way forward for us at the time and more has been gained from governmental support than was lost. Our biggest wins were the messages that the governmental seal is backed up by strong third-party verification systems; including accreditation of certifiers, appeals, enforcement and oversight; and evaluation of accreditors along with the critical public process for setting and maintaining standards. These are key components of the credibility architecture that Fair Trade must now secure for itself.

We were however required to compromise key provisions of the organic platform in this trade-off and this should serve as a valuable lesson for the fair trade movement.

The governmental definition was narrower than the community definition and specifically left out the fairness to farmers and workers, research, promotion and energy-efficiency. What we had hoped would be the “floor” under standards also became for practical purposes the “ceiling” and driving up standards is very slow and difficult and is not pro-active in signaling market directions.

Organic when in the informal sector prior to federal institutionalization was widely understood as a holistic approach that cared about the whole system – the land, plants, animals and the people who care for all of this but, this was just too big a leap for the government to accept and thus we have mostly an environmental claim with the fairness and other aspects now needing to be added back-in through credible marketplace, private and Non-Government Organization (NGO) initiatives.

Governmental understanding of what is organic has been slow and painful.

Federal policy is biased toward the large scale and access to federal decision-makers is not equal. It is also very expensive for the grassroots to maintain continued participation in the process.

Formal organic certification as a value proposition for many small-scale farmers is very limited unless they form cooperatives or grower groups. Many also either do not use formal certification because they: sell direct and qualify under the small scale organic sales exemption rule; simply do not make a formal claim of organic anymore; or seek alternative forms of verification such as – Participatory Guarantee Systems, (PGS), which is not yet recognized fully by all governmental programs.

The recent name change of Transfair USA to Fair Trade USA and its abandonment of the international Fair Labeling Organization system and its relaxing of fair trade practices have resulted in a major split in this vibrant movement. So, as the fair trade movement stands at its crossroads — it must act swiftly to strengthen and protect its core credibility:

Fair Trade standard setting must become more unified, formalized and fully owned by the larger community;

Verification and oversight mechanisms must be fully transparent, participatory and reflect the stakeholders and their priorities, as well as consumer expectations;

Accreditation and meaningful stakeholder oversight of the fair trade claim is essential to credibility;

Dispute resolution and appeals must be easily accessible and broadly adopted;

Swiftly build credible partnerships and much more synergy with the organic community to offer multiple and merged claims through mutual inspection;

And finally protecting and defending the rights of the most vulnerable segments of the market must remain paramount.

Ironically, the part left out of organic in the governmental process – the claim of fairness – is now giving organics a very valuable opportunity to add this additional value back to organic through the marketplace and outside of the federal process because of the enduring value of the fair trade claim.

History will judge these two movements not just by the incremental progress made but also by how well we avoided becoming what we set out to be the sane alternative to!

The post Fair Trade at the Crossroads – Lessons from the Organic Movement appeared first on Fair World Project.

Enter CADO. Deep in the foothills of the Ecuadorian Andes, small-scale family farmers are growing sugar cane on steep hills.? CADO, or the Sweet Organic Agro-craft Consortium (Consorcio Agro-artesanal Dulce Org?nico in Spanish) is a consortium of five small regional sugar cane producer groups, representing 18 communities in two provinces. Founded in 2003 with the support Rural Forestation and Progress Network Corporation or CRACYP, an Ecuadorean Non Governmental Organization, CADO?s mission is to facilitate fair prices and local self-development for member families.

CADO formed to provide value added product for sugar cane producers in the provinces of Bolivar and Cotopaxi, two of Ecuador?s the poorest provinces. With 198 member families, CADO has the capacity to produce 24,000 tons of organic certified alcohol annually. Located in a prolific sugar producing country, CADO undertook the challenge of finding a niche for producing socially and environmentally sustainable alcohol. At present, CADO produces organic ethanol for use in extraction of compounds, potable organic alcohol for use in the liquor industry and organic alcohol for use in perfumery or industrial processes.

Despite early setbacks, CADO has successfully secured contracts with the UK?s Body Shop and Dr. Bronner?s Magic Soaps. CADO attained The Body Shop sources CADO alcohol for a number of products, including its Love Etc?? perfume. Dr. Bronner?s will use CADO?s alcohol in its organic and fair trade Hand Sanitizing Spray as well as other products. Dr. Bronner?s will be the first to market products with certified organic and fair trade alcohol in the United States.? CADO was recently certified fair trade under IMO?s Fair For Life program.

More than just a mechanism for commercializing organic alcohol, CADO has embraced and advanced the fair trade ethic of true sustainability. Not only must CADO members commit to organic practices, and agree to have their land certified organic and fair trade, they pledge not only to leave existing forest intact, but also reforest degraded or logged land. CADO?s own internal social premium model requires a percentage of all sales be earmarked for a small reforestation fund. Maintaining and reestablishing the native forest is essential to both alcohol distillation and the integrity of the local ecosystem. To distill sugar cane juice into alcohol, families need access to an ample water supply. Without proper forest cover, the land dries up and families are left without water for personal consumption and the ability to distill alcohol.

