Printable View
Our neighborhood Leading the Way, Santa Rosa Fair Trade campaign is dedicated to fair trade advocacy and promoting Santa Rosa as a Fair Trade Town to increase awareness of responsible social and economic policies that empower communities to lift out of poverty by providing business to Santa Rosans.
Sign our petition to designate Santa Rosa a Fair Trade town!
https://santarosafairtrade.wordpress.com/sign-our-petition/
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Maria Halyna Lewytzkyj:
Why Fair trade isn't fair ~
Fairtrade is extraordinarily successful at making wealthy westerners feel that they are warm, caring people. However there are a lot of reasons to doubt whether it is of much benefit to farmers in the Third World. It is argued, in fact, that it harms far more farmers than it helps.
'Ethical Objections to Fairtrade' is based on the knowledge that if aid is diverted from the poorest and most needy, it causes death and destitution. This paper shows the damage Fairtrade does to the vast majority of farmers, those who do not belong to Fairtrade. It also shows that most of the extra money that charitable people pay for Fairtrade never gets to the intended recipients. There are no impact studies showing that Fairtrade farmers in general benefit, let along other farmers. Much of the trade is a criminal offence under EU law. Published in the Journal of Business Ethics
https://www.griffithsspeaker.com/Fai..._trade_isn.htm
I signed the petition about a week ago, but after reading the article linked to in post #2 above, I wish I hadn't signed.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by pnicholson:
Dixon, I read this piece and I find it to be basically an op-ed and very one sided. While critics of the fair trade model have a right to their opinion, what this article mentions is that the feel good aspect is only for Westerners. Not true. I've read accounts from farmers all over the world, and saw unscripted video footage, and met some farmers who defend against these attacks. They are very certain that if they had stayed as suppliers to the corporate commercial farmers they would have been much worse off. If you'd like to read more about the issue, I recommend that you look at the issue not only from the perspective of people who seem to be okay with the status quo of commercial big agriculture that pays farmers pennies and secure low quality and cheap products for consumers, but consider the perspective from farmers and those who do perform the audits and independent monitoring. For instance, I suggest Kelsey Timmerman's "Where am I Eating?" also "Fair Trade: Market-Driven Ethical Consumption" by Alex Nicholls.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
Interesting that you saw it that way. It looked like a pretty meticulously researched report to me.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Maria Halyna Lewytzkyj:
This is a straw figure argument by you, a misrepresentation of the writer's message. Nowhere does he say that "the feel good aspect is only for Westerners". He acknowledges that the Fair Trade model benefits some of the farmers sometimes, and maybe even some of them all the time. The problems he cites include, among others:Quote:
While critics of the fair trade model have a right to their opinion, what this article mentions is that the feel good aspect is only for Westerners.
1. The poorest farmers are usually not served. "Fairtrade concentrates its efforts on relatively rich farmers. Importers buy from the cooperatives that are efficient and can provide the qualities required at the time required and handle the paperwork. Inevitably the most healthy, skillful, educated farmers are most likely to do this, and they are the richest. The cooperatives with these farmers find it easier to meet the criteria of Fairtrade, to do the paperwork required and to make the investments involved. Farmers who do not wish to market through the local cooperative are excluded, as are older farmers, unskilled farmers, farmers who do not have access to research, marginal farmers, those in geographically remote or ecologically marginal areas, those who have less ability to pay for their labour, or those who do not have suitable cooperatives in their neighbourhood etc."
2. The subsidized prices in the Fairtrade program and the considerable attractiveness of the Fairtrade brand to consumers give its members an unfair advantage in some markets, thus the poorest farmers may starve to death partly because of business being diverted away from them and toward the less poor Fairtrade members. "The Fairtrade industry certainly harms other farmers, especially the very poor. It is not a zero-sum game, with the benefits to one group exactly matching the costs to the other, partly because one group is nearer death, but also because the elasticity of demand for coffee means that paying Fairtrade farmers a bit more can devastate 24 million others."
3. There is reason to believe that little if any of the extra charge paid by consumers for Fairtrade-labeled products reaches the farmers themselves. (Even so, they do sometimes benefit by the guaranteed prices offered by Fairtrade, but sometimes they lose out due to the Fairtrade price being paid to them being lower than prevailing market rates.) It appears that most of that extra money stays in richer countries without ever making it to the country wherein the farmers reside.
4. The Fairtrade organization misrepresents the realities; this is an ethics issue. "Fairtrade should tell consumers, ‘We do not know how much extra you are paying, but in some cases 90% to 99% is pocketed by businessmen in rich countries as extra profit. On average less than 1% of the retail price is spent on social projects in the Third World, but we do not know if farmers benefit from these. We have no reason to believe that any money reaches farmers in the form of higher prices, though farmers certainly incur extra costs to get Fairtrade certification.’"
Even if we assume that these anecdotes are all true (a very trusting assumption given the nature of advertising and PR), what reason is there to assume they're representative of the overall net effect? Anyway, no one questions that some benefit from Fairtrade; the issues are whether the net effect is constructive or destructive, whether there may be much better ways to achieve the goals, and whether Fairtrade is representing what they do, and its effects, honestly.Quote:
I've read accounts from farmers all over the world, and saw unscripted video footage, and met some farmers who defend against these attacks. They are very certain that if they had stayed as suppliers to the corporate commercial farmers they would have been much worse off.
