Fair trade

File:FairtradeQuinoa.jpg

Certified Fair Trade quinoa farmers in Ecuador.

Fair Trade is an organized social movement and market-based approach that aims to help producers in developing countries and promote sustainability. The movement advocates the payment of a higher price to producers as well as social and environmental standards. It focuses in particular on exports from developing countries to developed countries, most notably handicrafts, coffee, cocoa, sugar, tea, bananas, honey, cotton, wine, fresh fruit, chocolate and flowers.

Fair Trade's strategic intent is to work with marginalized producers and workers in order to help them move towards economic self-sufficiency and stability. It also aims to allow them to become greater stakeholders in their own organizations, as well as play a wider role in international trade. Fair Trade proponents include a number of international development aid, social, religious and environmental organizations such as Christian Aid, SERRV International, Oxfam, Amnesty International, Catholic Relief Services, and Caritas International.

In 2008, Fair Trade certified sales amounted to approximately US$4.08 billion (€2.9 billion) worldwide, a 22% year-to-year increase. While this represents a tiny fraction of world trade in physical merchandise, fair trade products generally account for 1-20% of all sales in their product categories in Europe and North America. In June 2008, Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International estimated that over 7.5 million producers and their families were benefiting from fair trade funded infrastructure, technical assistance and community development projects.

The response to fair trade has been mixed. Fair trade's increasing popularity has drawn criticism from both ends of the political spectrum. The Adam Smith Institute sees "fair trade" as a type of subsidy or marketing ploy that impedes growth. Segments of the left, such as French author Christian Jacquiau, criticize fair trade for not adequately challenging the current trading system.

Definition

Although no universally accepted definition of Fair Trade exists, Fair Trade labeling organizations most commonly refer to a definition developed by FINE, an informal association of four international fair trade networks (Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International, World Fair Trade Organization, Network of European Worldshops and European Fair Trade Association): Fair Trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers – especially in the South. Fair Trade Organizations, backed by consumers, are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade.

Key principles

right sorting and pulping coffee beans at a fair trade cooperative in Guatemala

Fair trade advocates typically espouse a number of guidelines. The movement intends to provide market access to otherwise marginalized producers, connecting them to customers and allowing access with fewer middlemen. It aims to provide higher wages than typically paid to producers as well as helping producers develop knowledge, skills and resources to improve their lives. Fair trade advocates also seek to raise awareness of the movement's philosophies among consumers in developed nations. Fair trade products are traded and marketed either by an "MEDC supply chain" whereby products are imported and/or distributed by fair trade organizations (commonly referred to as alternative trading organizations) or by "product certification" whereby products complying with fair trade specifications are certified indicating that they have been produced, traded, processed and packaged in accordance with the standards.

General structure of the movement

Most fair trade import organizations are members of, or certified by one of several national or international federations. These federations coordinate, promote, and facilitate the work of fair trade organizations. The following are some of the largest:

• The Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO), created in 1997, is an association of three producer networks and twenty national labeling initiatives that promote and market the Fair trade Certification Mark in their countries. The FLO labeling system is the largest and most widely recognized standard setting and certification body for labeled Fair trade. It regularly inspects and certifies producer organizations in more than 50 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
• The World Fair Trade Organization (formerly the International Fair Trade Association) is a global association created in 1989 of Fair trade producer cooperatives and associations, export marketing companies, importers, retailers, national, and regional fair trade networks and fair trade support organizations. In 2004 WFTO launched the FTO Mark which identifies registered Fair Trade Organizations (as opposed to the FLO system, which labels products).

• The Network of European Worldshops (NEWS), created in 1994, is the umbrella network of 15 national Worldshop associations in 13 different countries all over Europe.

• The European Fair Trade Association (EFTA), created in 1990, is a network of European alternative trading organizations which import products from some 400 economically disadvantaged producer groups in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. EFTA's goal is to promote fair trade and to make fair trade importing more efficient and effective. The organization also publishes yearly various publications on the evolution of the fair trade market. EFTA currently has eleven members in nine different countries.

In 1998, these four federations created together FINE, an informal association whose goal is to harmonize fair trade standards and guidelines, increase the quality and efficiency of fair trade monitoring systems, and advocate fair trade politically.