Key to CADO?s approach to fair trade is fair and stable prices for its members. CADO members receive upwards of double the local market price for alcohol. According CADO member and Internal Control System team member, Luis Fredy Avalos, CADO?s program has provided a ?for my family, a fair price [for our organic alcohol] is very important. It allows us to provide for our family and send our children to school. Before fair trade, we were at the mercy of intermediary buyers.?

More than fair prices for their products, CADO members regularly point out two important outcomes of their organization: technology transfer and improved access to education. CADO facilitates microloans to families to purchase new distilling equipment, organic farming inputs and other resources to improve efficiency and quality of their alcohol. Rural technical advisors provide on the ground training for families on everything from organic farming techniques to quality control measures for the distillation equipment.

Prior to CADO, local community members rarely advanced beyond a 5th grade education. Children often worked side by side with their parents in the fields out of economic necessity. Today, the younger generation of CADO families universally graduating from high school. CADO policies and fair trade standards require that children not actively labor, but attend school. CADO?s efforts at improving efficiency on the farm and raising the standard of living for members has greatly facilitated educational endeavors for the communities? young people.? For Carlos Cabrera, CRACYP Director, CADO?s efforts go beyond simply ?creating a stable market for producers. Implementing traceability and internal control measures, key requirements in organic and fair trade certification, have greatly improved communities? environmental health and have assured that more children are now attending school.?

Looking to the future, CADO and CRACYP are setting their sites on diversification and cooperation. Next in the product pipeline is a ?Cocoa Cr?me? liqueur, blending organic and fair trade dairy, sugar, and cocoa from producer groups in the area. CADO is also working on developing a Farmstay EcoTourism Project and providing a sustainable alternative to the agrofuel craze. If the demand for agrofuels continues to rise, fertile land will continue to be converted from growing food to producing agrofuels. CADO?s vision provides a model for utilizing marginalized land, while safeguarding local ecosystems and provide just? and dignified work to vulnerable communities.

For CADO President Cecilia Arcos, ?fair trade is more than a fair price. It is about building consciousness in our communities. It is about acquiring the tools to be self-reliant?.It is about lifting up the poorest of our members and making sure no one is left behind.?

The post Ecuador Fair Trade Visit Part I: Adventures in Organic Fair Trade Alcohol appeared first on Fair World Project.

FLO seems intent on forging ahead in new sectors, including certifying small-scale fishing operations, despite concerns regarding the development of new standards, as well as FLO-Cert?s capacity to adequately monitor operations. FLO and TransFair USA have come under fire for both their standards and practices, ranging from TransFair USA?s Fair Trade Garments Pilot Project to TransFair’s bid to rebrand itself as Fair Trade USA. While the ensuing dialogue within the movement has been largely constructive, including an insightful webinar sponsored by the Fair Trade Resource Network, we risk losing consumer confidence in “fair trade” while we work to improve the system. FLO and TransFair are in a bit of a sticky situation. While it is unclear if they currently have the capacity to adequately address the challenging and contentions labor situation in new sectors and complex supply chains, they must respond to calls from producer and consumers for standards for new fair trade sectors.

In some aspects, the fair trade market is falling deeper into disorder, with new products and new self-anointed fair trade programs springing up around every corner. Continuing this trend, “fair trade” is now being applied to virtually anything, with hundreds of ethical, social, and “fair” labels emerging over the course of the last five years. Case in point: fair trade condoms are poised to enter the market in the UK. Though proliferation of fair trade schemes and certifications reflects? greater public awareness, we do risk increased consumer confusion and the risk of “fairwashing.”

Despite the current state of disarray in the world of fair trade, there are positive signs on the horizon for cross-sector collaboration. The Fair World Project (FWP) recently joined certifiers, producers and other NGOs endorsing ?Fair Trade Certifiers and Stakeholder Groups Sign Agreement to Work Toward Collaboration and Accountability in Domestic Fair Trade?.? Meanwhile, Fairtrade International, SAN/Rainforest Alliance & UTZ CERTIFIED pledged to continue their collaboration. Some in the fair trade movement have called for greater government intervention of fair trade labelling and standards. Fair trade is now recognized and regulated under federal law in France. Federal regulation recognition of fair trade in the United States represents both an opportunity and risk, especially given the mixed experience of the USDA National Organic Program.

In the end, this discussion brings us full circle to one of the original tensions of fair trade: shall we continue focusing on improving and expanding the patchwork of sector by sector market standards or will we insist on strengthening public institutions to protect and support farmers, workers and artisans across the board? Or both? Stay tuned.

The post Fair trade gold, fish, and condoms, oh my! appeared first on Fair World Project.