How to Read Fairtrade
|
European and U.S. Fairtrade Labels
Fairtrade and other certifications require that small farmers be organized in order to certify the group for marketing purposes. Fairtrade also requires that organization be a democratic structure, which is legally either a co-op or farmers’ association.
The Fairtrade model includes:
The Fairtrade standards require that:
Fairtrade certification requires an annual inspection to meet minimum certification requirements by local consultants of the third-party agency in Germany (FLO/Bonn).[2] Progressively stronger conditions are imposed as co-operatives evolve from initial certification to more advanced co-operative capabilities, including better record-keeping, greater member involvement, and management and financial transparency.
Critics of Fairtrade are concerned that small farmer co-operatives may be unable to afford the fees for certification, and that fees paid by buyers, traders, processors, and retailers support Fairtrade marketing efforts in developed countries to drive demand, rather than fund small farmer certification. Farmer co-operatives are organizationally weak and at times unable to meet stringent transparency and other standards.
Debates over the value of Fairtrade include: (1) It does not make economic sense and is not sustainable in the long run; (2) Fairtrade farmers get “charity” as long as they stay producing crops that lock them into poverty;[3] (3) Fairtrade is selling a marketing label, not directly engaging to improve the life of growers; and (4) there is a lack of progress in achieving poverty reduction.[4]
Supporters of Fairtrade concluded that:
The existing empirical evidence, based primarily on conditional correlations, suggests that Fairtrade does achieve many of its intended goals, although on a comparatively modest scale relative to the size of national economies. Fairtrade farmers do on average receive higher prices, have greater access to credit, perceive their economic environment as being more stable, and are more likely to engage in environmentally friendly farming practices.[5]
The maze of different, sometimes contradictory and overlapping, certifications is bewildering to many small cocoa farmers who are poorly educated and must adopt strenuous record-keeping and unfamiliar farming practices. The certifications place a burden on co-operatives and associations to implement, maintain, and renew these certifications.
The requirements are driven by exporters, traders, large processors, and companies, small and large, in response to consumer demand for organic products, for where they are grown and for sustainable farming practices, especially in tropical forests. Over the last 10 years, certification requirements have dramatically contributed to the creation and strengthening of cocoa co-operatives and associations which is market- rather than donor-driven.
In addition to Fairtrade, there are certifications for Rainforest Alliance, Utz and organic, which may also benefit small farmers.
Rainforest Alliance certifies farms, often through co-ops or small farmer associations. Rainforest certification now includes over 100 products, most notably cocoa, coffee, flowers, palm oil, tea, wood product and spices. It is intended to maintain production under the shade of native canopy trees and within a landscape similar to a natural forest.
Certification includes 10 principles that deal with key social, environmental, and economic aspects of environmental sustainability, including maintenance of the ecosystem, water and soil conservation, and integrated crop management. While Rainforest Alliance certification does not establish floor prices or a mandated minimum, it does assist certified growers to enter international markets. Donations to the Rainforest Alliance are spent on innovative conservation programs and services.
Rainforest Alliance certification and adoption of sustainable cocoa farming practices assists some co-operatives and their members who are unable to immediately qualify for Fairtrade or organic certification due to the costs involved in achieving minimal standards, and some larger independent farms or exporter-organized farmers who are not part of the Fairtrade system. The Rainforest Alliance is organized and operates through a coalition of eight nonprofit organizations in the developing world.
Rainforest certifications are not carried out by an independent third-party certifier, pay no premiums to small farmers, retain lower labor standards (pay for work, freedom to unionize), and allow large plantations to qualify. Rainforest standards are less costly to apply and are friendlier to large corporations -- such as Kraft Foods and Mars -- allowing them to grow their “ethical trade markets.”
Rainforest certification may include large plantations in which only 50% of producers meet the environmental standards, as well as cocoa farmer organizations in which only 30% of products achieve the standards. Some critics see the Rainforest Alliance as undercutting Fairtrade certification, since there is less focus on promoting small farmer associative enterprises, because Rainforest focuses more on individual farmers.