• The Fair Trade Federation (FTF), created in 1994, is an association of Canadian and American fair trade wholesalers, importers, and retailers. The organization links its members to fair trade producer groups while acting as a clearinghouse for information on fair trade and providing resources and networking opportunities to its members.

• The Fair Trade Action Network, created in 2007, is an international fair trade volunteer web-based network. The association links volunteers from a dozen of European and North American countries, actively supports Fairtrade Town initiatives and encourages grassroots networking at the international level.

Student groups have also been increasingly active in the past years promoting fair trade products. Although hundreds of independent student organizations are active worldwide, most groups in North America are either affiliated with United Students for Fair Trade (USA) or the Canadian Student Fair Trade Network (Canada).

History

Main article: History of fair trade

The first attempts to commercialize fair trade goods in Northern markets were initiated in the 1940s and 1950s by religious groups and various politically oriented non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Ten Thousand Villages, an NGO within the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) and SERRV International were the first, in 1946 and 1949 respectively, to develop fair trade supply chains in developing countries. The products, almost exclusively handicrafts ranging from jute goods to cross-stitch work, were mostly sold in churches or fairs. The goods themselves had often no other function than to indicate that a donation had been made.

Solidarity trade

Fair Trade goods sold in Worldshops

The current fair trade movement was shaped in Europe in the 1960s. Fair trade during that period was often seen as a political gesture against neo-imperialism: radical student movements began targeting multinational corporations and concerns that traditional business models were fundamentally flawed started to emerge. The slogan at the time, “Trade not Aid”, gained international recognition in 1968 when it was adopted by the UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) to put the emphasis on the establishment of fair trade relations with the developing world.

The year 1965 saw the creation of the first Alternative Trading Organization (ATO): that year, British NGO Oxfam launched "Helping-by-Selling", a program which sold imported handicrafts in Oxfam stores in the UK and from mail-order catalogues.

In 1969, the first Worldshop opened its doors in the Netherlands. The initiative aimed at bringing the principles of fair trade to the retail sector by selling almost exclusively goods produced under fair trade terms in “underdeveloped regions”. The first shop was run by volunteers and was so successful that dozens of similar shops soon went into business in the Benelux countries, Germany, and in other Western European countries.

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, important segments of the fair trade movement worked to find markets for products from countries that were excluded from the mainstream trading channels for political reasons. Thousands of volunteers sold coffee from Angola and Nicaragua in Worldshops, in the back of churches, from their homes, and from stands in public places, using the products as a vehicle to deliver their message: give disadvantaged producers in developing countries a fair chance on the world’s market, and support their self-determined sustainable development. The alternative trade movement blossomed, if not in sales, then at least in terms of dozens of ATOs being established on both sides of the Atlantic, of scores of Worldshops being set up, and of well-organized actions and campaigns attacking exploitation and foreign domination, and promoting the ideals of Nelson Mandela, Julius Nyerere, and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas: the right to independence and self-determination, to equitable access to the world’s markets and consumers.

Handicrafts vs. agricultural goods

In the early 1980s, Alternative Trading Organizations faced major challenges: the novelty of some fair trade products began to wear off, demand reached a plateau, and some handicrafts began to look “tired and old fashioned” in the marketplace. The decline of segments of the handicrafts market forced fair trade supporters to rethink their business model and their goals. Moreover, fair trade supporters during this period became increasingly worried by the impact of the fall of agricultural commodity prices on poor producers. Many then believed it was the movement's responsibility to address the issue and to find innovative remedies to react to the ongoing crisis in the industry.

In the subsequent years, fair trade agricultural commodities played an important role in the growth of many ATOs: successful on the market, they offered a much-needed, renewable source of income for producers and provided Alternative Trading Organizations a perfect complement to the handicrafts market. The first fair trade agricultural products were tea and coffee, quickly followed by dried fruits, cocoa, sugar, fruit juices, rice, spices, and nuts. While in 1992, a sales value ratio of 80% handcrafts to 20% agricultural goods was the norm, in 2002 handcrafts amounted to 25.4% of fair trade sales while commodity food lines were up at 69.4%.

