indi leis a...mar 01, 2008 · conducive environment for its further development. leisa is a...

1L E I S A I N D I A • M A R C H 2 0 0 8

INDILEIS

Mar

ch 2

008

vo

lum

e 1

0n

o.1

Magazine on Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture A

L E I S A I N D I A • M A R C H 2 0 0 82

March 2008 Volume 10 no. 1

INDIALEIS

LEISA India is published quarterly by AMEFoundation in collaboration with ILEIA

Address : AME FoundationNo. 204, 100 Feet Ring Road,3rd Phase, Banashankari 2nd Block, 3rd Stage,Bangalore - 560 085, IndiaTel: +91-080- 2669 9512, +91-080- 2669 9522Fax: +91-080- 2669 9410E-mail: [email protected]

LEISA India

Managing Editor : K.V.S. PrasadEditor : T.M. Radha

EDITORIAL TEAM

This issue has been compiled by T.M. Radha,K.V.S. Prasad and Arun Balamatti

ADMINISTRATION

M. Shobha Maiya and Veena Markande

SUBSCRIPTIONS

Contact: M. Shobha Maiya

DESIGN AND LAYOUT

S Jayaraj, Chennai

PRINTING

Nagaraj & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

COVER PHOTO

Selling produce in the local market.

Photo: S Jayaraj for AME Foundation

Different editions

LEISA MagazineThe Global edition in English

LEISA Revista de AgroecologiaThe Latin American edition in Spanish

LEISA IndiaThe Indian edition in English

SALAM Majalah Pertanian BerkelanjutanThe Indonesian edition in Indonesian

AGRIDAPEThe West African edition in French

Agriculturas, Experiencias em AgroecologiaThe Brazilian edition in Portuguese

LEISA CHINAThe Chinese edition

The editors have taken every care to ensurethat the contents of this magazine are asaccurate as possible. The authors haveultimate responsibility, however, for thecontent of individual articles.

The editors encourage readers to photocopyand circulate magazine articles.

This issue focuses on a theme which is increasingly becoming important – Towardsfairer trade. It showcases experiences – diverse and innovative – how farmingcommunities, in partnerships, are looking at local as well as global markets as anadditional opportunity. There are certain issues too, for instance, benefit sharing andcomplex certification mechanisms. However, we have also included examples ofmore participatory, ‘belief-centric’ certification mechanisms. Hope you find theseexperiences interesting and emulatable in some contexts.

The first ever face to face interaction of LEISA readers and contributors is evokingfavourable responses from those who were part of it and those who read theproceedings. If you are interested, you may look at it on our web site(http://india.leisa.info). We are hoping to conduct more such events with thecooperation of our readers, contributors and partners. Also, we have launched a newtraining programme on Knowledge Management in Civil Societies (KMCS).The first- training was conducted in Bangalore. Participants from prominent civilsociety organisations participated in the learning event and found it useful.

Looking forward to your cooperation and continued support in strengthening themovement of LEISA Practice.

The Editors

Dear Readers

LEISA is about Low-External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture. It is about the

technical and social options open to farmers who seek to improve productivity and

income in an ecologically sound way. LEISA is about the optimal use of local

resources and natural processes and, if necessary, the safe and efficient use of

external inputs. It is about the empowerment of male and female farmers and the

communities who seek to build their future on the bases of their own knowledge,

skills, values, culture and institutions. LEISA is also about participatory

methodologies to strengthen the capacity of farmers and other actors, to improve

agriculture and adapt it to changing needs and conditions. LEISA seeks to combine

indigenous and scientific knowledge and to influence policy formulation to create a

conducive environment for its further development. LEISA is a concept, an approach

and a political message.

Board of Trustees

Dr. R. Dwarakinath, Chairman

Mr. Aloysius Prakash Fernandez, Member

Dr. Vithal Rajan, Member

Mr. S.L. Srinivas, Treasurer

ILEIA is the Centre for Information on Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture.ILEIA seeks to promote the adoption of LEISA through the LEISA magazines and otherpublications. It also maintains a specialised information data base and an informative andinteractive website on LEISA (www.leisa.info). The website provides access to many othersources of information on the development of sustainable agriculture.

AME Foundation promotes sustainable livelihoods through combiningindigenous knowledge and innovative technologies for Low-External-Inputnatural resource management. Towards this objective, AME Foundation workswith small and marginal farmers in the Deccan Plateau region by generatingfarming alternatives, enriching the knowledge base, training, linkingdevelopment agencies and sharing experience.

AMEF is working closely with interested groups of farmers in clusters of villages,to enable them to generate and adopt alternative farming practices. Theselocations with enhanced visibility are utilised as learning situations forpractitioners and promoters of eco-farming systems, which includes NGOs andNGO networks. www.amefound.org

Dr. M. Mahadevappa, Member

Dr. N.C.B. Nath, Member

Dr. K. Shivashankar, Member

Dr. C. Ramasamy, Member

Dr. P.G. Chengappa, Member

‘Pure & Fair’: Organic and Fair Trade supportssustainable livelihoodsAlistair Leadbetter, Heather Parr and Maveen Pereira

6


Deteriorating soil quality, falling yields and prices and access to only a single point ofsale made Kutch farmers highly vulnerable. Agrocel, a company providing pro-poor

agricultural services, supported these farmersto move to organic cultivation, initially oncotton and later on to rotational crops tocotton, while at the same time exploring fairtrade markets. By providing a choice of lowcost services to increase yield withoutnegative environmental impact, and alsooffering alternative markets with fairer pricesfor produce, they could see an economicallyviable model emerging for sustainablelivelihoods for the small farmers.


CONTENTSVol. 10 no. 1, March 2008

Including Selections from International Edition

4 Editorial

6 ‘Pure & Fair’: Organic and Fair Trade supportssustainable livelihoods

Alistair Leadbetter, Heather Parr and Maveen Pereira

10 Agroecological cotton and fair trade make thedifference

Pedro Jorge B.F. Lima

12 Meeting the challenges of exporting mangoes fromBurkina Faso

Hans-Willem van der Waal

13 Themes for LEISA India

14 Improved shea butter trading through certification

Cindy D’Auteuil

16 Fair to the last drop: Corporate challenges toFairtrade

Eric Holt-Giménez, Ian Bailey and Devon Sampson

19 Markets, trading and Fair trade

NCB Nath

20 Growing a local organic movement:The Mexican Network of Organic Markets

Erin Nelson, Rita Schwentesius Rindermann,Laura Gómez Tovar and Manuel Ángel Gómez Cruz

22 Participatory Guarantee Systems offer alternativecertification

Tegan Renner

23 Eco foot prints – using people’s participation as a wayforward

Mathew John and Kunal Sharma

25 Organic bazaars – linking small producers withurban consumers

B N Vishwanath

26 Reaping benefits through Public-Private Partnership

Yogesh Sawant and Meghraj Sapate

27 Community Supported Agriculture: An alternativelocal food system

Petra van de Kop, Klaas Nijhof, Henk Kloen andArnoud Braun

30 The Narayana Reddy ColumnLinking growers and consumers

31 Sources

33 Networking

34 Books

35 Direct trade that benefits poor communities in Indiaand the U.K.

Mari Marcel Thekaekara

Growing a local organicmovement: The Mexican Networkof Organic MarketsErin Nelson, Rita Schwentesius Rindermann, LauraGómez Tovar and Manuel Ángel Gómez Cruz

Although 85 percent of all organic goods produced in Mexicoare sent abroad, the interest in organic products within thecountry has grown considerably. Many Mexican grocery storesnow carry organic goods, and many organic speciality shops andcafés have opened. Recently, a number of local organic marketshave emerged which, since 2004, have joined together to formthe Mexican Network of Organic Markets. All these marketsface different challenges, such as securing the necessaryphysical and human resources required in order to function. TheNetwork is developing various training and educationprogrammes for both consumers and producers, and all marketsare actively searching for new products to expand the supplyand to satisfy demand. One of the major difficulties relates tothe process and costs of official organic certification. Inresponse to this, the Network has established a ParticipatoryGuarantee System, which is a local alternative standard-settingbody that minimises bureaucratic procedures and reduces costs.

20

23

Eco Foot Prints – using people’sparticipation as a way forwardMathew John and Kunal Sharma

Promoting traditional agriculture and creating a local market forcrops grown in the Nilgiris are the prime objectives ofKeystone’s local marketing effort. The emphasis on fair tradeand organic produce has been through the concept of localmarketing. Keystone through its ‘Green Shops’ works withsmall indigenous farmers and gatherers while providing themassistance in value adding organic produce and ensuringconservation of biodiversity.

Direct trade that benefits poorcommunities in India and UKMari Marcel Thankeakara

This article describes an experience of an organization “JustChange” which worked for the upliftment of the adivasis in theNilgiri mountains in Tamil Nadu. With its support, the adivasicommunity became a proud owner of a tea estate of about 100acres. Trading within communities in India and betweencommunities in India and UK was facilitated to bring about asense of solidarity and working together for a cause.

35


Towards fairer tradeEditorial

Markets have been a part of human organization fromtime immemorial. Goods have been bought and soldfor barter, cash and credit giving varying degrees of

satisfaction and concern to many who participated in the processof exchange (Nath, p.19). Farmers too have been involved in thisrapid transition from barter economies to globalised economies.To make a decent living, farmer is not only facing production butmarketing challenges too. For the ‘elite’ segment of the farmingcommunities endowed with resources as well as information, itis an opportunity, whereas for small holders it is a big challenge.They need to be better managers of not only their farm resourcesbut also the market opportunities as well.

There is a concern in international discussions too that the small-scale farm sector needs to be profitable to spearhead povertyreduction. Targeting market and trade policies to enhance theability of agricultural and Agricultural Knowledge Science andTechnology (AKST) systems to drive development, strengthenfood security, maximize environmental sustainability, and helpmake the small-scale farm sector profitable to spearhead povertyreduction is an immediate challenge around the world (IAASTDReport 2007-08).

Looking at the ground level, besides several others, the primaryconstraints seem to be lack of resources and access toinformation, i.e., asymmetry of information and lack of ability toexercise staying power to avail better opportunities, i.e.,asymmetry of staying power (Nath, p.19).