The Fairtrade model includes:
- Direct purchasing from small farmer co-operatives/associations
- Agreed-upon commodity floor prices
- Promise of affordable credit available through the farmer co-operatives/associations
- A worldwide network of nonprofit Fairtrade organizations to promote Fairtrade products
- A fee paid by the importers, wholesalers, and producers for use of the Fairtrade label
- Third-party certification that assures consumers that a product is fairly traded
The Fairtrade standards require that:
- Co-operatives/associations demonstrate that Fairtrade benefits farmers socially and economically; all members are involved and vote on use of premiums.
- A majority of members be small farmers who produce more than half of the co-op’s volume and includes requirements on how small producers can cover their costs of production.
- Co-operatives/associations operate democratically with at least one annual meeting at which an annual report and accounts are presented, and a transparent and open election of the board of directors takes place.
- Co-operatives/associations develop, implement and monitor an operational plan for good environmental management including encouraging organic production, maintaining natural water, virgin forest and other land areas, and dealing with problems of erosion and waste. Any use of pesticides must meet WHO class 1 a-b requirements.[1]
Fairtrade certification requires an annual inspection to meet minimum certification requirements by local consultants of the third-party agency in Germany (FLO/Bonn).[2] Progressively stronger conditions are imposed as co-operatives evolve from initial certification to more advanced co-operative capabilities, including better record-keeping, greater member involvement, and management and financial transparency.
Critics of Fairtrade are concerned that small farmer co-operatives may be unable to afford the fees for certification, and that fees paid by buyers, traders, processors, and retailers support Fairtrade marketing efforts in developed countries to drive demand, rather than fund small farmer certification. Farmer co-operatives are organizationally weak and at times unable to meet stringent transparency and other standards.
Debates over the value of Fairtrade include: (1) It does not make economic sense and is not sustainable in the long run; (2) Fairtrade farmers get “charity” as long as they stay producing crops that lock them into poverty;[3] (3) Fairtrade is selling a marketing label, not directly engaging to improve the life of growers; and (4) there is a lack of progress in achieving poverty reduction.[4]
Supporters of Fairtrade concluded that:
The existing empirical evidence, based primarily on conditional correlations, suggests that Fairtrade does achieve many of its intended goals, although on a comparatively modest scale relative to the size of national economies. Fairtrade farmers do on average receive higher prices, have greater access to credit, perceive their economic environment as being more stable, and are more likely to engage in environmentally friendly farming practices.[5]
The maze of different, sometimes contradictory and overlapping, certifications is bewildering to many small cocoa farmers who are poorly educated and must adopt strenuous record-keeping and unfamiliar farming practices. The certifications place a burden on co-operatives and associations to implement, maintain, and renew these certifications.
The requirements are driven by exporters, traders, large processors, and companies, small and large, in response to consumer demand for organic products, for where they are grown and for sustainable farming practices, especially in tropical forests. Over the last 10 years, certification requirements have dramatically contributed to the creation and strengthening of cocoa co-operatives and associations which is market- rather than donor-driven.
In addition to Fairtrade, there are certifications for Rainforest Alliance, Utz and organic, which may also benefit small farmers.
Rainforest Alliance certifies farms, often through co-ops or small farmer associations. Rainforest certification now includes over 100 products, most notably cocoa, coffee, flowers, palm oil, tea, wood product and spices. It is intended to maintain production under the shade of native canopy trees and within a landscape similar to a natural forest.
Certification includes 10 principles that deal with key social, environmental, and economic aspects of environmental sustainability, including maintenance of the ecosystem, water and soil conservation, and integrated crop management. While Rainforest Alliance certification does not establish floor prices or a mandated minimum, it does assist certified growers to enter international markets. Donations to the Rainforest Alliance are spent on innovative conservation programs and services.
Rainforest Alliance certification and adoption of sustainable cocoa farming practices assists some co-operatives and their members who are unable to immediately qualify for Fairtrade or organic certification due to the costs involved in achieving minimal standards, and some larger independent farms or exporter-organized farmers who are not part of the Fairtrade system. The Rainforest Alliance is organized and operates through a coalition of eight nonprofit organizations in the developing world.
