1. Fairtrade is a marketing exercise
Fairtrade is more than just a marketing
exercise. It is a reminder to us all of the impact of global poverty in today’s
world and the need to engage with trade justice issues.
The “hype” surrounding Fairtrade Fortnight, for example, is both a reflection of its continuing success and of the need to remind people of the differences between the ethical brands available for the same product. For example, in March 2008, just after the end of Fairtrade Fortnight, PG Tips announced that all its tea plantations will have Rainforest Alliance certification. Does it make a difference if you choose PG Tips with Rainforest Alliance certification rather than Sainsbury’s own blend tea with Fairtrade certification?
Fairtrade remains unique amongst
ethical brands in ensuring farmers a price for their crops that covers the cost
of sustainable production, a premium for investment in future improvements and
support for small-farmer organisations that enable them to compete more
effectively in global markets. This is one of the reasons why Fairtrade is
backed by charities such as Christian Aid, Tearfund,
CAFOD, the World Development Movement and Oxfam.
Last year the Government reviewed the
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmintdev/356/35602.htm
2. Fair trade is unfair
Few people can be in any doubt that the imposition by the developed world of free trade principles on developing countries is unfair. Two billion people across the world still earn less than US$2 per day.
Currently, over 7 million farmers and their families benefit from Fairtrade, and each year this number increases as more producers and products are certified. There is no evidence given in the Adam Smith Report that Fairtrade producers benefit at the cost of the other producers outside the system; merely assumptions by two economists that this will be the inevitable conclusion. Anecdotal evidence from Fairtrade producers seems to indicate that the opposite effect occurs and farmers in the surrounding areas benefit from the introduction of Fairtrade certification, but further detailed research is required here.
The statement that the Fairtrade model “rewards inefficient farmers who produce poor quality goods” is not backed up by any research or statistics, and simply conflicts with the high level of quality that is now found in many Fairtrade products.
Fairtrade clearly has a long way to go and is by no means perfect. However, buying products with the Fairtrade Mark, enables consumers to choose products that help start to address the injustices of our current trading system.
3. Fairtrade farmers predominate in relatively developed countries like
Mexico and not places like
First, the coffee-producing regions in
4. Fairtrade does not aid economic development
Again, anecdotal evidence from the Fairtrade would seem to tell a very different story of the opportunities afforded to producers both to improve their lives with healthcare and education for their families and to diversify and improve their businesses. The Fairtrade premium …..the Fairtrade premium, an additional sum for community development, has been used by farmers’ groups to build schools, provide clean drinking water, pay for sickness benefit and pilot organic conversion schemes to help farmers work for the future. The farmers decided how the premium is used, thereby keeping control over the future of their communities.
5. Fairtrade only helps landowners
Factually wrong as it works with co-operatives but also sets conditions for workers on plantations. It does not yet reach the very poorest (this was identified in the Government Select Committee Report referred to above) but this has been identified as an area that needs to be developed.
6. Most Fairtrade produce ends up in non fairtrade goods
This is because there are simply not enough people buying Fairtrade yet. So your jar of Nescafe may contain coffee from a fairtrade co-operative, but the growers could not yet find a fairtrade buyer for all their crop. This is the workings of the free trade market which the Institute upholds.
7. Only 10% of the premium goes to the producer
This is factually untrue; the Fairtrade premium is returned in its entirety to the producer. The report is attempting to imply that only 10% of the retail price at which the product is sold in the shops, over which the Fairtrade Foundation has no control.
8. Fairtrade came out of a government-engineered coffee crisis in the 1990’s and coffee prices have been relatively stable in the last few years
The Black Gold film sets the record
straight on these issues. The world price of coffee is entirely out of the
control (and knowledge) of the farmers and therefore a fairtrade minimum price
is the only way they will be able to continue to produce their crop.
Fair-trade brings other benefits, not
least chocolate, which bringsguarantees that it is not
produced by trafficked children on the
9. Free trade is the most effective poverty reduction strategy the world has ever seen
It seems very surprising that anyone
would hold this view. The World Bank and the IMF have pursued vigorous policies
of freeing up world markets in the last 50 years and continuing high levels of
global poverty have resulted. The two billion people still living on less than
US$2 per day demonstrate that the way free trade principles are applied has not
worked for the poor at all. The concluding statement – “fair trade is
unfair, but free trade makes you rich” sums up the rather simplistic approach
the report seems to have taken to some very complex issues.
The relative success of the tiger
economies of
Given the absolute
resistance of the