Therefore, in terms of trade opportunities, for achievingdevelopment goals, a fairer trading system, alternativeinstitutional arrangements for equitable sharing of benefits,opportunities to explore diverse markets, simpler systems forrecognizing and marketing quality produce are some of theemerging approaches and practices.

The articles in this issue of the LEISA Magazine were chosen toshow current practical experiences with fair and green trade,reflecting the variety of initiatives that have taken shape in recentyears. These include efforts to influence mainstream globaltrading chains as well as efforts to set up alternative models ofpartnerships and relationships. Also, included are articlesdiscussing issues, dilemmas with regard to scale; the articlesdealing with diverse markets and quality control systems fororganic produce which are participatory.

The growth of fair and green trade

From the beginning, the fair trade movement grew to become atrading partnership that promotes standards that seeks greaterequity and transparency in international trade. In practice, fairtrade certification means that producers can sell their products atpre-defined and guaranteed prices, while receiving an additionalpremium over and above this price. This premium is paid to thegroup of producers and can be used for community developmentpurposes. Additionally, a pre-finance mechanism makesimporters responsible for timely payments to producers fordeliveries.

Since the mid 1980s, fair trade has grown significantly. Fairlytraded products are no longer only sold in special shops but theyhave reached supermarket shelves as well. In the same period,

the market for organic products has also steadily grown. Thoughthe demand for organically branded products was initially greaterin industrialised countries, today, we see many local and regionalorganic marketing initiatives all over the world.

In 1997, the Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International(FLO) was established for worldwide standard setting andcertification purposes. In December 2007, FLO certificationcovered 632 certified producer organisations in 58 developingcountries, representing more than 1.4 million producers. Globalsales of Fairtrade labelled goods reached approximately 1.6billion Euros in 2006. In addition, the global market for certifiedorganic products reached 38.6 billion Euros in 2006.

Inspiring examples

The question of fairness within the fair trading system relatesdirectly to the rules behind the game as well as to the conditionsaround them. There are many examples of how farmers’livelihoods have improved through global fair and organic tradepossibilities. For instance, with Agrocel’s support, the Kutchfarmers’ real income had increased by 15% with hugeimprovements in soil quality and yield, besides perceivedreduction in health problems for farmers, their families and theworkers. Farmers also started moving to organic ways ofcultivation (Leadbetter, Parr and Pereira, p.6). Similarly, cottonfarmers in Brazil not only receive better prices through fair tradeagreements but are also aware where their cotton produce goes,thus bringing out a qualitative change in the relationship betweena producer and a buyer (Pedro Jorge, p.10).

While fair trade provides access to producers to internationalmarkets, the certification process and the associated audits canbe fairly cumbersome and expensive. It can reduce the resourcesavailable for producers to develop production capacity andcredible brands. Certification also requires a significantinvestment in time and effort to achieve and maintain thestandards required. Farmers and workers must meet manyrequirements to be eligible for FLO’s Fairtrade certification, andthere are several instances of situations where requirements areimposed that do not take local realities into account.Requirements may lead to exclusion of specific categories ofproducers or other stakeholders from the social or economicbenefits of fair trade. For example, Hans (p.12) describes howmango harvesters and packing house workers in Burkina Fasoare not entitled to the Fairtrade premium.

Fairtrade standards require organisations to move toward valuesof democracy, gender equality and transparency. In preparationtowards this end, a lot of motivation and capacity building isinvolved to help farmers come together.

Challenges and dilemmas

However, there are serious dilemmas too, for instance, the issueof “mainstreaming” of organic and fair trade. In particular, EricHolt-Gimenéz et al.(p.16), provides a critique of the increasingcorporatisation of fair trade. Fairtrade’s mainstreaming debatereflects growing disagreements on the fairness, developmentclaims, and the future of Fairtrade. These differences are rootedin tensions between market-based and movement-based

Clarification of terms

For clarity, throughout this issue we use the term “Fairtrade”when referring only to FLO certification. In all other cases, weuse the words “fair trade” when discussing the concept andpractices in more general terms.


strategies for social change. To make good on its developmentclaims, rather than mainstreaming, Fairtrade needs to intensifyits work with peasant movements to roll back corporateglobalisation and re-establish the social institutions and ruralpolicies needed for productive, healthy agriculture.

To ensure the politically committed participation of farmers inFairtrade, they must not only be “stakeholders” in development,but “shareholders” in the business. As farmers’ power growswithin Fairtrade, and as the movement links strategically withpeasant and consumer movements for social change, Fairtradewill be well positioned to make good on its development claims.(Eric Holt Gimenez, p.16)

There may be hidden forms of discrimination – how far arewomen, for example, actively filling decision making positionsin farmers’ organisations? Who takes the decisions on theallocation of the fair trade premium? FLO rules aim to safeguardthe participation of “small farmers” by stating that the majorityof members in organisations must be small farmers. However,the dilemma is, does small mean farm size or family income?Should they remain small forever to be eligible?

Value chains

The focus on supply chains provides significant insight into thevalue chains to which producers belong. In produce marketswhere prices fluctuate almost hourly, each link in the chain eithershorter or longer, trades its position, making losses or profitsaffecting final price in unpredictable ways. Fair traders operatingin these markets need to be conscious of this (Nath, p.19).

An analysis of the value chain can frequently identifyinefficiencies which add costs but little value to the product. Byconsidering their position in the value chain, organisations canseek to remove inefficiencies, seek to have more control on theprocessing stages by value addition, and pull back more returnsto the producers. Such Alternative Trading organisations share anumber of characteristics that differentiate them from the muchlarger, corporate Fair Trade players. These characteristics includetransparency, long term commitment and localising the value(Eric Holt Gimenez, p.16)

There is a market phenomenon which we need to understand inthe commodity markets. Longer chain does not always mean ahigher cost/price (Nath, p.19). Experiences of Agrocel andBurkino Faso illustrate how the challenges were tackled andinnovations introduced while dealing with export markets whichwere long supply chains. Also, required are inclusive, differenttype of institutional models with value systems which can helpovercome these limitations.

Minimising the links in the chain - getting the producers to selldirectly to consumers, has been another innovative strategy,helpful to both producers as well as consumers. This is based ondirect, long-term and transparent relationships betweenproducers and consumers. This is illustrated in diverse examplesranging from trading between communities, both local anddistant (Mari Marcel Thankeakara, p.35), through exclusivemarketing outlets like Green Shops (Mathew John and KunalSharma, p.23) and marketing through organic bazaars based on‘belief certification systems’ (Vishwanath, p.25). This leads tothe next interesting issue of certification systems.

Participatory Guarantee schemes

The Fairtrade certification system though ensures severalopportunities is considered a bit costly and cumbersome(Leadbetter, Parr and Pereira, p.6). For many small organisations,

the costs of certification according to international standards areprohibitive. International certification involves third partycertification, which is costly, requires trained manpower and alsosupport of NGOs or public agencies.

However, affordable, less cumbersome alternatives are emerging.Participatory Guarantee Systems for organic farmers is oneexample. Eric Nelson et al., (p.20) explain this system in detailin the case of Mexican organic farmers, while Renner (p. 22)gives a broader overview of these systems which have by nowbeen recognised by IFOAM as alternative systems of organiccertification.

With many types of certification possible, it can be difficult fora producer organisation to obtain and manage the requirementsof the different certification programmes (and associatedmarkets) it may want to participate in (Cindy de Auteuil, p.14).

New partnerships

More and more local food systems are springing up around theworld, where a greater number of more environmentally andsocially conscious, often urban-based middle or upper classconsumers are seeking greater control over their food. (EricNelson et al., p.20 and Vishwanath, p.25). In Europe and NorthAmerica, the concept of Community Supported Agriculture isbecoming more widespread. This is an alternative farmer-consumer relationship, in which a group of consumers becomemembers of an organic farm. (Petra van de cop et al., p.27).Public private partnership is yet another example (Sawant andSapate, p.26).

Opportunities, limitations and new dilemmas

Green and fair trade provides opportunities for farmers to reachconsumers who are willing to pay a better price for their goods,in spite of the fact that the process can be long and complicated.For LEISA and organic farmers, global fair trade markets areoffering an exciting economic opportunity while the local andregional markets are growing slowly. However, success andsustainability in such a competitive and complex trade relatedinitiative calls for alternative trade partnerships dealing withscale and standards, while being transparent and equitable. Mostimportantly, in developing countries, for the majority of thefarming communities caught up in fragile eco systems, it is a bigchallenge as well as an opportunity, but which requires enhancedmanagerial abilities to deal with resource management,production and marketing aspects.

While the fair and green international trade is striving to get“mainstreamed”, consumer awareness is increasing on issueslike ‘food miles’ (how far does food travel from farm to plate)and ‘carbon foot prints’ (the amount of greenhouse gasesproduced in an activity as a measure of our impact on theenvironment) are gaining attention. With increasing concern overincreased consumption of fossil fuels, arguments are gettingstronger for consuming locally produced foods. This may affectthose thriving on export market opportunities.

If fair trade has to become the way all trade operates, they needto acquire a critical minimum size and support of many playersin the market. The excitement of creating a more ethical businessmode is exciting but making it a default practice is enduring.(Nath, p.19).

�


‘Pure & Fair’: Organic and Fair Tradesupports sustainable livelihoods


The 20th Century saw the rise of the organic consumermovement in the North. Increasing numbers of consumerswant to avoid artificial compounds such as those involved

in the production of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers whichhad a negative and wider impact on the eco-system than waspredicted and was also detrimental to the health.

Ethical trade is growing dramatically. FLO (Fairtrade LabellingOrganisation) reports that sales of Fairtrade certified goodsincreased by 41% between 2005 and 2006 and state that demandfor fairly traded cotton has more than doubled. In 2005, researchsuggested that the market for organic certified food had reached£1.2 billion per year in the UK alone. Ethical trade offers a greatopportunity for producers to access new markets and tosubstantially increase income, with the added value of ethics andfair play.

Initially fair trade and organic products were sold to nichemarkets from specialist stores offering consumers the guaranteethat the products were ethically sourced. However, it wasrecognised that if the ethical trade movement in the North was tohave a significant impact on the livelihoods of producers in theSouth, the goods would have to be retailed through mainstreamoutlets such as supermarkets and department stores, but must beidentified as ethically sourced products through the use of acommon brand. This led to a variety of certification schemes.

