Fairtrade is a cheerful and enthusiastic movement.
Even though the research so far has been telling us that the reality of the poverty “at the far end of this world” is very far from being so cheerful nor enthusiastic, it surely reflects quite accurately the atmosphere that is publicised by the organisations and shared by thousands of active supporters here in the rich developed nations. Its colour scheme bright, its graphic lovely, it provides guides to what we should bring (a blanket or a colourful Fairtrade cotton beach towel from Sarah Smith), what we can wear (a scarf from Bishopston) for “lazy days on the beach”. To maximise our summer day relaxation, we can even get ourselves a hammock from Handmade Hammocks. We throw ourselves on such soft and smooth cotton, we “[s]nuggle up or stretch out, this is the best way to relax – suspended from a single point [we] feel weightless” (Fairtrade Foundation press release, 2 June 2009).
The stark contrast is, behind the planning of our “lazy” summers, the farmers in India are growing the cotton (for us). Against the images of us indulging ourselves into a sensual bath infused with Lemon and Lavendar Body Oil made with Fairtrade certified Palestinian Olive Oil (London Fairtrade Guide, 2010) is the reality that Palestine is one of places in the world most deprived of water, due to harsh political reasons. Just as we were laughing and climbing into the black and white pyramid to smell the breathable Fairtrade Fruit Cloud, the backdrop is lines of posters of working producers in the poor countries, tending to the fruits that are destined to be exported to us (Installation in Big Chill Festival, Herefordshire, 6 August 2010).
Screen grab of "Breathe in Fairtrade" video, 2010: (Left) Leaving the Fruit Cloud Pyramid; (Right) Posters at the venue, with producers working on our fruits
Cream of Wheat Advert, 1901. Source: http://www.authentichistory.com/
“Treat yourselves with…” is a phrase that can be found here and there in Fairtrade’s or Fairtrade products’ materials, may it be chocolate, or infused tea or massage oil, and why not? We are helping people along the way, aren’t we? But we will not imagine (and thus such imagination has not been and cannot be visualised in our image space or included in our campaign agenda) the same producers to have the privilege of the same indulgence. Say, Palestine to be a country politically stable and water source secured enough so its population can sink themselves in a full tub of scented hot water to relax after a day of stress, or, kids from ordinary low-to-middle-class families in Africa, Southeast Asia or Latin American to have the freedom, both financially and politically, to travel around the world, to study or just to have fun.
9 Oct 2010 saw the Fairtrade Supporter Conference taking place in London. The event has attracted a decent attendance rate. The hall was almost full. Speakers of the day included Harriet Lamb, Executive Director of Fairtrade Foundation, UK politicians, FLO representatives, entrepreneur who is now running a business using Fairtrade cotton (Abi Petit, Gossypium) and a producer representative (Andrew Ethuru, Cafédirect). On the stage they reported, discussed the unfair cotton trade and gave out awards to active supporter groups. The overall atmosphere was light and cheerful, with audience, following the speakers’ jokes or the revealing of successful Fairtrade stories, broke into frequent laughters and acclamations. The event has placed a strong focus on cotton this year, with a note to a fairly new programme – Fairtrade and Fairmined Gold. It is obvious that after food, the fashion and jewellery industries are the two areas which Fairtrade, at least in the UK, is planning to expand to.
Photos of the day: (Top right) Afternoon discussion with Abi Petit, Gossypium, Damien Sanfilippo, FLO, George Alagiah, journalist, & Ian Bretman, FLO; (Bottom left) Harriet Lamb, Fairtrade Foundation UK; (Middle) Alan Duncan MP, Minister of State for International Development; (Right) Fairtrade Fortnight Awards Session
Photos of the day: (Top left to right) Slideshows demonstrating Fairtrade’s impact on women and miners; (Bottom left & middle) Images used in Fairtrade’s workshop for school teachers; (Bottom right) Market place outside the conference hall selling Fairtrade products
Sitting between the supporters and listening to the analyses of the current unjust trade system, one could find it rather easy to be carried away with the data they gave and the success they had achieved, especially when they came with an abundant reservoir of images of the helped, happy and hardworking poor.
