Just Coffee

We at the JC Co-op are stoked to finally see an article that actually looks into SBUX's claim that it averages paying above the FT minimum for all green coffee purchases. The reporter asks the logical question-- that no one else has wanted to ask-- "who does SBUX pay the money to?" As many of you have already guessed, for most of their purchases it is not the producers.

Click HERE to read the article.

You may have to register on the Sacramento Bee's site. It is free and worth it to finally read a story from a reporter that does more than regurgitate press releases as news.

Another reason that we have to look beyond labels and practice a deeper fair trade...

On the heels of the Specialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA) meeting and in preparation for the Fair Trade Federation Conference, it seems like a good time to talk about bringing more democracy and transparency to the Fair Trade Movement.

Fair trade has sought to create a model that brings democracy and transparency to the entire supply chain of a commodity. In the coffee sector, this idea is put into practice stringently with growers and their cooperatives undergoing an exhaustive certification process. FLO is very careful to make sure that financials are straight, Boards are fairly elected, and that some level of democracy exists. When it comes to coffee roasters and importers however, things get a bit murkier in the FLO system.

All that is asked of licensees (roasters and importers) in the FLO/TFUSA system is that they provide quarterly reports with the amount of coffee sold under minimum fair trade terms to FLO's national initiative accompanied by a check for their licensing fees. Those fees are based on the amount of certified product sold. To this point, these reports are not audited in any way by TFUSA, although I believe they are trying to develop an auditing system.

Here is a podcasted "debate" between myself (Matt) and Demian Luper from TFUSA. Demian is a super nice guy and our conversation was really more discussion than cage match. However, we do get at the different approaches that our organizations take, our understandings of what fair trade should be, and where we see it going.

Listen to it here in mp3 format

Thanks to Frank Aragona at Agroinnovations!

Just when you think that certification politics have reached a low ebb, they get a little lower.

The USDA recently announced that it is changing the requirements of grower cooperatives for their organic certification. In the past, because co-ops are often geographically dispersed and have hundreds of farmers with small plots of land, the USDA has allowed its affiliate inspectors to only physically inspect 20% of farmers' fields annually. They are now changing this requirement to 100% every year, if we at the JC co-op are interpreting their ruling correctly.

Growers have been loud and clear about the costs of organic certification. Their message is that even with only 20% of farmers being inspected, it is debatable whether many can recover their costs for added labor and certification expenses. Mulitply those costs by another 80% and you have effectively made certification unaffordable for the vast number of small growers.

FLO announced Tuesday that it is raising the "social premium" $.05 for conventional fair trade coffee, making the new minimum plus social premum $1.31 where previously it was $1.26. They also will raise the "organic differential" $.10 to make the FT/organic minimum plus differential $1.51, up from $1.41. This is a positive step that goes into effect June 1st.

However, the base mimimum price is still $1.21 for fair trade coffee. The idea with the "premium" is that it should be "extra" cash leftover after producers are paid for the value of their coffee and labor to be invested in community infrastructure. The "organic differential" is a sum paid to help cover rising costs of organic production and certification. In order for these "premiums" to work, we have to assume that growers are making money beyond the cash they need for basic survival. We have heard from farmers that this is not always the case.

The FLO standards committee will be studying this into the summer and will make a new recommedation in September. Concerned people please continue to hammer on the fact that costs all around have gone up in the past 12 years and that the mimimum base price, along with the premiums, needs to be raised. Also consider suggesting that this review be repeated often with transparency and democratic participation from diverse stakeholders. We need a producer-led democratic process in the FLO and TFUSA systems. Click here to contact FLO.

We are moving forward.

Here is another well-written article that asks good questions about where fair trade is headed...

Behind the Label

As the fair-trade movement evolves, farmers, activists and others fear that the meaning of the term will become corrupted
By Grace Hood
Cover story in the Boulder Weekly

As the fair-trade movement evolves, farmers, activists and others fear that the meaning of the term will become corrupted.

Leonardo Bravo and Luis Loja are different from most banana farmers in Ecuador. In contrast to workers on big plantations, many of whom are paid little and are exposed to dangerous pesticides, Bravo and Loja work in a small farmer cooperative that works in tandem with the fair-trade movement to ensure they receive fair prices for their goods. Fair trade is an international movement that directly supports improvements for farmers living in developing countries. Through environmental sustainability work, fair pricing and direct trade, many small farmers like Bravo and Loja are able to grow individual products like bananas, coffee or tea and compete in the global marketplace under better working conditions than they might otherwise experience.

From the United Students for Fair Trade (USFT) Coordinating Committee:

7 February 2007

Dear Fairtrade Labeling Organization Board,

United Students for Fair Trade has been disappointed by your recent decision not to raise the current fair trade price premiums for standard and organically grown coffee. The reason behind your decision was based on, "The different stakeholder groups come to very different views and thus a balanced solution is difficult to reach. Not enough common ground can be found between stakeholders to justify a decision without further research and analysis together with more time for consultation."

This is an open letter to the Fairtrade Labelling Organization (FLO) and it took ten minutes to write.

If you feel strongly about minimum price raises for coffee growers, please write FLO a quick note and let them know what you think.

I guarantee that big roasters and importers are in their ear to keep prices stagnant, so please lend your voice to show that there are other stakeholders who recognize the importance of this issue....

Hello:

I am part of a small-ish coffee roasting co-op in Madison, WI in the USA. I recently saw your announcement of putting off a price raise for growers in the coffee sector. I am deeply disappointed with your decision and, even though I agree that you should have excellent data to make a change in pricing, the best data you have already received from growers themselves.

Warning: This is an editorial, and not a happy one

The Fairtrade Labeling Organization (FLO) announced last week that they are not going to raise the Fair Trade minimum price paid to coffee growers at this time. Their rationale is suspect and it demands a strong response from activists and supporters from every corner of the Fair Trade Movement.

"After analyzing the information provided by the different stakeholders and the data currently available on production costs, FLO’s Standards Committee members have unanimously decided not to change the Fairtrade Minimum Prices and Premiums at this early stage."

At this early stage? The FT minimum price has not been adjusted in over a decade. Meanwhile growers have seen dramatic rises in overall cost of living, cost of production, costs of certifications including FT certification. All of these things combined with a high world market price have strained grower co-ops competing with local middlemen for their growers' beans and made the current "fair" pricing structure all but irrelevant. In many cases as the local "coyotes" pay close to the same price, "fair trade" minimums have ceased to have real meaning for growers as it is a price that does not meet their basic needs.

Oh my.

This is a great article that gets at the crossroads that fair trade is facing and the possible paths that it could take. The first paragraph puts to rest (again) the assertion that farmers do not care about who buys and sells their product as long as they receive a decent price.

Read on!...

Fair Enough?: Big business, Mass Markets and Fretting Farmers

Albert Tucker reports from the frontline of the battle for fair trade’s soul.

New Internationalist, November 2006, Issue 395

http://www.newint.org/features/2006/11/01/fairtrade/

On a recent trip to Latin America, I met with people from the regional network of fair trade producers. They are worried about the deals being done with transnationals. They also feel powerless to influence the criteria surrounding these big players’ participation, and fear they are being marginalized within their own system. One farmer leader told me incredulously: ‘We thought this fair trade would help us escape the practices of companies like Nestlé. How can it be that they are now a fair trade company, buying a tiny amount, while their practices on the whole remain as exploitative as ever?’