Agrocel is a company providing pro-poor agricultural services frompre-tilling to post harvest management to over 20,000 farmers inIndia. The first service centres were established in Kutch Gujarat, butAgrocel now has over 20 service centres across India. They aim to bea strong support company specialising in ethical and fair trade.

When Agrocel started work in Kutch, many cotton farmers in thedistrict had experienced falling yields and increasingly saline soilsdue to the continued use of chemical inputs. These fertilisers andpesticides were also having a detrimental impact on the health offarmers and workers. Falling cotton prices and access to only asingle point of sale added to the vulnerability of farmerseconomically. This resulted in young people wanting to give upagriculture as an enterprise and migrate to cities in search of betterwork.

Agrocel saw the potential for organic cotton in the market. Byproviding a choice of low cost services to increase yield withoutnegative environmental impact, and also offering alternativemarkets with fairer prices for crops, they could see an economicallyviable model for sustainable business service provision. Key toestablishing confidence in the client base was that farmers wouldbe free to sell wherever they wanted.

Agrocel & Vericott, (a partner of Agrocel in the UK) sought out thesupport of Traidcraft Exchange to help them develop and realise thisopportunity, and together they worked towards scaling up theactivities with the use of external funding through the ShellFoundation, UK. This project involved supporting farmers to moveto organic cultivation (initially on cotton & later on rotational cropsto cotton), while at the same time exploring fair trade markets. Fairtrade, besides its strong value base and positive tradingrelationships within the supply chain, also supports better pricesduring the conversion period – which can be up to 3 years. Phase 1of the project worked with a target of 500 farmers in Gujarat,though ended up with over 600 farmers certified organic.

At the end of Phase 1, farmers’ real income had increased by 15%with huge improvements in soil quality and yield, besides perceivedreduction in health problems for farmers, their families and theworkers. Increasing numbers of farmers have started the conversionto organic year on year. This was supported by Vericott developinga huge market interest in the Agrocel ‘Pure & Fair’ fibre acrossEurope. By the end of phase 2, there are 3847 certified farmers,where the target was 1500.

When Agrocel initiated its work on cotton there were nointernational standards for fair trade cotton, and therefore haddeveloped Indian Fair Trade standards. With growing demand fromthe international market for both, organic & fair trade cotton,accreditation to an international organic certification scheme wasnecessary to gain access to export organic markets and premiumprices. Long term profit from cotton sales would enable Agrocel toabsorb future certification costs, while still passing on the benefit tofarmers.

However an injection of capital was necessary to help cover startup costs. The Shell Foundation 50% grant enabled Agrocel to seekthe advice of specialist international consultants and to fund initialcertification costs. The consultant provided key recommendationsregards to facilitate manageable recording systems. Certificationservices are provided by SKAL (Dutch agency). Agrocel staff hasnow been trained to ensure documentation and monitoring forcrops reducing costs considerably.

Certification increased visibility of the Agrocel fibre in the marketand had a positive impact on sales. Agrocel now exports certifiedorganic cotton, rice, sesame, groundnuts, and mustard.

What is Fair Trade?

In the last 30 years, fair trade has added clear value to enhancingtrading opportunities for small farmers and producers. The fairtrade certification scheme that is widely being used particularlyfor food products is that which is supported by the FairtradeLabelling Organisation (FLO) (www.fairtrade.net). Fair trade is away of trading which seeks to empower producers who aredisadvantaged by the structures of conventional trade. It doesthis by adhering to certain principles and standards of behaviourin trading relationships and also by campaigning to challengemainstream trade structures. Fair trade seeks to reduce povertyby trading specifically with poor and disadvantaged producersand micro to small enterprises (MSEs). Fairtrade certificationpromises not only fair prices, but also guarantees the principlesof ethical purchasing. These principles include compliance withInternational Labour Organisation (ILO) agreements such asthose banning child and slave labour, guaranteeing safeworkplaces, the right to unionize, adherence to the UnitedNations charter of human rights, a fair price that covers the costof production and facilitates social development, and protectionand conservation of the environment. The Fairtrade certificationsystem also promotes long-term business relationships betweenbuyers and sellers and greater transparency throughout thesupply chain.


While fair trade provides access to producers to internationalmarkets, the certification process can be fairly cumbersome andexpensive. For instance, the cost of getting certification fromFLO for a small producer will cost a minimum of 1,400 Euros.The cost increases depending on the level of processingundertaken, the size of the organisation (based on the number ofcooperative members and workers involved). Certification alsorequires a significant investment in time and effort to achieveand maintain the standards required though FLO does providesupport through their liaison officers. The organisations along thefair trade supply chains who market their products as being fairtrade certified must also pay a license fee to the FairtradeLabelling Organisation.

The focus on supply chains provides significant insight into thevalue chains to which producers belong. An analysis of the valuechain can frequently identify inefficiencies which add costs butlittle value to the product. By considering their position in thevalue chain, organisations can seek to remove inefficiencies,seek to have more control on the processing stages by valueaddition, and pull back more returns to the producers. Traidcraftaims to support small producers towards this end.

Compliance with Standards:

Fair trade offers microenterprises a great opportunity toparticipate in beneficial and equitable trading relationships.However producers need some support and guidance toparticipate effectively in the fair trade market.

Our experience of working with MSEs has indicated that theunderstanding of the concept of fair trade is restricted at the levelof farmers and producers, limited to the ‘difference’ in thetrading relationship with a particular intermediary organisation incomparison to others. It can therefore be difficult to getcommitment from microenterprises to make the changesnecessary to comply with fair trade standards. In the last year,the risks of producers not adhering to fair trade standards hasthrown up risks to fair trade companies in Europe throughnegative media coverage. This we realised was either thatmicroenterprises are not fully informed about the supply chains,and/or they do not have enough resources to make the changehappen. Traidcraft has therefore begun a process to reduce theseanomalies in the movement through a process of supportingplayers in the supply chain understand their roles andresponsibilities and further commit to a partnership that supportsand invests in change for mutual benefit.

Agrocel were able to sell fairly traded cotton and other products toa few retailers and fair trade companies who were prepared tovouch for good practice through their own standards. However, itneeded certification in order to reach the mainstream market.However, cotton standards had not yet been developed by FLO.

Agrocel, Vericott and Traidcraft used their experience with fair tradeto engage major players in the UK fair trade movement to supportthe development of Cotton Standards. Consumer demand and thekeen interest of major UK high street retailers who were eager tobuy from fair trade sources led to the Fairtrade LabellingOrganisation (FLO) prioritising Indian cotton. Agrocel was the firstcertified supplier of Fairtrade Cotton to the UK.

The additional value that FLO certification brings with is a fairtrade premium. The premium is an amount that is sent directly tothe Producer Organisation, to be invested in the development ofproducer organisations, their members and their communities.Each producer organisation sets up a premium committee whoserole is to decide how the premiums could be spent. Examples ofuse include educational facilities, clean water, health clinics ordevelopment of environmental protection schemes.

Fairtrade standards require organisations to move toward valuesof democracy, gender equality and transparency. In preparationtowards this end, a lot of motivation and capacity building isinvolved to help farmers come together. However, fair trademakes a business case for such values, and often access to newmarket serves as an initial incentive for change, which thenbecomes a part of the functioning of the organisation.

Traidcraft and its partners have worked with Agrocel onunderstanding their products and the markets, seek feedback frombuyers, and support business development to meet the demands ofthe market. This included in-house training, participation in tradefairs, and direct market linkages. Agrocel also identifiedopportunities for local value addition, and has now developedgood relationships with ginning, spinning and manufacturing units.These have been monitored and certified by buyers for organic andfair trade standards, which has led to increased consumerconfidence and resulting sales.

Agrocel now sells fair trade certified cotton, rice and nuts. Theaverage premium received by farmers is between 8 to 15%depending on the market price. The total premium received in 2007was $139,091. Besides the premium, Agrocel holds annual farmermeetings in each region to agree on the price for the basic productsbesides having a discussion on premium. An association of farmersfor each of the crops has been registered to provide a legal entity,a collective voice and a democratic framework to implement fairtrade and organic standards.

Satisfying certification criteria and the associated audits can bevery expensive and can reduce the resources available forproducers to develop production capacity and credible brands.Simply having products that are Fairtrade certified is not aguarantee that producers will be able to sell all or even some oftheir produce for the fair trade prices.

Fair Trade+ is a project that has been initiated by Traidcraft and FairTrade Forum India that is a membership organisation of Fair Tradeorganisations in India. This project aims to support betterunderstanding of Fair Trade, generic standards, as well as supportbetter understanding of issues surrounding compliance betweenbuyers and producers. This project will be able to make asignificant contribution to producers who are involved in orinterested in supplying fair trade traders and retailers in the globalNorth. By building the capacity of the actors in the chain tounderstand and handle ethical standards we can strengthen all theactors’ positions.

For further details please see the project website:http://www.fairtradeforum.org/tradeplus/home.html

Agrocel were able to justify certification costs as they hadcommitted buyers. Furthermore they had staff in place that wastrained to respond to the demands for organic and fair tradecertification. They were also working at a large enough scale forcertification costs to be cost effective.

Nevertheless, as part of its business strategy, Agrocel is also clearon diversifying its market. With this in mind, it has developed itsown brands for the domestic as well as the international market.‘Sahaj’ and ‘Agrocel’ is sold in the domestic market, while ‘Satya’,which is a garment brand, is for the European market. Agrocel hasbeen awarded the ‘Be Fair” award by the Government of Belgiumfor ‘Satya’.


Organic & Fair Trade?

A common dilemma exists where organisations look at fair tradeand organic certification. The two schemes aren’t mutuallyexclusive but certification costs can prohibit embracing both atonce.

Where organic farming is a clear option, one approach that hasbeen usefully employed is to begin with fair trade certification,which farms are ‘in conversion’ for organic certification purpose.This enables farmers to access quicker benefits while yields falldue to shift in the form of cultivation. Organic certification cantake over three years to achieve as it requires land to becompletely free from banned chemicals. Besides, thedocumentation process for fair trade standards helps buildcapacity for the more complicated processes required by organiccertification. In some cases, the fair trade premiums paid havebeen invested to achieve organic certification. Organic farmingbrings its own challenges as it requires an attitudinal shift andlong-term commitment of farmers.