It is understandable that one finds him/herself being easily convinced. As De Roy has mentioned in his interview, who does not know most people in Africa is poor? The same logic applies here. Who does not know the current trade system is highly unfair and devastating to most? There are over 2 billions people survive on less than US$2 a day. We keep hearing this. The analyses and discussions are indeed based on facts. The question is, what are you using these facts for? How do you see your role and the role of the poor in this movement? Do we really understand the history and structure of such unfairness – in politics, economics, languages as well as our own narrative – before we set out to make high claims? Back in late nineties when the demonstrators took to the street to demand for fair trade, the request might have been innocent and genuine enough. Yet as soon as fair trade settled down as a Western-led labelling system, more and more we see the portrayal of the poor falling back to the typical First-Third World storytelling template. The Supporter Conference this year is a good example showing how much the movement is inclining to the Western taste and how distorted the whole fair trade thinking has become.
A nationalism-filled crusade
Phrases such as “UK is leading the world”, “we are saving millions of lives” were being repeated throughout the conference. It was very unfortunate that we in UK has led the world to devastating industrialisation/exploitation, but we are now “leading the world back” to a fairer trade model and a more sustainable future, said Abi Petit. It is really difficult not to ask the question: is it really about the poor, or is it more about us? – about us being the ethically-aware shoppers, the life savers, the world’s moral model. No wonder politicians rush to Fairtrade just as corporates do. Fairtrade helps to project a country as a do-good country just as it helps a brand to position themselves as do-good brand. The movement can be used as a cause to draw a nation together just as the Mark can be used to attracts consumers. Yet as discussed in previous sections, the movement did not start in nor is it owned by UK or the West. There have always been active campaigners from poor countries, not necessarily asking for ethical shopping but a more fundamental change in trade rules or world orders. Yet their independent voices and effort, except the favourable ones, are rarely noted in the Fairtrade stories. Rather, it is about “Britons” who “overwhelmingly expect fair pay and fair treatment for workers in developing countries”. It is a “British sense of fair play” (Fairtrade Foundation Press Release, 11 May 2010).
To live up to its high claims, one would expect UK as a country to dedicate itself wholeheartedly to fight for the fairness and welfare for the developing world. Interesting enough, when I asked if Fairtrade should dedicate more of its energy to campaign for a fundamental reformation in the currently unjust trade system so that poor countries no longer need to concentrate on producing raw commodities to the rich nations, which is a dead end and which is what the Fairtrade system, intentionally or not, helps to sustain at the moment, Aurelie Walker from the Fairtrade Foundation policy team acknowledged the importance of product diversification, answered that they are already working on it. “…[B]ut beyond this,” she said, “…the issues of ownership of companies and export markets will be addressed at the FLO level as this is not just a UK question, it relates to the movement as a whole.”
But isn’t UK the proud leader of the world in this movement? At least this is a very clear message I get through a variety of Fairtrade’s speakings and publications, such as this Supporter Conference.
The immediate change in the Foundation’s attitude when it comes to claiming the credits or taking the responsibility, especially a difficult one, is intriguing.
Has Fairtrade been hijacked?
Perhaps unfavourable voices are not missing all the time. Occasionally we do hear them. Not through Fairtrade materials or product catalogue but through academics’ and journalists’ researches. Or, in occasions most unexpected to us. Andrew Ethuru, producer director from Cafédirect & Chairman of Michimikuru Premium Committee, suddenly lashed out at the labelling system’s recent active cooperation with giant corporates during his speech about impact of Fairtrade on smallholder producers. “Has Fairtrade been hijacked?” He questioned openly. It appears that the granting of the Fairtrade Mark to industry big players (such as tea and coffee transnationals) does affect the market share of Fairtrade products from much smaller sellers.
Ethuru went on to state that if consumers in the West stops buying from smaller producers, then they are hurting the poor farmers. A selling statement which I have much reservation about. When we talk about trade and specifically “fair” trade, you always have competitors and all you can do to excel is to surpass them. What Ethuru is using here is the guilt and pity of the Western consumers. We can call these his “unique selling point (USP)”. However, who are his competitors here? Transnationals of course, and under these transnationals are millions of non-Fairtrade certified tea and coffee producers. The reason why they do not join the labelling systems vary. But their conditions may just be as poor as Fairtrade producers. If consumers in the rich nations have to be made feel guilty of buying from one and not the other, does it make it less hurtful to buy from a Fairtrade coffee farmers instead of a Nestlé coffee farmers? How much pity do we need to have to rid the world from poverty? Need not mention that people from the so-called developing world also have feelings and pride. “We don’t want to be pitied”, says De Roy. Having the consumers pitied someone and then bought from the person is no fair trade since pity, however little amount, already places the two parties involved on two very uneven platforms.