Rainforest certifications are not carried out by an independent third-party certifier, pay no premiums to small farmers, retain lower labor standards (pay for work, freedom to unionize), and allow large plantations to qualify. Rainforest standards are less costly to apply and are friendlier to large corporations -- such as Kraft Foods and Mars -- allowing them to grow their “ethical trade markets.”
Rainforest certification may include large plantations in which only 50% of producers meet the environmental standards, as well as cocoa farmer organizations in which only 30% of products achieve the standards. Some critics see the Rainforest Alliance as undercutting Fairtrade certification, since there is less focus on promoting small farmer associative enterprises, because Rainforest focuses more on individual farmers.
The fastest growing cocoa certification is UTZ Certified, an industry-driven certification. Launched in 2007, UTZ includes a “Code of Conduct” for good agriculture and business practices as well as social and environmental criteria. The certification is administered through a nonprofit organization in the Netherlands (Solidaridad) and supported by Cargill, Mars, Nestle, and other large companies.
According to a Cargill press release: “Farmers benefit from a higher income based on the principle “a better price for a better product.” Mars chocolate announced the goal that all of its cocoa products will carry an UTZ certification by 2020.[6]
The UTZ certification is similar to Rainforest, but less rigorous in terms of environmental standards. Since cocoa is difficult to trace back to the farms, large chocolate companies wanted to create their own certification standards before being required by U.S. and EU agencies. Cargill notes that the “plethora of schemes means there is some fear of crowding and confusion in the Fairtrade space,” and there is a need to harmonize standards so as not to confuse farmers and co-operatives with different and varying requirements.
The UTZ certification is criticized because it explicitly allows genetically modified plants, a broad array of local chemical fertilizers and pesticides -- including some that are banned in the United States and Europe, it has no international labor standards, and it lacks crop pre-financing and producer support. Some critics contend that UTZ is “green washing or social white washing” and a means to respond to Child Slavery issues, especially in the Ivory Coast.
According to a Cargill press release: “Farmers benefit from a higher income based on the principle “a better price for a better product.” Mars chocolate announced the goal that all of its cocoa products will carry an UTZ certification by 2020.[6]
The UTZ certification is similar to Rainforest, but less rigorous in terms of environmental standards. Since cocoa is difficult to trace back to the farms, large chocolate companies wanted to create their own certification standards before being required by U.S. and EU agencies. Cargill notes that the “plethora of schemes means there is some fear of crowding and confusion in the Fairtrade space,” and there is a need to harmonize standards so as not to confuse farmers and co-operatives with different and varying requirements.
The UTZ certification is criticized because it explicitly allows genetically modified plants, a broad array of local chemical fertilizers and pesticides -- including some that are banned in the United States and Europe, it has no international labor standards, and it lacks crop pre-financing and producer support. Some critics contend that UTZ is “green washing or social white washing” and a means to respond to Child Slavery issues, especially in the Ivory Coast.
In terms of organic certification, there is an absence of official statistics, and data are hard to find, incomplete, fragmented, and unreliable. Many agricultural products are certified as organic both in the U.S. and overseas. According to incomplete International Cocoa Organization data, in 2006 there were more than 30 certified cocoa co-operatives from 24 countries, and they produced 15,500 tons of organic cocoa representing about .5% of total cocoa production. Another study calculated higher production levels in 2006 at 32,000 tons. About 10% of production is estimated to be both Fairtrade and organic certified. Estimates of the world market for organic cocoa has grown by 10-15% a year between 2000 and 2003, with an estimated increase in global market sales increasing from $171 million in 2002 to $304 million in 2005.[7]
Leading the growth in the organic snack food category, the U.S. organic chocolate market was worth $70.8 million in 2007, up 49% from 2006. While organic chocolate sales remain only a fraction of the overall U.S. chocolate market, worth $6 billion, there has been a sharp increase in recent years. According to the Nature Conservancy, organic chocolate sales have increased by around 70% annually since 2002. Access to sufficient supplies of organic chocolate of acceptable quality remains a major challenge.[8]
The organic market is the fastest growing U.S. food market, with 46% of American consumers “committed” to organic products. Consumers are willing to pay more for organic products (37%) than for Fairtrade (33%).