Fairtrade and organic certification can be used as a mechanismfor entering mainstream markets but an organisation may requireinvestment in improving production quality and consistency.Mainstream buyers may be nervous about the lack of consistencyin product quality from fair trade producers.

Fairtrade certification was essential to the long term Agrocelbusiness plan.

In the transition to organic practices, farmers experienced a definitedip in yield and income. In the first years of the project there was aserious risk that farmers would revert to non-organic practices. Thefair trade premium was necessary as an incentive to maintain trustwhile supporting the conversion to organic. It is also important tonote that with the adoption of organic practices, the cost ofproduction goes down considerably, so returns need to be assessedbased on reduced costs, increased savings and better prices.

Over the last six years, Agrocel organic farmers have increased theiryield to the equivalent of conventional hybrids through better farmmanagement. An independent review of the project indicated that,in the Mandvi district, as organic yield increased from 500kg to1100 kg, hybrid has dipped from 1500kg to 1000kg. Onceestablished, the organic annual yield is more stable with fewerinputs allowing farmers to plan financially. Now that living casestudies are available in their communities, farmers are more likelyto stay with the programme as the economic improvement they cansee speaks for itself.

Yet there may also be significant benefits from engaging in thecertification process that are difficult to put a monetary value on.Workers within the organisation can be empowered by greaterinvolvement in the decision making process and this can increasemotivation, productivity and the organisation’s levels ofinnovation. By seeking to broaden and diversify the products

Agrocel has also found that some buyers have paid extra for cottonwhich is produced without pesticides, but does not yet meetinternational organic standards. This has also helped to ease thetransition.

To ensure an improved standard of raw cotton, Agrocel arranged tobuy at the farm gate. In this way they had control over possibility ofcontamination significantly. As well as achieving a higher qualityproduct, this had the added benefits of achieving economies ofscale in terms of transport costs, reducing expenditure for thefarmers as the costs, freeing up time for farmers to other activitiessuch as building self capacity building sessions on organic compostand drip irrigation which have also had a positive impact on soilquality and thereby on the quality of the cotton.

offered and markets accessed, an organisation can protect itselffrom damaging fluctuations in demand and / or prices in amarket it has allowed itself to become dependent on.

Traidcraft Plc, as a fair trade business, supports suppliers to growand develop, assisting them to access new markets so as toreduce dependence on fair trade markets. By providing access toadditional markets and supporting growth, fair tradeorganisations are able to avoid a dependency between supplierand retailer, encourage growth and thus increase the number ofpeople who are positively impacted by trade.

The purpose of fair trade is to support the concept of “Trade NotAid” and to provide a route for small businesses and producers inthe South to achieve higher prices and greater revenue frominternational trade. A supporting key element of fair trade is thelong term relationship that both customer and supplier shouldinvest in. Through this relationship, suppliers are often able toaccess inputs such as training and development regarding designand production techniques as well as business skills such asfinance and basic business skills.

International vs. Domestic Markets

Ethical export markets are often seen as the panacea for Southernproducers as they seek to increase their income. As we haveseen, export markets can be difficult to access and products arenot always to the taste of Northern consumers. Local markets areoften ignored, perhaps in the belief that a local market forethically traded goods does not exist. However our work in Indiahas taught us otherwise.

Over recent years, India has seen its GDP grow and has seenmany people rise out of absolute poverty. Its middle class israpidly increasing with the growth in the economy, particularlyin the industrial, technology and outsourcing sectors. India’smiddle-class is larger than the total population of the USA – amarket waiting to be tapped. This is what prompted us to turnour attention to the domestic market. It was however importantto first draw out the learnings from Europe, which would help toreduce failures while also stop us from re-inventing the wheel!

Although the market for ethically certified goods is currentlyprimarily located in the global North, efforts to increase demandin the producers’ local and national markets are essential. Asmore consumers become aware of the consequences of theirpurchasing decisions, certification schemes will become moreimportant. By focusing on domestic markets we are alsoensuring that producers’ have more control on the entire supplychains, which in the long run, will be more sustainable.

Conclusion

As our experience has shown, there is no single solution forsupporting small farmers and producers to access markets andimportant, get a fairer deal in this globalised economy. However,any such initiative will provide small producers vitalopportunities to enhance and diversify their livelihoods.However, they must first overcome a wide range of constraints in

To enable better storage and meeting buyer demand on timeAgrocel has established a yarn bank to store the organic yarn,which helps to ensure that it remains free of contamination and inbales that can be delivered to buyers very quickly.

Vericott has supported Agrocel to access new markets by focussingon creating vertical supply chains. As a result, Marks and Spencer’slaunched their fair trade organic range using Agrocel cotton, andcontinues to support and buy from Agrocel to date.


Effective branding and participation in trade fairs also enabledAgrocel to gain new buyers. The yarn bank has enabled Agrocel torespond effectively to small customers and sell when prices areadvantageous.

Practical lessons from the Agrocel model:

• Farmers need to recognize and own the benefits of change tomake it sustainable.

• There is need for an embedded communications strategy inplace from day one to ensure good practice

• Farmer collectives enable sharing of experience and goodpractice with each other while also facilitating capacity building

• Engaging the market before investing in expensive accreditationalleviates risk

• Most farmers will need ongoing support with recordkeeping inorder to achieve and maintain accreditation for certified fairtrade or organic products.

• Investing in specialist guidance at the early stages facilitates thesetting up of effective recording systems

• Working at scale makes accreditation a more affordable option

• Achieving accreditation is not enough to ensure sales. Ongoingmarketing development is key to increased sales and benefits forfarmers

• Organisational teams need enough resilience to ensurecontinuity and sustainability of initiatives.

• As farmers will suffer a short term dip in yield/ income in theinitial years, it will be difficult for extremely poor farmers tocope unless a project can offer support for the transition

• Focusing on the holistic organic cultivation has led to increasedincome and reduced risk for farmers (focus on multiple,rotational crops, animal husbandry for agricultural inputs).

• The Agrocel model worked best when the service centre wascloser to the farms.

accessing such markets, including limited access to productioninputs, transportation links, and market information. Asintermediary organisations, this is a critical role we plan withoutcreating a sense of dependency, or pushing producers down aroad of high risk. This is a delicate balancing act!!

�


The authors work with Traidcraft. Established in 1979, Traidcraft is theUK’s leading fair trade organisation. Traidcraft has a unique structurebeing both a trading company (Traidcraft Plc) and a developmentorganisation (Traidcraft Exchange). Traidcraft Exchange works in SouthAsia, South East Asia and East Africa to enable small producers andartisans access markets.

References

Tomkins, S (2007) Keeping it under their hats, BBC, Thursday, 22March 2007, London, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6476645.stm

FLO (2007) Shaping Global Partnerships – FLO Annual Report2006/07, Bonn, Fairtrade Labelling Organisation

BBC (2005), British organic food sales soar, London, BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4551304.stm

RAFI-USA (2000) Greener Fields: Signposts for Successful Eco-Labels, Pittsboro, NC.

Renard, M. C. (2005) Quality Certification, regulation and power infair trade. Journal of Rural Studies, 21, pp. 419 - 431

Blowfield, M. (1999) Ethical trade: a review of developments andissues. Third World Quarterly, 20(4), 753 - 770

Redfern, A. & Snedker, P.(2002) Creating Market Opportunities forSmall Enterprises: Experiences of the Fair Trade Movement.Geneva, International Labour Organization.

A farmer harvesting organic cotton


Agroecological cottonand fair trade make thedifference

Pedro Jorge B.F. Lima

Brazil started producing organic cotton in 1993, when agroup of small scale farmers in Tauá, in the semi-aridregions of the state of Ceará, decided to include it in their

farming systems. This cotton was bought by Filobel IndústriasTêxteis do Brasil, a textile company in Brazil’s largest city, SãoPaulo, to make t-shirts for Greenpeace. This pioneering examplewas supported by ESPLAR, an NGO based in Ceará, andorganised by ADEC, an association of rural farmers followingagroecological practices.

For the ensuing ten years, different textile companies tried to buyagroecological cotton (in this area, referred to as cotton producedto organic standards but not necessarily certified as organic),produced in Ceará but none showed interest in setting up apermanent contract as the volumes the farmers could offer weretoo low, at less than five tonnes per year. Farmers therefore madean effort to establish contact with smaller businesses or thosewhich for various reasons only needed small volumes, but thiswas difficult. Despite these challenges, farmers were able to selltheir produce in the small Brazilian organic market at prices upto 30 percent higher than for conventionally produced cotton.

Fair trade – making the difference

Three years ago, Veja Fair Trade, a French company, went toBrazil in search of organic cotton to make sports shoes for theEuropean fair trade market. Visiting the ESPLAR website, theyfound information about the agroecological cotton produced inCeará. One of its directors immediately went there, agreeing tobuy three tonnes of cotton from ADEC. A new contract waseventually signed for the following three years, and negotiationsare currently under way to renew this contract for another threeyears.

Simultaneously, a sewing co-operative in Porto Alegre, in thesouthern state of Rio Grande do Sul, organised a network of co-operatives and associations of workers, eager to make clothingaccording to fair trade norms. One of the co-operatives,Cooperativa Nova Esperança, decided to produce organic cottonthread, with between three and five tonnes of organic cotton peryear. The brand Justa Trama was launched in 2005.

With different stakeholders involved, the most importantdiscussions turned out to be those relating to price. Negotiationstook place between ADEC, Veja, Justa Trama and ESPLAR,taking different issues into consideration. One of these, forexample, was the average yields achieved and the fact that farmfamilies need to be stimulated to keep producing cottonfollowing agroecological methods. Equally important was theneed to consider the processing costs, and thus assure thesustainability of ADEC. Veja and Justa Trama expressed theneed to cover the costs of setting up the production chain andstill make a profit, while at the same time aiming for acompetitive price of their products in the market. Veja and JustaTrama agreed to buy the cotton at US$ 3.30/kg. This allowedADEC to pay the farmers more than double the prices offered onthe conventional market.