Rise of labeling initiatives

Early Fairtrade Certifications Marks

Sales of fair trade products only really took off with the arrival of the first Fairtrade certification initiatives. Although buoyed by ever growing sales, fair trade had been generally contained to relatively small Worldshops scattered across Europe and to a lesser extent, North America. Some felt that these shops were too disconnected from the rhythm and the lifestyle of contemporary developed societies. The inconvenience of going to them to buy only a product or two was too high even for the most dedicated customers. The only way to increase sale opportunities was to start offering fair trade products where consumers normally shop, in large distribution channels. The problem was to find a way to expand distribution without compromising consumer trust in fair trade products and in their origins.

A solution was found in 1988, when the first Fairtrade certification initiative, Max Havelaar, was created in the Netherlands under the initiative of Nico Roozen, Frans Van Der Hoff, and Dutch development NGO Solidaridad. The independent certification allowed the goods to be sold outside the Worldshops and into the mainstream, reaching a larger consumer segment and boosting fair trade sales significantly. The labeling initiative also allowed customers and distributors alike to track the origin of the goods to confirm that the products were really benefiting the producers at the end of the supply chain.

The concept caught on: in the ensuing years, similar non-profit Fairtrade labelling organizations were set up in other European countries and North America. In 1997, a process of convergence among labelling organizations – or “LIs” (for “Labeling Initiatives”) – led to the creation of Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO). FLO is an umbrella organization whose mission is to set the Fairtrade standards, support, inspect and certify disadvantaged producers, and harmonize the Fairtrade message across the movement.

In 2002, FLO launched for the first time an International Fairtrade Certification Mark. The goals of the launch were to improve the visibility of the Mark on supermarket shelves, facilitate cross border trade, and simplify procedures for both producers and importers. At present, the certification mark is used in over 50 countries and on dozens of different products, based on FLO’s certification for coffee, tea, rice, bananas, mangoes, cocoa, cotton, sugar, honey, fruit juices, nuts, fresh fruit, quinoa, herbs and spices, wine, footballs, etc.

Fair trade today

In 2008, Fair trade certified sales amounted to approximately €2.9 billion (US $4.08 billion) worldwide, a 22% year-to-year increase. As per December 2008, 746 producer organizations in 58 developing countries were FLO-CERT Fairtrade certified.

Product certification

Main article: Fairtrade certification

Note: Customary spelling of Fairtrade is one word when referring to the FLO product labeling system

Fairtrade labelling (usually simply Fairtrade or Fair Trade Certified in the United States) is a certification system designed to allow consumers to identify goods which meet agreed standards. Overseen by a standard-setting body (FLO International) and a certification body (FLO-CERT), the system involves independent auditing of producers and traders to ensure the agreed standards are met.

For a product to carry either the International Fairtrade Certification Mark or the Fair Trade Certified Mark, it must come from FLO-CERT inspected and certified producer organizations. The crops must be grown and harvested in accordance with the international Fairtrade standards set by FLO International. The supply chain must also have been monitored by FLO-CERT, to ensure the integrity of labelled products.

Fairtrade certification purports to guarantee not only fair prices, but also the principles of ethical purchasing. These principles include adherence to ILO agreements such as those banning child and slave labour, guaranteeing a safe workplace and the right to unionise, adherence to the United Nations charter of human rights, a fair price that covers the cost of production and facilitates social development, and protection and conservation of the environment. The Fairtrade certification system also attempts to promote long-term business relationships between buyers and sellers, crop prefinancing, and greater transparency throughout the supply chain and more.

The Fairtrade certification system covers a growing range of products, including bananas, honey, coffee, oranges, cocoa, cotton, dried and fresh fruits and vegetables, juices, nuts and oil seeds, quinoa, rice, spices, sugar, tea, and wine. Companies offering products that meet the Fairtrade standards may apply for licences to use one of the Fairtrade Certification Marks for those products.

The International Fairtrade Certification Mark was launched in 2002 by FLO, and replaced twelve Marks used by various Fairtrade labelling initiatives. The new Certification Mark is currently used worldwide (with the exception of Canada and the United States). The Fair Trade Certified Mark, used in Canada and in the United States, also still identifies Fairtrade goods in both countries. Full transition to the new Mark should become reality in the future as it gradually replaces the old Certification Marks in both countries.