Organic standards are formulated and overseen by the United States, the European Union, and Japan, which have comprehensive organic legislation; the term "organic" may be used only by certified producers. Being able to put the word "organic" on a food product is a valuable marketing advantage in today's consumer market and is intended to protect consumers from misuse of the term.
There are some international efforts underway to create agreements to harmonize certifications between countries. International certification bodies include the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) and the Organic Crop Improvement Association (OCIA).
In the United States, federal legislation defines three levels of organics. Products made entirely with certified organic ingredients and methods can be labeled "100% organic." Products with at least 95% organic ingredients can use the word "organic." Both of these categories may also display the USDA organic seal. A third category, containing a minimum of 70% organic ingredients, can be labeled "made with organic ingredients." In addition, products may also display the logo of the certification body that approved them. Products made with less than 70% organic ingredients cannot advertise this information to consumers and can only mention this fact in the product's ingredient statement. Similar percentages and labels apply in the EU.
In the United States, the National Organic Program (NOP) was enacted as federal legislation in October 2002. It restricts the use of the term "organic" to certified organic producers (excepting growers selling under $5,000 a year, who must still comply and submit to a records audit if requested, but do not have to formally apply). Certification is handled by state, nonprofit, and private agencies that have been approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).[9]
Large companies may require one certifier or another such as BCS Ökogarantie and Demeter (Germany), or Bio Suisse (Switzerland). There are also individual company certifications such as Hand in Hand by the German company RAPUNZEL.
These organic certification systems require traceability from the producer through the value chain to the consumer, which includes:
Major criticisms of organic certifications are higher costs and the difficulty in achieving and maintaining the standards; multiple certifications by different countries (there are over 400 certification companies); requirements for annual audits of farmers; lack of knowledge and the need for extensive training for cocoa farmers in organic practices, and a lack of incentives for organic production when worldwide cocoa prices are high. There are also concerns about efforts to weaken organic standards and allowing artificial substitutes in organic products, such as cheaper vegetable oils for cocoa butter.
The cost of certifications for co-operatives is a major factor in their ability to meet different market branding niches. These costs are sometimes paid by a certifying vendor – either the exporting organization or the manufacturing company. The certification costs are so expensive that most small farmer organizations are unable to afford them on their own.
In the case of CONACADO, a large cocoa co-operative with 9,000 members in the Dominican Republic, the organization itself pays the full costs of certifications for their members. Each of CONACADO’s certifications has specific costs (as of 2009) as follows:
Leading the growth in the organic snack food category, the U.S. organic chocolate market was worth $70.8 million in 2007, up 49% from 2006. While organic chocolate sales remain only a fraction of the overall U.S. chocolate market, worth $6 billion, there has been a sharp increase in recent years. According to the Nature Conservancy, organic chocolate sales have increased by around 70% annually since 2002. Access to sufficient supplies of organic chocolate of acceptable quality remains a major challenge.[8]
The organic market is the fastest growing U.S. food market, with 46% of American consumers “committed” to organic products. Consumers are willing to pay more for organic products (37%) than for Fairtrade (33%).
Organic standards are formulated and overseen by the United States, the European Union, and Japan, which have comprehensive organic legislation; the term "organic" may be used only by certified producers. Being able to put the word "organic" on a food product is a valuable marketing advantage in today's consumer market and is intended to protect consumers from misuse of the term.
There are some international efforts underway to create agreements to harmonize certifications between countries. International certification bodies include the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) and the Organic Crop Improvement Association (OCIA).
In the United States, federal legislation defines three levels of organics. Products made entirely with certified organic ingredients and methods can be labeled "100% organic." Products with at least 95% organic ingredients can use the word "organic." Both of these categories may also display the USDA organic seal. A third category, containing a minimum of 70% organic ingredients, can be labeled "made with organic ingredients." In addition, products may also display the logo of the certification body that approved them. Products made with less than 70% organic ingredients cannot advertise this information to consumers and can only mention this fact in the product's ingredient statement. Similar percentages and labels apply in the EU.
In the United States, the National Organic Program (NOP) was enacted as federal legislation in October 2002. It restricts the use of the term "organic" to certified organic producers (excepting growers selling under $5,000 a year, who must still comply and submit to a records audit if requested, but do not have to formally apply). Certification is handled by state, nonprofit, and private agencies that have been approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).[9]
Large companies may require one certifier or another such as BCS Ökogarantie and Demeter (Germany), or Bio Suisse (Switzerland). There are also individual company certifications such as Hand in Hand by the German company RAPUNZEL.