Your characterisation of Griffiths is an ad hominem attack, and is not a reasonable inference from his writing in the report. Nowhere does he endorse low quality products, and he is clearly concerned that farmers, especially the poorest ones, get paid more. One of his main criticisms of Fairtrade is that it hurts poorer farmers and that even most of the farmers in the Fairtrade system are apparently not getting a share of the extra charge to consumers!Quote:
If you'd like to read more about the issue, I recommend that you look at the issue not only from the perspective of people who seem to be okay with the status quo of commercial big agriculture that pays farmers pennies and secure low quality and cheap products for consumers...
Maria, have you considered the perspective from farmers who are unable to participate in Fairtrade and are suffering from its competition, or from those who are members of Fairtrade and dissatisfied, or only the perspective of those farmers who have been proffered as examples by the organization?Quote:
...but consider the perspective from farmers...
"In Fairtrade’s own Comprehensive Review of the Literature on the Impact of Fairtrade (Nelson & Pound, 2009), the authors, who have worked on Fairtrade over a dozen years, were able to find only 23 reports containing 33 separate case studies which they would accept as impact studies. They say ‘All of the reports are published academic and development agency studies, including journal articles, working papers and reports,’ (p 4) but, on examination, it is seen that they include an undergraduate dissertation; a master’s dissertation and a PHD thesis whose authors do not wish them to be published or disseminated; the same paper cited under two different references; reports written by employees or members of Fairtrade cooperatives; a paper cherrypicking from other, unobtainable, studies; and repeated studies of the same, successful, cooperatives. The standard survey reports are not available, so it is not possible to answer the standard questions: ‘Was the survey carried out at all?’, ‘Was the methodology, including the sampling, valid?’, ‘Do the data support the conclusions presented?’, ‘Do the data support alternative conclusions?’ The reports do not address the issues raised here. Even if the results were meaningful, it would be improper to generalize from a tiny number of case studies of selected successful cooperatives to 3000 Fairtrade suppliers."Quote:
...and those who do perform the audits and independent monitoring.
Also, "...independent monitoring is needed to prevent Unfair Trading and, indeed, for the market to exist at all. Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International spend very little on this, less than 1m Euros per year, (Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International, 2010) and they charge the cooperatives for this.
"‘There are only 54 inspectors around the world, working on a part-time freelance basis to check and control a million producers. These checks do not take place on the ground but in offices, hotel rooms or even by fax,’ (Christian Jacquiau cited in Hamel, 2006).
"Paola Ghillani, who spent four years as president of Fairtrade Labelling Organizations is equally critical (Hamel, 2006)..."
Thanks for the suggestions. Do these books address the issues mentioned above, and do they go beyond anecdotal evidence and cherry-picked examples of successes?Quote:
For instance, I suggest Kelsey Timmerman's "Where am I Eating?" also "Fair Trade: Market-Driven Ethical Consumption" by Alex Nicholls.
nicely done, dixon.
a wonderfully comprehensive response
that is a pleasure to read.
p
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
and one that invites a further response. I hope we see that, too. By the way, I'd like more sources, too! Peter Griffiths' background isn't one of a disinterested analyst; he (was) clearly a man of strong convictions. I'm very casually following this, but for those simarly inclined you can check this link.NOTE that I'm not implying anything about the quality of the post at the end of that link -- it's maybe a start of a trail where those who disagree with Griffiths can find credible arguments against his claim. For example, it'd be nice to find some non-US/UK based discussion of the program!!Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by pnicholson:
The article you link to seems to be about a live discussion involving Peter Griffiths, not about the Griffiths report I quoted from earlier in this thread, and in any case addresses little if any of the evidence Griffiths adduces in his report. The positions attributed (accurately?) to Griffiths are not taken by him in the report, with the possible exception of: "Peter Griffiths’ assertion that someone in the developing world would automatically steal if they had the opportunity." Given that there's someone in just about every community who would steal if they had the opportunity, it's certainly reasonable to assume there are such people in the "developing world", and, while Griffith addresses the increased danger of stealing and cheating in the Fairtrade model in his report, he makes no implication that folks in the "developing world" are any more likely to steal than anyone else.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
Having said that, of course I encourage everyone to read sources on all sides of the controversy.
Just judging from his previously-quoted report, which is all I've read from Grifffiths, he does indeed have strong convictions, but they seem to be convictions about ethical behavior by corporations and agencies, speaking truth, doing proper research to determine what works and what doesn't, supporting activities that do the most good and the least harm, and saving the lives of those most urgently at risk. The sort of bias that comes from a conflict of interest was not apparent as I read the article, but would reasonably be expected from those who profit from Fairtrade.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
as you know, one's motives aren't all that illuminating about the validity of one's arguments. They're just another supporting but indirectly correlating datum. It would be nice to see someone giving specific details on the way the business operates - like interviews with local farmers with pro and con opinions. How they feel, and why, would be more illuminating.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
That's right. I only mentioned his convictions because you brought the issue up.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
Griffiths gives lots of details on how the business operates in his report--in some cases more info than is available from the Fairtrade organization itself.Quote:
It would be nice to see someone giving specific details on the way the business operates...
You can find people speaking both pro and con about any controversial issue. Hearing how the farmers feel is of little use unless there's reason to believe they're a representative sample of Fairtrade farmers--not the success stories cherry-picked in the organization's ads. Also, to address Griffiths's reasonable concerns, you'd have to get input from farmers who are not Fairtrade members and ask about his assertion that non-Fairtrade farmers suffer from competition with the subsidized Fairtrade products.Quote:
...like interviews with local farmers with pro and con opinions. How they feel, and why, would be more illuminating.