• International Fairtrade Certification Mark
  International Fairtrade Certification Mark
• Fair Trade Certified Mark (USA & Canada)
  Fair Trade Certified Mark (USA & Canada)
• WFTO Fair Trade Organization Mark
  WFTO Fair Trade Organization Mark

WFTO Fair Trade Organization membership

In an effort to complement the Fairtrade product certification system and allow most notably handcraft producers to also sell their products outside worldshops, the World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO) launched in 2004 a new Mark to identify fair trade organizations (as opposed to products in the case of FLO International and Fairtrade). Called the FTO Mark, it allows consumers to recognize registered Fair Trade Organizations worldwide and guarantees that standards are being implemented regarding working conditions, wages, child labour, and the environment. The FTO Mark gave for the first time all Fair Trade Organizations (including handcrafts producers) definable recognition amongst consumers, existing and new business partners, governments, and donors.

Impact studies

Main article: Fair trade impact studies

Several independent studies have recently measured the impact of fair trade on participating farmers and workers.

Brewing Justice: Fair Trade Coffee, Sustainability and Survival

Michigan State University assistant professor Daniel Jaffee conducted a four year study of the impact of fair trade on Michiza cooperative coffee producers, in Oaxaca, Mexico. Jaffee's findings, published in the 2007 book "Brewing Justice: Fair Trade Coffee, Sustainability, and Survival", provide a nuanced view of fair trade: "Fair trade's higher prices increase gross household income - although, because most fair trade coffee is also certified organic, producers have higher costs of production as well. Participation in fair trade reduces households' debt and enhances their economic options, affording them the possibility of better feeding and educating their children. Fair trade affords peasant farmers partial protection from some of the worst aspects of commodity crises and in many cases allows them the breathing room needed to engage in more sustainable agricultural practices. Furthermore, the extra capital from fair trade can generate important economic ripple effects within communities, providing additional employment even for nonparticipating families. However, fair trade is not a panacea, and it does not bring the majority of participants out of poverty. (...) Demand for fair trade products must increase dramatically in order to augment the economic benefits for such small farmer families and allow the system to include many more producers of coffee and other commodities around the world."

The Impact of Fair Trade on Producers and their Organizations: A Case Study with Coocafe in Costa Rica

In 2002, Loraine Ronchi of the Poverty Research Unit at the University of Sussex studied the impact of fair trade on the Coocafe cooperative in Costa Rica. Ronchi found that fair trade strengthened producer organizations and concluded that "in light of the coffee crisis of the early 1990s, fair trade can be said to have accomplished its goal of improving the returns to small producers and positively affecting their quality of life and the health of the organisations that represent them locally, nationally and beyond".

One Cup at a time: Poverty Alleviation and Fair Trade coffee in Latin America

In 2003, the Fair Trade Research Group at Colorado State University conducted seven case studies of Latin American Fairtrade coffee producers (UCIRI, CEPCO, Majomut, Las Colinas & El Sincuyo La Selva, Tzotzilotic and La Voz) and concluded that Fair Trade has "in a short time greatly improved the well-being of small-scale coffee farmers and their families" The various case studies most notably found that producers had under Fair Trade greater access to credit and external development funding. The studies also found that Fair Trade producers had, compared to conventional coffee producers, greater access to training and enhanced ability to improve the quality of their coffee.. Families of Fair Trade producers were also said to be more stable and children had better access to education than in families growing conventional coffee.

Étude d'impact du commerce équitable sur les organisations et familles paysannes et leurs territoires dans la filière café des Yungas de Bolivie

A case study of Bolivian coffee Fair Trade producers published by Nicolas Eberhart for French NGO Agronomes et Vétérinaires sans frontières in 2005 concluded that Fair Trade certification has had in the Yungas a positive impact on local coffee prices, thus economically benefiting all coffee producers (Fairtrade certified or not). Fair Trade was also said to have strengthened producer organizations and increased their political influence.

Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Can Fair Trade, Organic, and Specialty Coffees Reduce Small-Scale Farmer Vulnerability in Northern Nicaragua?

A comparative case study conducted with small-scale coffee farmer cooperatives selling into both conventional and certified organic / Fair Trade markets in northern Nicaragua demonstrated that sales to Fair Trade can reduce small-scale farmers' livelihood vulnerability when coffee commodity prices were low (Bacon, 2005). Changing governance structures, corporate concentration, oversupply, interchangeable commodity grade beans, and low farm gate prices characterized the crisis in conventional coffee markets. In contrast, certified Fair Trade and organic are two types of specialty coffee trade and production that are potentially useful for wider sustainable community development processes. A participatory action research team surveyed 228 farmers to measure the impact of sales to organic and Fair Trade markets. The results suggest that participation in organic and Fair Trade networks reduces farmers’ livelihood vulnerability and can contribute to bottom-up empowerment processes. However, significant challenges remain in efforts to increase positive impacts and maintain fair trade's core values as Fair Trade enters the mainstream.