These organic certification systems require traceability from the producer through the value chain to the consumer, which includes:
- Farms must be clearly identified even if there are no formal land tenure records.
- 100% of farms must be inspected initially, and then 10 to 20% of farmers must be interviewed each year in order to maintain organic certification; they are instructed in organic production as well as prohibited chemicals and other inappropriate practices.
- Farmers must keep records – most in a simple journal – where they record activities in their organic production areas, types and quantities of any chemicals applied, problems identified and visits by co-op technicians or others.
- Farmers and processors must segregate their cocoa beans according to different organic requirements which vary by country and types of certification, and must separate them from conventional processing channels.
- Traceability and segregation prevent farmers from aggregating their crop with other non-organic farmers and/or with different cocoa varieties, which requires careful record-keeping by their co-operatives to prevent such practices.
Major criticisms of organic certifications are higher costs and the difficulty in achieving and maintaining the standards; multiple certifications by different countries (there are over 400 certification companies); requirements for annual audits of farmers; lack of knowledge and the need for extensive training for cocoa farmers in organic practices, and a lack of incentives for organic production when worldwide cocoa prices are high. There are also concerns about efforts to weaken organic standards and allowing artificial substitutes in organic products, such as cheaper vegetable oils for cocoa butter.
The cost of certifications for co-operatives is a major factor in their ability to meet different market branding niches. These costs are sometimes paid by a certifying vendor – either the exporting organization or the manufacturing company. The certification costs are so expensive that most small farmer organizations are unable to afford them on their own.
In the case of CONACADO, a large cocoa co-operative with 9,000 members in the Dominican Republic, the organization itself pays the full costs of certifications for their members. Each of CONACADO’s certifications has specific costs (as of 2009) as follows:
- Organic certification for seven branches with 172 associations at a cost of $79,378.77.
- Rainforest Alliance certifications for two branches with four associations at a cost of $8,618.00.
- Fairtrade or FLO certification for seven branches with 172 associations for $6,866.75.
- Biodynamic certification for two branches with four associations at $3,600.00.
- BioSuise Organic certification for four branches with 123 associations at a cost of $23,813.63.
- ISO certification only for the central office at a cost of $13,885.72.
- Kosher certification for one branch for $10,000.00.
- Joint maintenance cost of certifications at $23,076.93.
CONACADO Farmer
While all certifications usually pay a premium for cocoa beans, only Fairtrade certification includes a direct guaranteed minimum payment to co-operative members that is split between improved cocoa processing facilities and social projects which are democratically approved by the co-operative boards and at a general membership meeting. In the case of CONACADO, Fairtrade premiums have been:
$810,240.08 in 2007
$702,193.09 in 2008
$185,198.66 in 2009 [10]
Only Fairtrade certification specifies required institutional and capacity building of farmer co-operatives so that they can support more sustainable farming practices and maintain higher returns for their members. In contrast, Rainforest, UTZ and organic certification are more focused on farmers and less on strengthening co-operatives.
Fairtrade Controversy
In 2011, Transfair USA changed its name to Fair Trade USA and left the international Fairtrade system that had given it birth. Just days later, it announced its new strategy: “Fair Trade for All,” with a certification system allowing plantations in coffee and cocoa. One of its immediate steps was to certify cocoa plantations in the Dominican Republic to compete against CONACADO, the most successful and largest cocoa Fairtrade co-operative in the world.
Fair Trade USA stated that co-ops cannot grow sufficiently in size to meet increasing mainline consumer demands, so they are opening up certification to groups of unorganized farmers, or workers on plantations.
Equal Exchange and small farmer advocates oppose Fair Trade USA’s move to include plantations and workers under Fairtrade rules. They argue that only small farmer co-ops empower worker-owners, and their co-ops may not be able to compete against corporate-sponsored plantations.[11]
In fact, supporters of Fairtrade co-operatives believe that empowerment of farmers is as important as price and other standards. A study of Fairtrade tea plantations in India indicated that the tea pickers received few benefits, and that the tea companies did not empower their laborers.[12] This is commonly referred to as “Fairtrade whitewashing.”