This is very different from the conditions under which the farmfamilies of Ceará used to work. The majority did not own theirown land, but had to rent it from large landowners. The rent waspaid through handing over half of their cotton harvest to thelandowners. Farmers also tended to simply sell the other half tothe landowners as well, at a lower price than on the local market.The farmers never knew where their cotton was ultimately sold.Today, the farmers not only get a better price, but they also know

Gerardo Germano da Silva harvesting agroecological cotton in Assentamento Tiracanga, Canindé, in Ceará.

Photo

: Ped

ro Jorg

e Li

ma/

ESPLA

R


their cotton goes towards producing sports shoes for Veja, andclothes for Justa Trama. They know the owners of Veja and thosewho make up the Justa Trama co-operatives. This brings aqualitative change into the relationship between producer and buyer.

Broadening opportunities

With prices, volumes and other conditions already establishedthrough the contract signed with ADEC, it was possible forESPLAR to stimulate the expansion of cotton production toseven other municipalities in Ceará, through the respectiveunions, thereby trying to respond to the increasing demand fororganic cotton. The number of farm families participating in thisproject has increased considerably: back in 2003, there were 97families involved, producing a total of 7100 kilogrammes.Production rose to 43 000 kilogrammes in 2007, involving 245families. In 2008, we hope that the total number of farm familiesengaged will reach 500, and that production will reach a total of85 tonnes.

These results have also influenced other groups of farmingfamilies in the neighbouring states of Rio Grande do Norte andPernambuco. After three years of producing agroecologicalcotton, the farmers there have finally managed to sell it at a pricehigher than for conventional cotton, having negotiated contractswith two other French fair trade companies. In Paraíba, anotherstate in northeast Brazil, farmer groups have also startedproducing agroecological cotton, selling it on the nationalorganic market. This last group includes Copnatural, a large co-operative which produces clothes made of coloured cotton. All ofthese different initiatives –covering four different states– worktogether at the regional level through joint meetings, exchangevisits, and the sharing of information and experiences aboutproduction techniques, processing and marketing. This is due toa scheme of co-operation which involves farmers’ organisations,NGOs, the Brazilian agricultural research organisation, theUniversity of Ceará and various fair trade companies. Co-operation has resulted, for example, in the organisation ofregional seminars in 2006 and 2007, discussing the impact of fairtrade and organic production in the region.

Challenges coming from growth

Cotton is commonly grown intercropped with maize, cowpea, orsesame, following a method adopted to minimise the risks ofyield losses in a region of extremely irregular rainfall. In theseadverse conditions, yields in agroecological plots vary between400 and 800 kg/ha of grain, and between 100 and 200 kg/ha ofcotton. Such volumes will generally satisfy the demand forbeans, maize and sesame for domestic consumption, while theproduction of cotton results in an income of between US$ 85 and175 per hectare. The frequent infestations of the boll weevil(Anthonomus grandis) limit the average yield of cotton to lessthan 200 kg/ha, indicating the need for research and developmentof clean technologies for managing this pest in mixedagroecosystems. To respond to the rising demand, a highersupply of cotton has been achieved by increasing the area undercultivation, and by bringing new families into the fold.

As a result of this expansion, ADEC is facing new challenges.Having new producers involved means extra costs in terms ofcapacity building and technical support. At the same time, asproduction has increased in other municipalities, the costs oftransporting the cotton to ADEC’s processing plant have alsorisen. In addition, new machinery is needed in order to processthe increasing quantities of cotton. Another challenge is thecapital that ADEC requires to pay the farmers in instalments.

During the last three years, this was solved as Veja and JustaTrama paid them in advance, together with help from ESPLAR.Although farmers were satisfied, it shows that ADEC is notcompletely autonomous and able to operate independently.

Veja and Justa Trama have until now bought the cotton withoutneeding organic certification. This is due to the credibilityacquired by ADEC and ESPLAR over ten years of working inthe organic cotton market. They have always been able to takeresponsibility themselves for the quality of the agroecologicallygrown cotton, in a context when the supply in Brazil wasminimal. However, now that the supply is coming from broadergroups of producers, companies in the organic and fair trademarket have begun to be more attentive, and Veja has alreadyexpressed the need to buy cotton that is certified. The farmersand stakeholders in the project have therefore undertaken thecertification application processes, taking advantage of the offerput forward by the Ministry of Agrarian Development, to pay thecertification costs for 2007. For its part, Veja offered to payADEC’s costs for Fairtrade certification with FLO. In this way,the production of cotton in Ceará and its manufacturing processwill be doubly certified in 2008.

Special attention will need to be given to the introduction oftransgenic cotton in the region. The Brazilian government hasrecently relaxed the regulations limiting the cultivation ofgenetically modified crops: the presence of transgenic cottonplantations in the region is a real and worrying threat. All thestakeholders involved have started to confront this threat bymobilising farmers and their organisations, NGOs and relatedentities, and by lobbying the government to declare Brazil’ssemi-arid region as a transgenic-free zone.

Shared management

Following the growth of agroecological cotton production inCeará, ESPLAR invited the directors of ADEC and therepresentatives of the farmers’ unions to discuss and lookcollectively at the main questions related to cultivation,marketing and manufacturing processes. This led to theformation of the Grupo Agroecologia e Mercado (GAM), agroup of stakeholders that meets between four and six times peryear to plan the harvest, define the basic issues related toagroecological production, share information, and negotiate thesale of local production to Veja and Justa Trama. GAM carriesout the important role of political and organisational networkingregarding the access of family agriculture to fair trade, and theopportunities for sharing the experiences and information whichhelp the farmers as well as the organisations they represent.

�

Pedro Jorge B.F. Lima. Agronomist, ESPLAR, Centro de Pesquisa eAssessoria. Rua Princesa Isabel 1968, Centro, Fortaleza, Brazil. E-mail:[email protected] ; http://www.esplar.org.br

References

- Instituto Biodinâmico – IBD, 2006. Diretrizes para o padrão dequalidade orgânico. 13. ed. Instituto Biodinâmico, Botucatu, SP,Brazil.

- Lima, Pedro Jorge B. F., 2007. A ameaça ao algodão agroecológico eorgânico. ESPLAR, Centro de Pesquisa e Assessoria. Fortaleza, Brazil.

- Lima, Pedro Jorge B. F., 2005. Algodão agroecológico: Umaexperiência no semi-árido cearense. Revista agriculturas:Experiências em agroecologia, v.2, n.3.

- Lima, Pedro Jorge B. F. and Maria Célia Martins de Souza, 2007.Produção brasileira de algodão orgânico e agroecológico em 2006.ESPLAR, Fortaleza, Brazil.


Consumers in Europe like fresh mangoes. Demand isgrowing, but supply is difficult to boost as mango treesneed decades to mature. In Burkina Faso, as in other

countries, many small farmers own mango trees. Since 2000, aEuropean fair trade company has been trying to link thesefarmers with clients in Europe. Not an easy task: farmers andmango harvesters were not always paid for their work, and a co-operative went bankrupt. Now, the company tries to engagetraditional traders, but fair trade regulations do not allow the fulluse of their potential. This is a story of trial-and-error, andsuccess.

Traditional mango growing in Burkina Faso

All over West Africa, farmers manage staple and cash crops, aswell as non-farm activities. Mango trees are a part of localfarming systems. There are more than 160 mango varieties ofdiffering quality; two or three kinds are suitable for export, andothers are better for drying and selling in the local market. Themost complicated issue perhaps refers to the ownership of treesand land. As long as land is fallow, the village chief (generally anelder belonging to the first settlers in the region) can allot it toanybody who needs land for annual cash crops. Early settlers canclaim land by planting citrus, mango or cashew trees, all ofwhich are also used for fuel, erosion control and, in times ofhunger, for food. Early settlers can claim land if they haveplanted trees; newcomers therefore face more difficulties. Mostfarming households in this area have an orchard, but fruitproduction does not always receive top priority. Few or no inputsare used, some farmers add compost, and pruning is rare.

The growing demand for mangoes in Europe and elsewheremeans that farmers who have a good mango orchard can sellwell, especially if they are not too far from harbours and tradingcentres. However, mixed farming systems like those found inBurkina Faso face many difficulties in achieving the qualityneeded for export. Besides the long period between planting andfruit-bearing, there is the challenge to produce regularly andaccording to minimum quality standards. Fair trade exporters anddevelopment organisations have therefore introduced manytraining programmes on organic farming, pruning, organic pestcontrol (using weaver ants), irrigation, and other aspects relatedto organic mango production. However, the effect of thesecourses in terms of quality and/or quantity seems to be minor.

Contractors and the mango trade chain

Farmers in Burkina Faso live far away from export centres, sountil recently, mangoes were not marketed in large quantities. Asmall amount was exported through companies in neighbouringIvory Coast, which used the production coming from BurkinaFaso to supplement their local supply (until the recent politicalcrisis in Ivory Coast led to a temporary closure of the border).Another peculiarity is that farmers rarely harvest the fruitthemselves. Contractors come and pick whatever they think canbe sold, and the farmer is paid accordingly. The contractor

Meeting the challengesof exporting mangoesfrom Burkina Faso

Hans-Willem van der Waal

The mango journey

Mangoes are harvested at an early level of maturity when the fruitflesh just starts to turn yellow. The harvesters perform a first gradingin the field, and transport fruit carefully wrapped in paper or leavesin crates to the packing station. The distance between orchard andpacking station is 80-400 km. As the fruit starts to ripen after harvest,it is essential that the transit time is short. In the packing house, thefruit is washed, quality graded and sorted by size. The fruit ispacked in 4 kg cardboard boxes. 240 boxes form a pallet. Thepallets are refrigerated in cold storage at 100C. Twenty pallets areloaded in a refrigerated container, which keeps the fruit coldthroughout the journey. A diesel generator provides power to thecontainer during the land transport by rail. Once loaded on a fruitboat, the containers are kept refrigerated during the 10-12 day seajourney to Europe. Upon arrival, an independent surveyor makes aquality report and this serves as the basis for the final payment to theexporter.

transports the fruit to the exporter’s packing house, sometimeshundreds of kilometres away, where the fruit is graded. Theexporter only pays for fruit accepted for export. Contractorstherefore take over an important risk from farmers, as they facelosses when pests such as fruit flies are found in their fruit.However, contractors sometimes buy mangoes on credit, whichmeans that farmers and other workers do not get paid for lowquality fruit. Contractors in turn are pre-financed by the exporter.