Fair Trade on marginalised producers: an impact analysis on Kenyan farmers

An econometric analysis conducted by Becchetti and Costantino (2006) verified the impact of Fair Trade affiliation on monetary and non monetary measures of well-being on a sample of Kenyan farmers. The researchers compared a control sample group of farmers to Fair trade certified groups and Meru herbs farmers. Becchetti and Costantino documented the following: during the same period, Fair trade farmers were more successful in diversifying their production, experienced a significant drop in child mortality, improvements in terms of monthly household food consumption, greater satisfaction in terms of prices obtained for their crop, living conditions etc. Methodological problems such as the relative contribution of Fair Trade and Meru herbs farmers, control sample bias, Fair trade and Meru Herb selection biases are discussed and addressed showing that ex ante selection of Meru members contributes to explain some but not all the results of the study.

Assessing the Potential of Fair Trade for Poverty Reduction and Conflict Prevention: A Case Study of Bolivian Coffee Producers

In a study commissioned by the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), Sandra Imhof and Andrew Lee (2007) assessed the potential of Fair Trade to reduce poverty and prevent conflicts. Based on an interdisciplinary approach (economics, development studies and political science) and a case study in the Yungas region of Bolivia, they suggest four effects. Firstly, they found that Fair Trade, through its poverty-reducing impact, may have a positive influence on conflict prevention by contributing to a reverse of horizontal inequalities biased against indigenous people in Bolivia. Secondly, by providing competition at the level of the intermediaries, Fair Trade has the potential to reduce poverty amongst non-Fair Trade producers. Thirdly, by enabling capacity-building, Fair Trade has a poverty-reducing impact. Through regular training in relevant topics such as organic production, management and financial issues etc., producers have the opportunity to constantly acquire new skills, which in turn allow them to improve the quality of their coffee ("learning centre"). Fourthly, by having influenced trends in the non-Fair Trade market, Fair Trade may have indirectly reduced poverty. Nevertheless, both authors stress the need to test these hypotheses in different markets and conflict environments before making any policy prescriptions.

Additional Impact Studies

• Torgerson, Anna (2007) Fair Trade and Global Justice: The Case of Bananas in St. Vincent. Cultural Shifts.
• Carlo, Muriel and Timothy A. Wise (2005) Revaluing Peasant Coffee Production: Organic and Fair Trade Markets in Mexico. Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University
• Bob Doherty, Sophi Tranchell (2005), "New thinking in international trade? A case study of The Day Chocolate Company", Volume 13 Issue 3, (p 166-176). The Day Chocolate Company (a UK company) was set up in 1997 by Kuapa Kokoo, a Ghanaian cooperative set up in 1994. Today Kuapa has 45000 farmer members in 1100 villages, and provides 10% of Ghana's cocoa supply. Day Chocolate Company sales rose to over £5m in 2004. Between 1993 and 2004 Kuapa received just over $2m in extra Fairtrade premiums. Some was paid to the farmers, some went on projects such as the construction of four new schools.

Politics

European Union

Display of Fairtrade products at the Derbyshire County Council head office

In 1994, the European Commission prepared the “Memo on alternative trade” in which it declared its support for strengthening Fair Trade in the South and North and its intention to establish an EC Working Group on Fair Trade. Furthermore, the same year, the European Parliament adopted the “Resolution on promoting fairness and solidarity in North South trade” (OJ C 44, 14.2.1994), a resolution voicing its support for fair trade.

In 1996, the Economic and Social Committee adopted an “Opinion on the European “Fair Trade” marking movement”. A year later, in 1997, the document was followed by a resolution adopted by the European Parliament, calling on the Commission to support Fair Trade banana operators. The same year, the European Commission published a survey on “Attitudes of EU consumers to Fair Trade bananas”, concluding that Fair Trade bananas would be commercially viable in several EU Member States.