As large companies enter the Fairtrade market due to consumer demand, a chocolate company can blend as little as 11% fair-trade cocoa with non-fair-trade cocoa and still receive the Fairtrade label on their chocolate products.[13]
Several chocolate companies -- Equal Exchange, Chocolove and Theo, for example -- have moved their Fairtrade certification to IMO, a Swiss system, which places similar requirements on processors and companies, not just producer co-ops. The IMO Fair Life certification goes beyond Fairtrade by certifying the entire supply chain with the same performance standards
IMO provides reliable quality control services and certification of organic, eco-friendly, and socially responsible products. IMO creates confidence. It is their task to establish truthfulness between both sides, one producing sustainable, high-quality products and the other buying them. The major aim is not just the product and its quality alone but, above all, the people involved in the projects. It is important to support their work by respect and cultural understanding. Together, they are creating perspectives for a sustainable future.
The founders of Fairtrade wanted to right the wrongs of hundreds of years of colonialism and create an alternative to plantations which have one owner compared to democratically-run small farmer organizations. Plantations have easy access to bank loans, infrastructure, market information, and technical assistance.
The international Fairtrade certifying system (FLO) allows plantations for almost all Fairtrade products except for coffee, cocoa, and a few other categories. Small farmer coffee and cocoa organizations now had to compete against plantations. For example, in coffee it took 15 years of Fairtrade before coffee farmers began to see positive impacts on their businesses and lives.
In response to cutting many small farmers out of the Fairtrade system, a new Fairtrade farmer-owned certification system (SPP for its Spanish acronym) has been created to represent small farmers and their co-operatives for a more just trading system.
$810,240.08 in 2007
$702,193.09 in 2008
$185,198.66 in 2009 [10]
Only Fairtrade certification specifies required institutional and capacity building of farmer co-operatives so that they can support more sustainable farming practices and maintain higher returns for their members. In contrast, Rainforest, UTZ and organic certification are more focused on farmers and less on strengthening co-operatives.
Fairtrade Controversy
In 2011, Transfair USA changed its name to Fair Trade USA and left the international Fairtrade system that had given it birth. Just days later, it announced its new strategy: “Fair Trade for All,” with a certification system allowing plantations in coffee and cocoa. One of its immediate steps was to certify cocoa plantations in the Dominican Republic to compete against CONACADO, the most successful and largest cocoa Fairtrade co-operative in the world.
Fair Trade USA stated that co-ops cannot grow sufficiently in size to meet increasing mainline consumer demands, so they are opening up certification to groups of unorganized farmers, or workers on plantations.
Equal Exchange and small farmer advocates oppose Fair Trade USA’s move to include plantations and workers under Fairtrade rules. They argue that only small farmer co-ops empower worker-owners, and their co-ops may not be able to compete against corporate-sponsored plantations.[11]
In fact, supporters of Fairtrade co-operatives believe that empowerment of farmers is as important as price and other standards. A study of Fairtrade tea plantations in India indicated that the tea pickers received few benefits, and that the tea companies did not empower their laborers.[12] This is commonly referred to as “Fairtrade whitewashing.”
As large companies enter the Fairtrade market due to consumer demand, a chocolate company can blend as little as 11% fair-trade cocoa with non-fair-trade cocoa and still receive the Fairtrade label on their chocolate products.[13]
Several chocolate companies -- Equal Exchange, Chocolove and Theo, for example -- have moved their Fairtrade certification to IMO, a Swiss system, which places similar requirements on processors and companies, not just producer co-ops. The IMO Fair Life certification goes beyond Fairtrade by certifying the entire supply chain with the same performance standards
IMO provides reliable quality control services and certification of organic, eco-friendly, and socially responsible products. IMO creates confidence. It is their task to establish truthfulness between both sides, one producing sustainable, high-quality products and the other buying them. The major aim is not just the product and its quality alone but, above all, the people involved in the projects. It is important to support their work by respect and cultural understanding. Together, they are creating perspectives for a sustainable future.