Nevertheless, as Ethuru spoke out his frustrations, the hall fell into dead silence. The moment seemed to have frozen until he finally finished. His speech received a reasonable amount of claps but his challenge has not met much serious responses. The uneasiness lingered for just a short while. Very soon the cheerfulness of the conference resumed because next on the agenda was the award giving session for active participants in this year’s Fairtrade Fortnight.
A moment of irony
Such awkward moment did not just happen once during the conference. Earlier on as Harriet Lamb spoke about how Fairtrade has helped poor African women, suddenly a woman of African origin entered the hall with a tray of water. Through the dimmed lightning and the lines of heads of the audience (all tilted toward the stage to listen to Lamb’s speech) she swiftly walked up the stage, passed the whole width of the screen, stopped just behind Lamb and put down the tray of water. Then following the same route she walked her way back, again across the whole projected screen, again between lines of heads of the audience (still tilted toward the stage, toward Lamb) and quietly disappeared. She was there but it was like she had not been there at all. Our eyes seemed not to have registered her presence.
Later when the conference broke for lunch I happened to run into her again in the canteen. She was busy cleaning up after the participants had their meals, dirty paper towels, cups with juice half finished, drips of tea on the table or crumbs from the sandwiches on the floor. I asked if she was a volunteer for Fairtrade, she said no, she just worked there. She looked untouched by the heated passion of this event, just tired and indifferent to her work.
As the scene captured in the photo below suggests, reality of a segregated society/world… may not be as cheerful.
Page from The Economist, September 2010†
An unquestionable faith
There is also one more aspect of the current Fairtrade system that is highly problematic – the tendency for it to transform itself into an unquestionable faith. At the conference, Alan Duncan MP announced that “anyone who are still sceptical, anyone who sneers at Fairtrade is WRONG!”. As soon as this line is out, a round of applauses rose from the audience. The same line has then been repeated (with much emphasis) twice by other Fairtrade panellists. Let us take a look at the verb the MP has chosen to use here: “sneer”. Such choice of word actually illustrates Fairtrade’s openness to dissent.
Indeed, if fair trade as a movement can sustain debates and challenges, Fairtrade as a labelling system will face difficulty in surviving through this. Since the validity of the Mark rely very much on the system’s reputation. Once consumers start to lose trust in the Mark, the whole system can fall apart. However, trade issues, with their histories and with all the politics, profits and powers entwined with them, can be a highly complicated issues. What makes it even more complex is that we are not talking about our own lives and goals but others’ lives and goals. Whether you like it or not, the current Fairtrade organisations (as well as organic certifying and other charitable bodies) based in the West still possess strong power upon the poor. How these bodies think and subsequently what they decide to do has a direct impact on others’ lives. Whether the poor welcomes it is another issue. Thus there is a human factor in this system. Can we compromise human factor for the validity and reputation of a mark?
Ideas, movements or organisations (at least the non-profit making ones) should always open themselves to debate and criticism. Not only should they be questioned by others, they should always question themselves. Only through reflections can one catch up with the human reality and improve. Jonathan Rosenthal once remarked that Fairtrade is “so concerned with marketing and brands”, that they are “increasingly not willing to tell the truth” (quoted in Chapter 1). Perhaps, it has developed up till a stage that it is no longer about telling the truth or not. It has turned itself into “the truth”. Fairtrade campaigners can hold their “heads high with pride” because they are the ones who are “holding a torch through the boroughs to ensure everybody understands and supports Fairtrade”. Activities such as The Big Swap is calling for “everyone who believes in the ideals of Fairtrade”. Gaining a Fairtrade status (a borough, a school) is something like “basking in the glow” (all quotes here from the London Fairtrade Guide 2010). Ordinary shoppers now will (and are encouraged to) walk up to the counter of a cafe or the manager of a local supermarket to demand Fairtrade. Fairtrade is taught in schools. Fairtrade is sung as prayers.
Card from Fairtrade Foundation
As it seeks to infiltrate into our lives and our minds with no boundary, are all its doings and sayings prejudice-free and problem-free? It does not matter. Fair trade is no longer an ideas, an open proposal for an alternative. It has become a truth and all that is required from us is to believe and to follow. There is no more room for controversy. “Sneer at” was the phrase Alan Duncan MP used and cheered by the Fairtrade panelists and supporters. “Sneer at” shows how much questions are not welcomed.