In 1998, the European Parliament adopted the “Resolution on Fair Trade” (OJ C 226/73, 20.07.1998), which was followed by the Commission in 1999 that adopted the “Communication from the Commission to the Council on “Fair Trade” COM(1999) 619 final, 29.11.1999.

In 2000, public institutions in Europe started purchasing Fairtrade Certified coffee and tea. Furthermore, that year, the Cotonou Agreement made specific reference to the promotion of Fair Trade in article 23 g) and in the Compendium. The European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/36/EC also suggested promoting Fair Trade.

In 2001 and 2002, several other EU papers explicitly mentioned fair trade, most notably the 2001 Green Paper on Corporate Social Responsibility and the 2002 Communication on Trade and Development.

In 2004, the European Union adopted the “Agricultural Commodity Chains, Dependence and Poverty – A proposal for an EU Action Plan”, with a specific reference to the Fair Trade movement which has “been setting the trend for a more socio-economically responsible trade.” (COM(2004)0089).

In 2005, in the European Commission communication “Policy Coherence for Development – Accelerating progress towards attaining the Millennium Development Goals”, (COM(2005) 134 final, 12.04.2005), Fair Trade is mentioned as “a tool for poverty reduction and sustainable development”.

And finally, on July 6, 2006, the European Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution on Fair Trade, recognizing the benefits achieved by the Fair Trade movement, suggesting the development of an EU-wide policy on Fair Trade, defining criteria that need to be fulfilled under Fair Trade to protect it from abuse and calling for greater support to Fair Trade (EP resolution “Fair Trade and development”, 6 July 2006). "This resolution responds to the impressive growth of Fair Trade, showing the increasing interest of European consumers in responsible purchasing," said Green MEP Frithjof Schmidt during the plenary debate. Peter Mandelson, EU Commissioner for External Trade, responded that the resolution will be well-received at the Commission. "Fair Trade makes the consumers think and therefore it is even more valuable. We need to develop a coherent policy framework and this resolution will help us."

France

In 2005, French parliament member Antoine Herth issued the report “40 proposals to sustain the development of Fair Trade”. The report was followed the same year by a law, proposing to establish a Commission to recognize Fair Trade Organisations (article 60 of law no. 2005-882, Small and Medium Enterprises, 2 August 2005).

In parallel to the legislative developments, also in 2006, the French chapter of ISO (AFNOR) adopted a reference document on Fair Trade after five years of discussion.

Italy

In 2006, Italian lawmakers started debating how to introduce a law on fair trade in Parliament. A consultation process involving a wide range of stakeholders was launched in early October. A common definition of fair trade was most notably developed. However, its adoption is still pending as the efforts were stalled by the 2008 Italian political crisis.

Netherlands

The Dutch province of Groningen was sued in 2007 by coffee supplier Douwe Egberts for explicitly requiring its coffee suppliers to meet fair trade criteria, most notably the payment of a minimum price and a development premium to producer cooperatives. Douwe Egberts, which sells a number of coffee brands under self-developed ethical criteria, believed the requirements were discriminatory. After several months of discussions and legal challenges, the province of Groningen prevailed in a well-publicized judgement. Coen de Ruiter, director of the Max Havelaar Foundation, called the victory a landmark event: "it provides governmental institutions the freedom in their purchasing policy to require suppliers to provide coffee that bears the fair trade criteria, so that a substantial and meaningful contribution is made in the fight against poverty through the daily cup of coffee".

United Kingdom

In 2007, both Scottish and Welsh governments were actively attempting to become the "world's first fair trade country". In Wales, the campaign to make Wales the world’s first Fair Trade country was launched in 2004 by the National Assembly for Wales. In June 2008 Wales became the worlds first Fair trade nation. In Scotland, then-First Minister Jack McConnell pledged that Scotland will aim to become a "Fair Trade Nation".

In June 2007, a parliamentary committee published the report Fair Trade and Development, criticising the government for "failing to adequately support fair trade despite having said it wanted to help poor countries trade their way out of poverty". The MPs, led by Malcolm Bruce, said the Department for International Development "had not kept pace with growing support for fair trade among the public and retailers".