The founders of Fairtrade wanted to right the wrongs of hundreds of years of colonialism and create an alternative to plantations which have one owner compared to democratically-run small farmer organizations. Plantations have easy access to bank loans, infrastructure, market information, and technical assistance.
The international Fairtrade certifying system (FLO) allows plantations for almost all Fairtrade products except for coffee, cocoa, and a few other categories. Small farmer coffee and cocoa organizations now had to compete against plantations. For example, in coffee it took 15 years of Fairtrade before coffee farmers began to see positive impacts on their businesses and lives.
In response to cutting many small farmers out of the Fairtrade system, a new Fairtrade farmer-owned certification system (SPP for its Spanish acronym) has been created to represent small farmers and their co-operatives for a more just trading system.
Newest Certification Label
The Coordinating Body of Latin America and the Caribbean (CLAC) had been meeting for 10 years to strategize how to keep Fairtrade focused on small farmer organizations. They created their own certification system, run by the nonprofit Foundation of Organized Small Producers (FUNDEPPO). The SSP system has General Standards with four dozen criteria for small farmer member organizations, including maximum individual farm sizes and a maximum percentage of farm work performed by hired farm workers. Buyers who use the SPP must meet nearly three dozen criteria, including a minimum of 5% annual volume growth in program purchases. Most impressive, the SPP is run and governed by the farmers themselves at the source, rather than from offices thousands of miles away.[14]
[1] See Fair Trade USA website
[2] Domain for Generic Fairtrade Standard for Small Farmers’ Organizations.
[3] Economics of Fair Trade, Raluca Dragusanu, et at, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol 28, No 3, September 2014.
[4] The Problem with Fair Trade Coffee, Collen Haight, Sanford Social Innovation Review, Summer 2011.
[5] Economics of Fair Trade, Ibid.
[6] Mars Press Release, July 21, 2009
[7] The Market for Organic and Fair-Trade Cocoa Products, FAO Study, 2009.
[8] Ibid
[9] Organic certification, Wikipedia
[10] Source: Jaime Gomez, CONACADO
[11] The adverse impacts can already be seen in the Dominican Republic where CONACADO with about 1/4th of cocoa farmers organized into their cooperative are now competing with Rizek,a large family-owned corporation with 35 plantations which gained U.S. Fairtrade certification in 2013 (source, Rizek publication, 2013).
[12] Reading Tea Leaves: The Impact of Mainstreaming Fair Trade, Lindsey Bornhofft Moore, London School of Economics, 2010.
[13] Pg 14, Buying into Fair Trade: Culture, Morality and Consumption, Keith Brown, New York University Press, 2013.
[14] By Small Farmers, For Small Farmers: The Next Step in the Evolution of Fair Trade, Equal Exchange website, August 12, 2013 by Phyllis Robinson
[1] See Fair Trade USA website
[2] Domain for Generic Fairtrade Standard for Small Farmers’ Organizations.
[3] Economics of Fair Trade, Raluca Dragusanu, et at, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol 28, No 3, September 2014.
[4] The Problem with Fair Trade Coffee, Collen Haight, Sanford Social Innovation Review, Summer 2011.
[5] Economics of Fair Trade, Ibid.
[6] Mars Press Release, July 21, 2009
[7] The Market for Organic and Fair-Trade Cocoa Products, FAO Study, 2009.
[8] Ibid
[9] Organic certification, Wikipedia
[10] Source: Jaime Gomez, CONACADO
[11] The adverse impacts can already be seen in the Dominican Republic where CONACADO with about 1/4th of cocoa farmers organized into their cooperative are now competing with Rizek,a large family-owned corporation with 35 plantations which gained U.S. Fairtrade certification in 2013 (source, Rizek publication, 2013).
[12] Reading Tea Leaves: The Impact of Mainstreaming Fair Trade, Lindsey Bornhofft Moore, London School of Economics, 2010.
[13] Pg 14, Buying into Fair Trade: Culture, Morality and Consumption, Keith Brown, New York University Press, 2013.
[14] By Small Farmers, For Small Farmers: The Next Step in the Evolution of Fair Trade, Equal Exchange website, August 12, 2013 by Phyllis Robinson