Fresh fruit is also sold through (small) producer organisations tocontractors or exporters. The latter often take care of qualitycontrol, washing, grading, packing and looking after thelogistics. Due to the fluctuating nature of volumes and qualitylevels, importers in Europe do not generally commit to fixedvolumes and prices, but agree to sell fruit on a commission basis.This means that they receive the fruit and sell it to supermarketsand retailers, deducting a 6-10 percent commission fee fromwhat is paid to the exporter. Importers in Europe, however, mayclaim that the fruit received did not meet quality standards –which, after the fact, is difficult to disprove. In such a situation,how can an exporter in Africa prove that a European importer ischeating?

European supermarkets are a large outlet for fresh mangoes.Supermarkets require good and constant quality, a reliable supplyon a weekly basis, and increasingly seek guarantees of basic

On the way to market. After a careful selection process, partof the harvest will reach the supermarkets in Europe.

Photo

: A

uth

or


organic and social standards. As mangoes are seasonal, they needto be sourced from different countries to guarantee a year-roundsupply. The selling price varies considerably: in times ofabundance, prices can drop sharply and buyers can afford to bevery particular about quality standards. The opposite is true intimes of scarcity.

Setting up a local institution to meet supply needs

For some time, farmers in Burkina Faso complained about thelow prices and erratic demand imposed by contractors who soldtheir mangoes to exporters in neighbouring Ivory Coast. In 2000,a Dutch NGO therefore tried to facilitate direct export of freshmangoes from Burkina Faso to Europe. It offered credit andencouraged farmers’ organisations to form a co-operative unionthat could sell directly to AgroFair, a Fairtrade-certified fruitimporter based in the Netherlands. Between 2001 and 2005, theco-operative exported several hundred tonnes of organic andFairtrade certified mangoes. However, establishing a union was anew experience, and the co-operative ran into many difficulties.Transport complications occurred when the border with IvoryCoast was closed. Also, the international fresh fruit exportbusiness turned out to be too complicated to manage or controlfor a group of farmers; for example, no financial incentives weregiven to harvesters or farmers to ensure that export qualitystandards were upheld. Finally, the co-operative ran into losses,and it had to give up its export activities.

The failure to get a co-operative running accelerated the plans tostart a new export company. AgroFair decided to finance such aninitiative, and helped establish a local company, Fruiteq.Between 2002 and 2004, AgroFair made considerable effort tomarket mangoes from Burkina Faso to its clients, and managedto get them into European supermarkets during its high mangoseason. AgroFair was keen to make this supply succeed as it wasonly one of four different mango supply sources needed to beable to meet the full-year’s supply demanded by supermarkets. Ifone source failed, the whole mango market could be lost, to thedetriment of the other three mango suppliers.

Fruiteq is a commercial company which provides an exportservice to farmers. In order to create a financially sustainablebusiness, it has re-incorporated the contractors (as harvesters)into the system. Just like in the co-operative model, Fruiteq dealsdirectly with the farmers’ organisations, and it is theseorganisations that hire the services of the contractors. In thisway, the farmers have more bargaining power, while the systemis equally interesting for the contractors because they have fewersearching and contracting costs. They do not need to go fromfarmer to farmer searching for mangoes, discussing pricesindividually, competing with other contractors, or searching forexporters willing to take their fruit. The origin of the mangoes istraceable, as all mangoes come from the farmer group. Thismeans that it is far easier to obtain quality certifications thatrequire clear traceability of the fruit (such as a certificate oforganic production). Involving contractors in the system andworking with farmers’ organisations at the same time helpedFruiteq and its partners obtain this additional certification, on topof the Fairtrade certificate.

Fruiteq is already making a profit, proving the sustainability ofthe model. Sales rose from 180 000 Euros in 2005 to more than900 000 Euros in 2007, corresponding to about 1200 tonnes offresh mangoes. In 2007, more than 200 000 Euros was paiddirectly to farmers on a farm-gate basis. More than 400 farmerhouseholds have benefited, together with a large number ofcontractors, transporters and packing station employees.

Not all is fair in Fairtrade

Fairtrade rules prescribe the provision of a premium to farmersfor social projects. Since 2005, more than 100 000 Euros hasbeen paid as Fairtrade premium. The farmers’ organisations haveused this money to build a village pharmacy and a library, theyhave set up a school fund, and they are now considering drillingwells to provide drinking water and irrigation water to theirorchards.

Fairtrade regulations, however, do not allow some key actors tobenefit from its advantages: harvesters and packing houseworkers are not entitled to the premium. In the field, this doesnot always seem to be fair. After all, contractors, packers andtraders are part of the Fairtrade value chain, and it would bebetter if every chain actor benefits similarly. In regions such asLatin America, exporting co-operatives seem to work well, whilein other places, a chain model with specialised harvesting andtransporting organisations may be more appropriate andsustainable. Regulations are therefore needed to make allstakeholders in the chain benefit from Fairtrade, and not just theproducers. After all, contractors and their personnel take risksand work hard. Including them in the Fairtrade model would helpreduce poverty, and develop the agricultural economy in westernAfrica.

�

Hans-Willem van der Waal. Fruiteq. 01 BP 2092,Bobo-Dioulasso 01, Burkina Faso.E-mail: [email protected]

Volume 10 no. 3, September 2008

Empowerment and social inclusion

In all societies inequalities exist, due to gender, age, religion,cultural or caste affiliation, low education or income,unemployment, diseases, disabilities, migration, or geographiclocation, to name a few. Stigmas and social limitations result insocial exclusion; that is, marginalisation and powerlessnesswithin the wider society. This status not only keeps excludedpeople poor and powerless, but it also affects feelings of self-respect and confidence.

While some developments in conventional agriculture mayexacerbate inequalities, low external input sustainableagriculture provides opportunities to lessen these differences.This issue of the LEISA Magazine is seeking examples in whichsocially excluded people have overcome such barriers. Forexample when a marginalised group acts to improve their life;when a group of farmers join hands and gain access to land,water, or a market; or when a stigmatised cultural group findsits way to a better status through agrotourism or marketing ofhandicrafts or food.

Social inclusion efforts open previously closed doors. Theycome from government, NGOs, businesses or communityleaders. For example, in programmes in which orphans,widows, or ethnic groups increase their skills in agriculturalactivities, thereby improving their livelihoods and status in acommunity. Or, the government may change rules to provideparticular groups of people access to markets, land oreducation.

We are looking for stories that highlight local initiatives as wellas externally driven mechanisms. What opportunities are therein small-scale agriculture, and how can marginalised groupsrealise them? What difficulties are faced, and what lessonshave been drawn from experiences so far?

Deadline for submission of articles is 31st August 2008

Themes for LEISA India


Improved shea butter trading throughcertification

Cindy D’Auteuil

The Union of Women Producers of Shea Products of Sissiliand Ziro (UGPPK-S/Z) counts members from 53 clustersof 38 villages in the provinces of Sissili and Ziro, in

Burkina Faso. It is commonly known as the “Léo Union”, as itsheadquarters is found in Léo, 165 km from Ouagadougou, thecapital. The Union is proud to have recently gained organiccertification, in addition to the Fairtrade certificate they obtainedin 2006. This dual certification gives this organisation a definiteadvantage to penetrate the international market. The labels andthe quality of their products justify a higher price. This higherprice, together with increasing volumes being sold, will allow2300 women members to increase their income, their standard ofliving and that of their families.

Shea butter and the global cosmetics market

The shea nut or karité tree (Vitellaria paradoxa or Butyros-permum parkii, fam. Sapotaceae) grows in the Sahel region inNorth Africa. It produces a yellow-green fruit containing a nutwith fat used in the manufacture of shea butter. The productionof shea butter is an activity traditionally reserved for women,who shell the nuts and manually churn the fat into butter. InAfrica, this product has been used in enormous quantities forthousands of years, both for personal care as well as for cooking.There is now also a large global demand for shea butter. The

food industry (for chocolate, margarine, confectioneries) usesapproximately 95 percent of the international supply, while therest is absorbed by the cosmetics industry. Large multinationalspresently buy the nuts (or shea butter) at a low price fromintermediaries, from which the oil is extracted through chemicalsolvents in the importing country.

The cosmetics industry is increasingly demanding more andmore of it, as its benefits for personal care are increasinglyrecognised in many industrialised countries. Unlike the foodindustry, which buys shea butter for its high efficiency and lowprice, the cosmetics industry is interested in the product for itsexceptional quality and characteristics. Due to growing demandfor cosmetics made from natural and certified organic inputs, thecosmetics industry is particularly interested in shea butterproduced using methods which are not harmful to theenvironment, and which preserve the intrinsic properties of thenuts. This represents a real opportunity for an organisation suchas the Léo Union to increase its revenues. In addition, many ofthose buying cosmetics in Europe or the United States arewilling to pay more for a product if they know that additionalfair trade revenues are distributed to producers.

Support from foreign NGOs

Recognising the potential of the shea butter industry forincreasing the standard of living of African women, the Centrefor International Studies and Co-operation (CECI), a CanadianNGO, has for over ten years been supporting a number oforganisations in West Africa, including the Léo Union. CECI’s

Extracting the fat from the nuts is one of the most important tasks in producing shea butter

Photo

: C

ECI


objective has been to stimulate companies to purchase directlyfrom the producers’ organisations. The processing of shea butteron the spot creates added value locally and increases the incomeof the local producers. Since 2001, the Léo Union has beenexporting its products to France, and to Canada since 2004. Theproducers receive approximately 500 to 700 CFA francs (US$1.50-2.10) per kilogramme of shea butter on the conventionalmarket.

In 2004, a consortium of NGOs was able to mobilise additionalfunds to support the Léo Union in their production and marketingactivities and to obtain fair trade and organic certification,considering they could aim at a more lucrative market. Thefinancial and technical support provided by NGOs helpedestablish the Centre for Shea Production and Marketing (CPCK),the first of its kind in the region, which since then constitutes aplatform for export. CPCK is equipped with the necessary toolsfor producing shea butter, with storage rooms (for nuts andbutter), a packing room and a loading dock. The butter fromdifferent villages is standardised here, filtered and stabilised.

