Fairtrade - what you don't see...
Filed under: Author: Dan
According to myth or legend, when the Romans razed the mighty city of Carthage, the soil was strewn with salt. In this way, they ensured that agriculture would be ruined, so that never again could Carthage become a great power to challenge Rome.
Agriculture was the powerhouse of ancient economies, but even today, many countries depend heavily on their agricultural economy for their people's welfare or survival. However, there is a new kind of salt that strews the land of developing countries.
If a farmer cannot receive a fair price on their crops, then they cannot afford to feed their families, or educate their children or develop their villages. If an entire country dependent on agriculture cannot receive a fair price, then it impoverishes its people, and cripples it in efforts to combat disease, provide clean water, develop infrastructure, and start new industries.
At this point you're probably thinking this note is about the Fairtrade movement - that I'll ask you to buy Fairtrade bananas and coffee or something. Well, actually its more about the shortcomings of the Fairtrade movement - my wish is for it to be improved into something better. I'll explain what and why!
You see, wealthy (OECD) nations currently divert an enormous amount of tax dollars into their agricultural industries, which pushes the price of crops so low that it can be below how much it costs to grow in even developing countries. These subsidies make prices so low that poor nations cannot make much money off their crops, or they would even make a loss trying to sell it. It is thus understandable that developing countries have repeatedly pushed for OECD countries to eliminate their subsidies, but time and again such efforts have failed (as seen in the Doha trade talks). Developing countries would rather the chance to help themselves than ask for charity, but instead we are hindering them, and effectively throwing salt on their lands. Please don't mistake me - it is not globalisation that is intrinsically to blame here, but the currently lopsided structure of trade that has been setup between OECD and developing countries.
While it is extremely commendable that the Fairtrade Foundation transferred 80 million Euros to developing countries in 2007, it is important to put things into context. The size of OECD agricultural subsidies is approximately 280 *billion* dollars, which makes the contribution of the Fairtrade Foundation less than one twentieth of one percent (0.0003) of subsidies. Are you surprised at the disparity? I certainly am, because the Fairtrade Foundation is seen as the pre-eminent brand for combating injustices in agriculture.
When people buy Fairtrade goods they believe they are giving money to combat these injustices, and that they have been ethical by paying for someone to address these injustices for them. What I fear is that most people see their responsibility end with the purchasing of Fairtrade goods and don't stop and think about the much larger issues beyond what Fairtrade currently handles. Is it possible this enormous Fairtrade presence in our minds is currently crowding out awareness of issues and coming at the expense of more effective action? It doesn't need to be this way.
The Fairtrade movement has a truly impressive grass-roots following and its UK executive director Harriet Lamb described at a recent talk how it is the most recognisable and powerful ethical brand as seen by consumer surveys. When consumers buy Fairtrade, they expect and believe that the Fair Trade movement is taking their money and using it to truly combat poverty. The transformation the Fair Trade movement has made to the families and villages of supported farmers is truly impressive and inspiring. But the real question is not whether good deeds are being done, but whether even greater deeds can be done with their resources.
I believe it is high time that the Fairtrade Foundation truly embrace the hopes of developing countries, the underlying expectations of consumers, and the real dreams of its grassroot base by directly lobbying and pressuring governments in Europe and the US to end agricultural subsidies. As both a respected business-oriented foundation and with an impressive grassroots following, I believe that the Fairtrade Foundation is in a truly unique position to do so. Indeed, I believe they have a *responsibility* to their consumers, their supporters, and the farmers they support, to truly act on the behalf of ethically concerned consumers and weigh in as a counterbalance against the powerful pro-subsidy agricultural lobbyists.
I don't think I am alone in wanting the Fairtrade movement to truly achieve its noble aims. I want it to put its money where its mouth is and fight against the poisonous salt of OECD agricultural subsidies. It has the credibility, support and financial resources to have a real chance of swaying politicians into action - and the annual monetary benefit to developing countries would be worth thousands of times what it has achieved so far. Surely that is a prize worth fighting for?
Agriculture was the powerhouse of ancient economies, but even today, many countries depend heavily on their agricultural economy for their people's welfare or survival. However, there is a new kind of salt that strews the land of developing countries.
If a farmer cannot receive a fair price on their crops, then they cannot afford to feed their families, or educate their children or develop their villages. If an entire country dependent on agriculture cannot receive a fair price, then it impoverishes its people, and cripples it in efforts to combat disease, provide clean water, develop infrastructure, and start new industries.
At this point you're probably thinking this note is about the Fairtrade movement - that I'll ask you to buy Fairtrade bananas and coffee or something. Well, actually its more about the shortcomings of the Fairtrade movement - my wish is for it to be improved into something better. I'll explain what and why!
You see, wealthy (OECD) nations currently divert an enormous amount of tax dollars into their agricultural industries, which pushes the price of crops so low that it can be below how much it costs to grow in even developing countries. These subsidies make prices so low that poor nations cannot make much money off their crops, or they would even make a loss trying to sell it. It is thus understandable that developing countries have repeatedly pushed for OECD countries to eliminate their subsidies, but time and again such efforts have failed (as seen in the Doha trade talks). Developing countries would rather the chance to help themselves than ask for charity, but instead we are hindering them, and effectively throwing salt on their lands. Please don't mistake me - it is not globalisation that is intrinsically to blame here, but the currently lopsided structure of trade that has been setup between OECD and developing countries.
While it is extremely commendable that the Fairtrade Foundation transferred 80 million Euros to developing countries in 2007, it is important to put things into context. The size of OECD agricultural subsidies is approximately 280 *billion* dollars, which makes the contribution of the Fairtrade Foundation less than one twentieth of one percent (0.0003) of subsidies. Are you surprised at the disparity? I certainly am, because the Fairtrade Foundation is seen as the pre-eminent brand for combating injustices in agriculture.
When people buy Fairtrade goods they believe they are giving money to combat these injustices, and that they have been ethical by paying for someone to address these injustices for them. What I fear is that most people see their responsibility end with the purchasing of Fairtrade goods and don't stop and think about the much larger issues beyond what Fairtrade currently handles. Is it possible this enormous Fairtrade presence in our minds is currently crowding out awareness of issues and coming at the expense of more effective action? It doesn't need to be this way.
The Fairtrade movement has a truly impressive grass-roots following and its UK executive director Harriet Lamb described at a recent talk how it is the most recognisable and powerful ethical brand as seen by consumer surveys. When consumers buy Fairtrade, they expect and believe that the Fair Trade movement is taking their money and using it to truly combat poverty. The transformation the Fair Trade movement has made to the families and villages of supported farmers is truly impressive and inspiring. But the real question is not whether good deeds are being done, but whether even greater deeds can be done with their resources.
I believe it is high time that the Fairtrade Foundation truly embrace the hopes of developing countries, the underlying expectations of consumers, and the real dreams of its grassroot base by directly lobbying and pressuring governments in Europe and the US to end agricultural subsidies. As both a respected business-oriented foundation and with an impressive grassroots following, I believe that the Fairtrade Foundation is in a truly unique position to do so. Indeed, I believe they have a *responsibility* to their consumers, their supporters, and the farmers they support, to truly act on the behalf of ethically concerned consumers and weigh in as a counterbalance against the powerful pro-subsidy agricultural lobbyists.
I don't think I am alone in wanting the Fairtrade movement to truly achieve its noble aims. I want it to put its money where its mouth is and fight against the poisonous salt of OECD agricultural subsidies. It has the credibility, support and financial resources to have a real chance of swaying politicians into action - and the annual monetary benefit to developing countries would be worth thousands of times what it has achieved so far. Surely that is a prize worth fighting for?