The committee report examined several ethical trading schemes and concluded that fair trade was "gold standard in terms of trading relations with producers". It called for greater support both domestically and internationally of fair trade organisations and recommended making a senior official responsible for fair trade within the government. The report also suggested to commission research on the feasibility of a labelling scheme which will force all retailers to show how much they paid farmers and workers in the developing world for each particular product.

Common justifications

Fairtrade Certified Rice Producer in Thailand

Implicit and often explicit in fair trade is a criticism of the current organization of international trade as being unfair. Fair trade advocates argue in favor of the need for fair trade by mentioning the microeconomic market failures of the current system and the commodity crisis and its impact on developing country producers. According to Fair Trade umbrella organisations FLO International and WFTO: "Fair Trade is, fundamentally, a response to the failure of conventional trade to deliver sustainable livelihoods and development opportunities to people in the poorest countries of the world. Poverty and hardship limit people’s choices while market forces tend to further marginalise and exclude them. This makes them vulnerable to exploitation, whether as farmers and artisans in family-based production units or as hired workers within larger businesses.”

Market failures

All FINE members and fair trade federations support in theory the principles of unhindered free trade. However, as Alex Nicholls, social entrepreneurship professor at Oxford University, states, the "key conditions on which classical and neo-liberal trade theories are based are notably absent in rural agricultural societies in many developing countries." Perfect market information, perfect access to markets and credit, and the ability to switch production techniques and outputs in response to market information are fundamental assumptions which "are fallacious in the context of agricultural producers and workers in developing countries".

The example of coffee is particularly telling: "since it takes from three to four years for a coffee plant to produce significant quantities of coffee, and up to seven years before the plant reaches peak productivity, it is difficult for coffee farmers to react quickly to price fluctuations. As a result, coffee supply often increases even as market prices plummet. Further, this leads to a collective action problem, where each farmer has an incentive to increase production as price falls in order to reduce per unit cost and increase his or her margins. In aggregate, this activity creates a positive feedback loop and further depresses the world price."

Market power is also commonly mentioned as one of the most important market failures cited for agricultural markets. Consolidation and increased concentration in the food industry have been carefully documented for both the U.S. and Europe.From early days, observations on market structure downstream from agricultural production have motivated empirical and theoretical attention to the issue of market power in agriculture. In addition to market structure concerns, Sexton and Rogers argue forcefully that several typical characteristics of raw agricultural commodity markets should make the analysis of imperfect competition in these markets routine. These characteristics include the bulky and perishable nature of agricultural products, producers’ geographic immobility, and the sunk cost aspect of specialized crops . This is not to say that market power should be presumed in these markets. Rather, the point made by Sexton and Rogers is that policy for and analyses of agricultural markets must establish something about competition: In brief, that “imperfect competition matters to agricultural economists” . Notably, imperfect competition consistently figures in any discussion of the crisis facing coffee producers.

According to Oxford's University Alex Nicholls, market failures such as these clearly shows how the absence of perfect microeconomic conditions can nullify or even reverse the potential gains to producers from trade. While Nicholls agrees that the win-win situation for all actors involved may be broadly correct in some markets, nevertheless, "within developing countries market conditions are not such that producers can unambiguously be declared to be better off through trade." The existence of these market failures lessens the capacity trade has to lift developing countries out of poverty.

These conclusions were corroborated by a 2006 World Bank Policy Research Working Paper written by Loraine Ronchi, which found that "the failure of market power and low producer capacity in coffee markets in LDCs are identified as underlying causes of the low share of coffee returns faced by producers".

Fair trade is seen as an attempt to address these purported market failures by providing producers a stable price for their crop, business support, access to premium Northern markets, and better general trading conditions. According to the 2006 World Bank study, Fair Trade seems to succeed in its aims: "in these respects at least, the role of Fairtrade is effective. Its support for cooperatives in mitigating market power is found not to be misplaced in Costa Rica. Fairtrade mills also improve the returns to farmers through the improved efficiency of their organizations".

The commodity crisis

Fair trade advocates also often point out that unregulated competition in global commodity markets ever since the 1970s and 1980s has encouraged a price "race to the bottom". During the 1970-2000 period, prices for many of the main agricultural exports of developing countries, such as sugar, cotton, cocoa, and coffee, fell by 30 to 60 percent. According to the European Commission, “the abandonment of international intervention policies at the end of the 1980s and the commodity market reforms of the 1990s in the developing countries left the commodity sectors, and in particular small producers, largely to themselves in their struggle with the demands of the markets”. Today, “producers… live an unpredictable existence because the prices for a wide range of commodities are very volatile and in addition follow a declining long-term trend”. The total loss for developing countries due to falling commodity prices has been estimated by the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) to total almost $250 billion during the 1980-2002 period.