Organic and fair trade certification

Producers’ organisations need to follow some well-definedprinciples in order to benefit from a fair trade certificate: theymust be organised under a co-operative model, and must follow ademocratic and transparent management structure. They mustalso determine a fair and equitable price for all members. As theLéo Union was the first organisation to obtain this certificate forthe production and marketing of shea butter, the first step in theprocess meant setting a guaranteed minimum price for thisproduct.

This was done in collaboration with the Fairtrade LabellingOrganization International (FLO), an international body with amandate to develop standards and principles of fair trade. Arepresentative of Max Havelaar, one of the major fair tradeorganisations, visited Léo in June 2005, met with union leaders,exchanged ideas with producers, and looked at the management,production and living conditions of the population. One monthlater, the union welcomed a group of students to determine allproduction costs and the minimum possible price for “fair” sheabutter. This was the basis of the standards which FLO adopted inFebruary 2006, fixing the guaranteed minimum price at 1198CFA francs (US$ 2.75) per kilogramme, and a premium of 121CFA francs (US$ 0.28) per kilogramme, to be invested in thecommunity (in projects related to health and education).Complying with all the standards set, the union was awarded aFairtrade certificate in July 2006.

Later on, the members of the union were encouraged to certifytheir production as organic, and thus demonstrate the effortstaken in favour of the conservation of the local natural resources.As in the case of the Fairtrade certificate, many steps wereneeded before their production process was certified as organic.These included the establishment of shea nut tree parks inprotected areas and the organisation of a nut collection process.These parks were inspected after the union applied for acertificate, together with the storage infrastructure, theproduction equipment and all management tools. The certificatewas given in December 2007. In addition to the positive impactswhich producing organically has on the environment, the actualcertificate is very beneficial to the producers. At the moment,members of the union receive 2400 CFA francs for a kilogrammeof organic shea butter, almost five times more than a kilogrammeof butter at the conventional price!

Impacts and challenges

Both certificates give the Léo Union a commercial advantageover its competitors, as it can now offer a wider range ofproducts (conventional, organic and also Fairtrade shea butter),and they are widely recognised as the only organisation whichholds both labels. One of the direct impacts which membersexperience now is a higher income as a result of the higherselling prices. Moreover, even though the volumes sold asFairtrade only represented 11.6 percent of total exports in 2006(8 tonnes from a total of 69), the Léo Union has considerablyincreased its turnover, which has doubled the income of mediumproducers (rising from 26 000 CFA francs in 2005 to about 52000 CFA francs in 2006). The outlook for the 2007-2008campaign is also very good because the orders confirmed so farreach 95 tonnes, of which 30 tonnes (32 percent) are to be sold asorganic or Fairtrade. Given the growing international attention tothis product, the organic certification will have long termimpacts on the resources from which it is produced. TheFairtrade certification, in turn, guarantees a minimum price to allproducers, reduces the number of intermediaries and thus favoursdirect relationships between producers and consumers.

But while the benefits of dual certification for producingmembers of the Léo Union are many, the challenges are equallypressing. First, the organisation needs to increase its sales byattracting new customers, while respecting its overall productioncapacity (estimated at around 200 tonnes annually). The LéoUnion furthermore needs to become a financially independentand viable organisation, not having to rely on the support offoreign NGOs to pay, for example, the costs associated withannual certification or those related to the search for newmarkets. Although the members of the Léo Union produce sheabutter of the highest quality, they still need to hire peoplefamiliar with the export procedures, who can communicate easilywith their foreign contacts and who can help them consolidatetheir production and sales.

�

Cindy D’Auteuil. Centre for International Studies andCo-operation (CECI). 3000, Rue Omer-Lavallée,Montréal, Québec H1Y 3R8, Canada.E-mail:[email protected]; http://www.ceci.ca

Members of the Léo Union look forward to a bright future

Photo

: G

inet

te P

rim

i


Fair to thelast drop:Corporate

challenges toFairtrade

Eric Holt-Giménez,Ian Bailey and

Devon Sampson

In the wake of the recent extraordinary market expansion offair trade –and in the midst of a mild rebound in the coffeemarket– the fair trade movement is coming under criticism.

Even student groups, social justice groups, and some fair traderoasters are questioning the development claims, the “fairness”and the future of the fair trade coffee industry, for very differentreasons. Farmers’ organisations, such as La Via Campesina andthe Brazilian Landless People’s Movement (MST), challenge thefair trade movement to work politically for structural change.Many ethical consumers and fair trade activists are alsouncomfortable about selling Fairtrade-certified products throughmultinational corporations with unfair labour practices andmonopolistic market power.

The Fairtrade Labelling Organization International (FLO) andFairtrade certifiers promote the idea that Fairtrade shouldbecome more “mainstream”. Most recent criticism revolvesaround this strategy. For the largest coffee buyers, Fairtrademakes up only a tiny proportion of their coffee purchases. Forthese companies Fairtrade is not a social movement or a businessethic, but rather a public relations opportunity and a profitableniche. One Fairtrade product can make the whole brand seemsocially responsible, even though the corporation continues tobuy the vast majority of its coffee on the conventional market.This phenomenon has many actors in Fairtrade questioning themeaning of fair trade.

Is the goal to help as many peasant farmers as possible byselling as much Fairtrade coffee as possible? Or is the goal totransform coffee’s historically unfair market structures? Aremarkets the engine for social change or are social movements theforce to change markets? These questions reflect the growingdisagreement among Fairtrade advocates over whether it isadvisable to mainstream Fairtrade through the very corporationsand market structures that provoked the coffee crisis in thefirst place.

Social change and value chains

Although the Fairtrade premium provided an important safety netduring the worst of the coffee crisis, recent studies questionmany of the development claims reported by certifiers andcorporate retailers.

In a study of Mexican and Central American coffee farmingfamilies and communities, researchers from the CommunityAgroecology Network (CAN), reported that there were nosignificant differences in the ability to send children to school orthe level of food security between Fairtrade and non-Fairtradefarm families. The CAN study did not find evidence thatFairtrade certification alone empowered farmers to liftthemselves out of poverty. Instead, the researchers noted that theco-operative that seemed to benefit most from Fairtrade had adirect relationship with a North American buyer that bought allof their coffee at a price above the Fairtrade minimum everyyear.

Studies also suggest that the development successes claimed byFairtrade are as much due to the efforts farmers put into localorganising as they are to certification. At the very least, thereappears to be a mutually beneficial relation between higherpremiums and the extensive social and political work carried outby farmers’ movements. Under these circumstances, it is difficultto imagine Fairtrade even taking root without building upon thehistorical agrarian struggles for land reform, co-operativeorganisations, and indigenous rights. However, none of this isreflected in corporate marketing of Fairtrade, where developmentclaims are politically sanitised for mass consumption. At best,co-operation –not struggle– is emphasised.

Minimum wage or living wage?

In December 2006, the Association of Co-operatives of SmallCoffee Producers of Nicaragua (CAFENICA) and the Co-ordinating body of Small Fair Trade Producers in Latin America

Julio Cesar Rumaldo, member of Cooperativa La Concordia, Tacuba, El Salvador, sortingcoffee cherries from his harvest


and the Caribbean (CLAC) submitted a report to FLO requestinga 15 cent per pound Fairtrade price increase. Citing a lack ofinformation, FLO initially denied the request and postponedtalks. After pressure from farmers’ organisations and consumergroups, FLO agreed to a five cent per pound increase.

The CLAC report and other impact studies expose some of thedrawbacks within the Fairtrade certification process and itsmarket mechanisms. Fairtrade’s minimum price was a lifesaverduring the coffee crisis. But it was never pegged to farmers’ costof production or cost of living, and it is now increasingly lesseffective at ensuring social benefits. Some studies indicate thatfarmers now lose money under Fairtrade – they just lose lessthan conventional growers. By pursuing a mainstream approach,Fairtrade ensures more of a “minimum wage” rather than a“living wage”. Now, farmers represented in CLAC who seek a“living wage” for their coffee are at odds with Fairtradecertifiers, who must keep the price low if they are to mainstreamFairtrade through large corporate retailers.

Alternatives to corporate Fairtrade

Trading arrangements as practised by many of the AlternativeTrade Organisations (ATOs) do improve the conditions andopportunities for the coffee co-operatives with whom they tradedirectly because certification is seen as a floor and not a ceiling.Roasters like Equal Exchange in the U.S. and Cafédirect in theU.K. are committed to selling 100 percent Fairtrade certifiedcoffee, and using certification as a point of departure for formingmeaningful, long-term partnerships with producer co-operatives.Thanksgiving Coffee pays quality premiums up to 40 cents overthe Fairtrade price. Owner Paul Katzeff searches out certifiedorganic co-operatives and helps them obtain Fairtradecertification, and then works diligently with the producingcommunities to help improve the quality of the coffee. CAN’sdirect trade model localises the value added process and providesan alternative model to certification (see related article on p.28).Other companies are jointly owned by participating farmers’organisations. Farmer-ownership models not only return more ofthe retail value to farmers, they give farmers more sovereignty inthe process of bringing their produce to market.

The Alternative Trade Organisations share a number ofcharacteristics that differentiate them from the much larger,corporate Fairtrade players, as follows:

• Transparency. Fairtrade certified producers are required to opentheir books to auditors. Conversely, most large corporations whoretail the coffee are secretive about how much Fairtrade coffeethey sell. “Movement” companies are largely transparent abouthow much they pay farmers for their coffee, and what portion oftheir sales is Fairtrade.

• Long-term commitment. “Movement” companies work withproducer co-operatives to invest in the quality of their coffee.This might mean training coffee tasters to be able to recogniseand strive for quality coffee, or helping farm co-operativesdiversify their production into other products, or supportinghealth and education projects.

• Localising the value of coffee. Traditionally, most of the value ofcoffee is exported, generating big profits at the roasting andretailing stages of the value chain. Even if farmers sell at theFairtrade price, this unequal balance of power remains.“Movement” companies pursuing farmer-owned and direct tradeinitiatives allow more of the value of coffee to remain in theproducing community.

