In preparing for this interview, I did a lot of research and came across some academic papers that suggested that Fairtrade isn't actually all that good for coffee farmers. In this article I raised this idea with Bill Barrett. I think he did a good job responding to those questions.
Just to put this issue into a context, it's similar to dilemmas that some people face here, such as dairy farmers and taxi drivers. Dairy farmers used to be pretty much the poorest farmers in Canada before the introduction of quotas to limit production. The problem is, however, that since the Canadian Dairy Commission introduced the supply management system farmers can't sell fluid milk without quota---and it has become very expensive to buy. (According to this Macleans article published in 2011, $25,000/cow.) And that means that anyone who doesn't already have quota will find the extra money they make from supply management is being eaten up by having to borrow money to pay for the right to sell milk.
A similar situation existed in various US cities that limited the ability of people to drive cabs based on the ownership of a certificate (the "medallion") that allowed someone to run a taxicab. The idea was---just like with dairy farmers in Canada---that if there are too many cabs competition will drive owners and drivers into desperate poverty. The problem was, however, that the medallions got more and more valuable as time went on---which meant that more and more of the money spent on cab fares ended-up being spent on buying the right to run a cab instead of going into cabbies' pockets.
Both situations were considered "political footballs" by politicians who just kicked them down the road. Supply management probably won't survive over the long haul because of the increase in free trade agreements. Similarly, ride-sharing systems like Uber and Lyft seem to be making any issue concerning taxicabs somewhat irrelevant. That's because it's hard to see how any heavily regulated industry can survive competition with another who's business model seems to be to thumb their nose at all those regulations---and who usually gets away with it because the systems are so popular with consumers.Fairtrade coffee has one big advantage over milk and taxicab rides in that the way both of those systems were designed, they already controlled all the production within the respective country or city. That meant that they couldn't deal with quota problems by expanding their share of the market. Coffee isn't in this situation because most coffee that people buy isn't Fairtrade. That means that there is potential to grow the market. And if the sales do grow, that means that the possibility exists to have the market grow so fast that it offsets the problem of too many small producers chasing too few customers.
&&&&
This is the first article where I've started using the paid Soundcloud system. It only costs $15/month, but asked for the money upfront for a whole year. That means that I had to pay out $180 yesterday to be able to put in the interview clips I used in this article. I'm not "singing the blues" here, but I just wanted to point out that this is a significant cost that comes with putting out this blog. So if you can afford it, why not subscribe? It's easy to do through Patreon and Pay Pal.
&&&&
Here's a graph that Bill gave me that shows how successful Fairtrade Canada has been in getting its coffee sold. ("MT" means "Metric Tons". One metric ton is 1,000 kilograms or a little over 2,000 lbs, or, one Imperial ton.) As you can see, sales of Canadian roasted Fairtrade coffee has increased by 77% in five years---something just about any business would be overjoyed to hear!
The final question I asked in this article had to do with share cropping.
Please note that I am using the term "share cropping" in an idiosyncratic way. Most writers referring to this modern system of distributed livestock production use the more neutral term "contract farming". In North America share cropping came about in the Southern US at the end of the Civil War as a system that allowed large landowners to force their former slaves to continue to do the hard work involved in cotton production. Freed slaves didn't have access to land because the huge plantations hadn't been broken up along the lines of General Sherman's famous "40 acres and a mule" land redistribution order. In making the distinction, other writers choose to focus on the issue of land ownership instead of the grotesque exploitation.
I think that this distinction is besides the point. The real issue is one of unequal power being brought to a contractual agreement. In the past, most wealth resided in the ownership of land. This meant that the wealthy people wielded power over the exploited through the exercise of "land power". Similarly, modern companies exert power to exploit through their control of the meat processing and distribution network---which resides in the contracts they have with large supermarkets, like Walmart. That's why I am quixotically trying to use the older term, because I think that it gives the casual reader a greater sense of the important issues involved.
Here's a YouTube video that explains all the relevant issues using the example of chicken production in the USA.
If you can believe the above, contract farming can be and often is, the kissing-cousin of slavery. That's why I think it's important to not allow bland language to cover up an ugly reality. More people know about how exploitative share cropping was, so I like to use the less pretty---but more accurate language.
That's why I was happy to hear that the groovy, Fairtrade coffee is not grown through exploitative share cropping relationships!
That's enough for this week. Remember to wear your mask, keep your distance, and, stay home. Eventually most of us will get vaccinated and then we will have a new "normal" to adapt to.
&&&&
No comments:
Post a Comment