Millions of poor farmers are dependent on commodities and on the price they receive for their harvest. In about 50 developing countries, three or fewer primary commodity exports constitute the bulk of export revenue.

Many farmers, often without other means of subsistence, are obliged to produce more and more, no matter how low the prices are. Research has shown that those who suffer most from declines in commodity prices are the rural poor — i.e. the majority of people living in developing countries. Basic agriculture employs over 50% of the people in developing countries, and accounts for 33% of their GDP.

Fair trade supporters believe current market prices do not properly reflect the true costs associated with production; they believe only a well-managed stable minimum price system can cover environmental and social production costs.

Criticism

Main article: Fair trade debate

Fair trade's increasing popularity has drawn criticism from both ends of the political spectrum. Some economists and think tanks see "fair trade" as a type of subsidy that impedes growth. Segments of the left criticize fair trade for not adequately challenging the current trading system.

A study, What is Achieved with Fair Trade?, by Dr. Helena Johansson of the AgriFood Economics Centre in Sweden states, “Fairtrade can only function as a niche market – advantageous for a few but with no likelihood of helping the many poor.”...“There is a risk of corruption since the minimum price is paid to the producer organisation, which then distributes the money among the farmers.”...“Hence, the labelling initiative will never have a significant role in combating world poverty.”

Insufficiently aggressive

A 2006 Financial Times article has found that some wage workers hired by fair trade producers in Peru were making 10 soles per day ( $3 USD ) as opposed to 8 soles per day made on non fair trade farms. This higher wage was still less than the legal minimum wage of 11 soles in 4 out of the 5 farms visited.

This situation has led the Financial Times journalist to claim that Fair trade has had little effect on the decreasing percentage of final sale value ending up with the producers as only a fraction of fair trade premiums reach producers. In the 1990s for example the value of exported coffee was $11 billion and the retail value was $30 billion well in 2007 the value of exported coffee was $5.5 billion and the retail value was $70 billion.This statement is however questionable considering only 3.3 percent of coffee sold in the United States - the world's largest market for Fair Trade certified products - in 2006 was certified fair trade.

Price distortion argument

Effects of a Price Floor

Fair trade opponents such as the Adam Smith Institute claim that similar to other farm subsidies, fair trade attempts to set a price floor for a good that is in many cases above the market price and therefore encourages, as fair trade opponents claim, existing producers to produce more and new producers to enter the market, leading to excess supply. Through the laws of supply and demand, excess supply can lead to lower prices in the non-Fair Trade market.

In 2003, Cato Institute's vice president for research Brink Lindsey referred to fair trade as a “well intentioned, interventionist scheme...doomed to end in failure." Fair trade, according to Lindsey, is a misguided attempt to make up for market failures in which one flawed pricing structure is replaced with another. Lindsey's comments echo the main criticisms of Fair Trade, claiming that it "leads fair trade producers to increase production." While benefiting a number of Fair Trade producers over the short run, fair trade critics worry about the impact on long run development and economic growth. Economic theory suggests that when prices are low due to surplus production, adding a subsidy or otherwise artificially raising prices will only exacerbate the problem by encouraging more supply and also encouraging workers into unproductive activities.

Several academics, including Hayes, Becchetti, and Rosati identify two counterarguments to this criticism.

1. First, in many cases the exchange between producers and intermediaries does not occur in a competitive framework. In such case the market price is a distortion because it does not reflect the productivity of producers but their lower market power.
2. Second, the price distortion argument does not take into account the principles of product differentiation. Coffee, for example, cannot be compared to other commodities such as oil: there is not one single type of coffee but instead many different coffees that are differentiated from one another in terms of production techniques, seasonal or regional differences in quality, blending, packaging, handling, and now also "social responsibility" accounting. Consumer demand and taste define what different market prices are acceptable for each of these products. In this sense, fair trade can be considered as a market-driven innovation in the food industry that creates a new range of products for which a growing segment of consumers are willing to pay more based on environmental and social responsibility claims.