This year's United Students for Fair Trade (USFT) convergence was simply mind-blowing for me. I have returned to Madison from Boston full of hope for the direction of the fair trade movement after having witnessed the growth of USFT and a new spirit of understanding and solidarity between the USFT, mission-based fair trade organizations, and producers from around the world.

I first attended a USFT convergence in 2005 in Chicago. At that time I had the opportunity to be on a panel that discussed "challenges" to the fair trade movement. I felt at the time that the students in the audience were shocked and dismayed that there were real problems underneath the glossy marketing material of the FT certifying organizations. The conversation was centered on whether there really were issues to address as opposed to how the student movement should address them. Issues like democracy within the fair trade movement, terms of participation of TNCs, the possible entry of plantations into the coffee sector, and the tension between marginal players and "100%ers" seemed to be totally new to the students in the room. Two years later things are totally different.

The stage was set before the convergence when the FLO Standards Committee recommended that FLO not raise the minimum price to paid to coffee growers at this time. USFT responded immediately with a strong statement from their Coordinating Committee letting FLO know that they stood with the farmers who have not seen a "raise" in over a decade. The announcement was timely, strong, and uncompromising. It signaled that USFT was beginning to recognize its real power within the fair trade movement

This announcement obviously stirred some of the major players in the movement and coffee industry as the convergence was attended by members of the FLO board of directors, higher-ups at TFUSA, and even three representatives from SBUX. Adding to the mix were over a dozen producer representatives from Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Throw into the stew a few radical loud-mouthed coffee roasters and other assorted agitators and you had the right mix for a great weekend of debate and discussion about the future of fair trade and a new campaign to democratize the FLO and TFUSA systems.

One great example of the evolving critique of student-activists was an exchange with a representative from Starbucks that I had the pleasure to witness. It happened during a workshop given by a group of students working with Dean's Beans to facilitate a partnership between themselves, Dean's, and the Oro Verde Cooperative in Peru. While explaining some of the highlights of the partnership, the students were asked by an audience member about why they would work with Dean Cycon when his company did not use TransFair USA certification. Trying to address this in Dean's absence, I used the shaky participation in the FT market of companies like Starbucks as an example of why Dean's, Just Coffee and some other roasters did not want to be associated with TFUSA.

This criticism did not please another audience member who happened to be a rep of SBUX's "Sustainable Coffee" department. She shed much needed light on some little known facts for us. In doing so she was able to confirm some of the things that many of us have suspected for a while.

According to this person, SBUX does not think enough about how it markets its coffee. To hear her put it, it had never occurred to them to "beat their chests" about the work that they do with farmers, although she felt they possibly should. This was very enlightening to those of us who have felt that SBUX uses its "fair trade" involvement strictly for marketing purposes. Shockingly, according to this person, they do not put much emphasis on marketing and advertising. Who knew?

After the SBUX rep introduced herself with these remarks, there was a bit of a feeding frenzy as students questioned her about some of her company's practices. During the next ten minutes of candid Q&A, she confided in us that SBUX does not publish its contracts and other data because consumers find them to be "very confusing". Apparently their lack of transparency is for our own good. She also admitted that SBUX is not interested in drastically increasing their FT coffee purchases saying that "we will never be 100%". This was not a huge surprise. However, her admission that they would not even commit to 5% "at this time" spoke volumes to their "committment" to the FT model.

Finally, she stated that not even all of the coffee that SBUX buys from co-ops is bought under FT terms, even if those co-ops are FLO certified. When challenged to commit to buying all co-op coffee under FT terms, she politely declined saying that it was "an interesting idea", but that they would not commit to it. With that she basically packed up her things and left the room before the workshop was over. She was promptly followed out by a few students who were not satisfied with her responses and who wanted to continue. The students' willingness to engage her with hard and direct questions was really exciting. Two coffee producers who were present for the exchange seemed to especially enjoy it.

Another highlight was a panel done in front of the entire convergence featuring Raul del Aguila of Peru's COCLA (also a representative of the CLAC), Ashwini Jaisingh of USFT, Jonathan Rosenthal from OKE Banana, and a Ugandan coffee producer who's name I regrettably never caught. After speaking generally about the future of fair trade, they took questions from the students in the audience. During the next half an hour a theme started to evolve. Every answer from the panel seemed to focus on a lack of democratic space in the official FT system. Producers spoke of their lack of involvement in the development and regulation of FT norms. Johnathan spoke about the neo-colonial mindset that has been with FT from the start and how it needs to be reformed. Ashwini spoke about the power of students to change the system. Somehow it started to feel like a revolt was being spawned.

Luckily right after this panel Dan Jaffee from Michigan State, Heather Putnam from USFT's Coordinating Committee, James Ploesser of Mad-FTAA, and I were giving a workshop that was designed to encourage USFT students to form positions on some of the thorny issues in the movement. We were careful not to push our takes on the questions of rules for TNCs, plantations, and governance of the system, but we urged students to realize their collective power and take positions as an organization. My spiel focused on the need to create a democratic space and make it a reality without asking permission from FLO or TFUSA. I used the example of the CLAC in Latin America who organized and demanded a seat at the table with FLO and got it. It has taken awhile, but FLO is now at least listening to them in an institutionalized forum. There was some discussion over whether this was the right thing for USFT to do, but when we adjourned, the overall direction seemed to be to push forward.

To sum up the convergence I would say that it was the birth of a more assertive and possibly radical USFT. I feel that the students realized that they are potentially one of the most important players in the fair trade movement. They are following the lead of producers and demanding a role of governance in what is now a closed system. During lunch on Sunday, after taking it all in, one student said to me:

"TransFair cannot have it both ways. How can they only be a "certifier of products" when they are also the only group that makes the rules for who does fair trade and under what terms? I think the USFT should demand a seat on their board. TransFair says that they cannot ask companies like Coca-Cola to do more than sell something traded under their terms, and this is while Coke is linked to killing labor activists in Colombia. How can they be fair trade? If they can't police big companies, we can."

This was music to a previously half-cynical fair trade coffee roaster's ears.