Beyond the mainstreaming debate: Fairtrade and foodsovereignty

Fairtrade’s mainstreaming debate reflects growing disagreementson the fairness, development claims, and the future of Fairtrade.These differences are rooted in tensions between market-basedand movement-based strategies for social change. On one hand,market-based certifiers champion the benefits of the increasedvolume made possible by a relatively low Fairtrade floor price.On the other, many producers and ATOs argue for prices basedon production costs, and worry about the loss of control andauthenticity of Fairtrade.

This puts the Fairtrade movement in a difficult position. If themovement is isolated from the mainstream, it may not berelevant enough to change the farmers’ situation. But byinteracting with the mainstream without asking criticalquestions, the movement risks becoming diluted, and the benefitsmay decrease. The mainstreaming emphasis of Fairtrade risksmarginalising activists and farmers – the very drivers of socialchange that make Fairtrade more than just a “slightly bettermarket” for poor coffee farmers.

The fairness of Fairtrade is more than a simple ethical debate.Fairness regarding transparency, risk, labour practices and profits

One of the most important roles of Fairtrade has been to help buildand sustain farmers’ co-operatives. In Nicaragua, when the leftistSandinista government lost power in 1990, farmers’ co-operativesfound themselves without any government support. They formed co-operatives to provide marketing, credit, and other programmes.Prodecoop (Promotion of Co-operative Development of the Segoviasregion), was the first such organisation. Rosario Catellón, co-founderof Prodecoop, tells the story:

“In 1991, the first co-operatives that today make up Prodecoop firstexported to the U.S. based fair trade coffee buyer, Equal Exchange.Some of the co-operative members of Prodecoop had taken out loansduring the Sandinista revolution, but the new government demandedimmediate repayment. The bank held their coffee crop as collateral,and put their land into foreclosure. The representatives of the memberco-operatives came to the Prodecoop offices with this difficultsituation.

“Jonathan Rosenthal, then Executive Director of Equal Exchange,listened to the co-operatives, and took the risk that no bank or otherfinancial institution was willing to take. He advanced us a portion of

the purchase of our coffee. After negotiations with the bank,Prodecoop bought the coffee back from them, promising to apply allthe income from the sales to pay off the co-operatives’ debts.

“Equal Exchange contributed to bringing Prodecoop out ofanonymity. They were the first buyer of our coffee, and helped tomake it known in the North American market. Jonathan Rosenthaland Equal Exchange have been dedicated to building bridges, so thatthose who have historically been at a disadvantage can pass over tothe other side, where the coffee industry is, and break the long chainof intermediaries. In this way, they can access better incomes;alleviate poverty; achieve economic, environmental, and socialsustainability; and most of all regain their hope for the future and forthemselves. The small farmers of Prodecoop never imagined that theywould, over and over again, be sitting down to negotiate face-to-facewith North American and European coffee importers and roasters.Prodecoop has been an example for the country and the world. It hasmotivated the resurgence of many co-operatives of small farmers inNicaragua and in other countries.”

Prodecoop in Nicaragua


are a reflection of market power. In the present unregulatedcoffee market, rules are set by those who control the mostlucrative parts of the value chain: roasting and distribution. Untilfarmers are able to own substantial shares in roasting anddistribution, they will always be subject to the levels of“fairness” acceptable to those who control the coffee market.Luckily, there are already encouraging experiments within thelarger Fairtrade coffee community that shift power in the valuechain towards the coffee producers. Scaling up these experienceswould help tip Fairtrade’s balance of power in favour of farmersrather than large corporations.

Safety net or development strategy?

The neoliberal position that markets themselves are sufficient toreduce poverty, end hunger, and promote sustainabledevelopment, is a notion that has been refuted by two decades ofdisastrous corporate-led globalisation. Fairtrade marketers whoclaim that Fairtrade “empowers farmers” are in essence claimingthat certification is the small adjustment needed to make good onthe neoliberal promise.

When coffee prices dropped catastrophically in 2001 and 2002, itbecame clear that Fairtrade price floors provide an essentialsafety net for farmers. One can find hundreds of testimoniesfrom farmers who are acutely aware of this value, because theyare widely published on the websites and promotional materialsof certifiers and coffee companies that market Fairtrade products.

However, the farmers who organise co-operatives, the studentsand consumers who advocate for Fairtrade, and the NGOadvocates that run major Fairtrade campaigns have somethingmore than a safety net in mind: they want an end to hunger,poverty, and the extreme injustice brought about by “free” trade.They don’t want to settle for a safety net, they want Fairtrade tobe a strategy for sustainable development.

While such safety nets ensure farmers security from steep pricedrops and extreme poverty, a comprehensive developmentstrategy is needed to provide farming communities andorganisations opportunities to strengthen local institutions and

farmers’ market power. It is clear that certification –the kind ofcertification that is being adopted when big corporate players getinto the Fairtrade business– fails to deliver on these larger issues.

To make good on its development claims, rather thanmainstreaming, Fairtrade needs to intensify its work with peasantmovements to roll back corporate globalisation and re-establishthe social institutions and rural policies needed for productive,healthy agriculture.

Looking forward: building market sovereignty

The future of Fairtrade depends on the degree to which it canbring producers, consumers and roaster-distributors not just intoits market, but into the growing social movements for agrarianchange. It is clear that movement building depends on a sense ofbelonging, commitment and participation in decision-making.But because Fairtrade is a business as well as a movement, thisparticipation also depends on ownership. To ensure thepolitically committed participation of farmers in Fairtrade, theymust not only be “stakeholders” in development, but“shareholders” in the business. Giving farmers a majority stakeon the FLO board of directors would go a long way towards thisgoal.

It is unlikely that large corporations will advance a farmer-driven, movement agenda for social change within Fairtrade.They will attempt to sell as little Fairtrade coffee as possible atthe lowest possible price, counting on their vast market power tokeep Fairtrade farmers coming to them. This is not a reason togive up the Fairtrade market. On the contrary, to keep Fairtradefrom becoming irrelevant to farmers’ livelihood struggles, it is upto alternative organisations, NGOs, and activists to help poorcoffee farmers grow not just their market, but their marketpower; not just their business, but their controlling share withinthe business.

Ultimately, the ability to hold the corporate players in Fairtradepublicly accountable to more equitable standards depends on thedegree that the Fairtrade movement advances farmers’ marketsovereignty – the ability to determine how to produce, process,sell and distribute in ways that are fair and sustainable. Buildingmarket sovereignty from the premium floor up will certainly notbe easy, and will be strongly resisted by the corporate players.

Fortunately, the Fairtrade movement is dynamic and constantlyevolves new forms of social, economic and politicalorganisation. Even FLO surprised sceptics by rewriting itsconstitution to include seats for farmers’ organisations on itsboard of directors, taking concrete steps towards letting farmersfinally participate in ownership of Fairtrade certification. Asfarmers’ power grows within Fairtrade, and as the movementlinks strategically with peasant and consumer movements forsocial change, Fairtrade will be well positioned to make good onits development claims.

�

Eric Holt-Giménez, Ian Bailey and Devon Sampson.Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy.398 60th Street, Oakland, California 94618, U.S.A.E-mail: [email protected]

This article has been edited from an original version, with fullreferences, published by Food First. You can write to them torequest a hard copy, or download it at:http://www.foodfirst.org/node/1794

Members of Cooperativa La Concordia, like coffee farmers allover the world, deserve a fair price for their products

Photo

: A

nnie

Shat

tuck


Markets, trading and Fair tradeNCB Nath

Markets have been a part of human organization fromtime immemorial. Goods have been bought and soldfor barter, cash, and credit giving varying degrees of

satisfaction and concern to many who participated in the processof exchange. The asymmetric nature of power and informationin markets has been recognized for long and many reforms havebeen initiated by the state, the communities and the civil societyorganizations. Each of these has their stories of success andfailure. But the market remains by and large a place where thepowerful gain more often than not and the less powerful losewith unvarying regularity. Why does it continue to be the casethe world over? Failure has not deterred the reformers andsuccess has not tempered the powerful.

For the classical economist the market was a place where theprice equated supply and demand, market clearance as theycalled it had no ethical aspects. The consequences of imbalancehad to be borne by the market players and if somebody lost itcould not be helped. There is nothing called fair price ineconomics (one may be surprised at this but unfortunately it istrue). It does however recognize a subsidized price, a concessionto some for non-economic reasons outside the marketmechanism. The unseen hand that is supposed to control themarket had never exhibited a softer side.

In the last decade or so there has been a rise of what is called theregulatory state which intervenes in the markets for the benefitof the less powerful. It is less inclusive than the socialist statebut more proactive than the capitalist state. The earliercontroversy state versus the market is now replaced by acompromise formulation state and the market in an uneasycoalition. Discussions on fair trade or green trade have to keepthis background in mind.

The words competition, monopoly which influence policymaking all over the world are legacies of earlier economictheoretical positions and specific connotations which sometimesare not understood by the policy makers or those who seek toinfluence policy. Take for example the generally acceptedposition that competition is good and that monopoly is bad. Toomany players in the market can lead to economic waste and onecan visualize a benevolent monopolist (likely to the state owned)who adds to societal good. In the wonderland of the marketplace words do not always mean what they seem to mean.

There are two concepts which we need to understand if one wereto attempt to tame the logic of the market place in favor of theless privileged. They are asymmetry of information andasymmetry of staying power. Let me explain them.

Asymmetry of information is easy to understand, some knowwhere they can get better deals than the others and make use ofthis knowledge for their gain. The better informed are usuallythe better endowed with resources. The poor have neitherknowledge nor money.

Staying power is the ability to wait for a better opportunitybefore entering the market. It would mean ability to stock whenthe markets are unfavorable and release goods when it suitsthem to do so. The less well endowed in resources have little orno staying power. They have to sell almost immediately after the

goods are produced because they need the cash for theirlivelihood.

Those of us who are involved in fair trade efforts essentially tryto remedy the two asymmetries we have talked about. It needsunderstanding and organizational ability.

Individual producers whether they be small farmers or artisansby themselves are unequal to the task of facing the buyer powerin a level playing field situation. That is why they need to gettogether and organize themselves. Getting together is a necessarycondition of success not a sufficient condition.

This where the proactive role of the state comes in, in framingrules of exchange, providing support facilities, dispute resolutionmechanisms and statutory protection. Unaided the task of gettinga fair deal for the small player in the market becomes that muchmore difficult.

Another source of great support is a discerning consumer who issupportive of fair trading even if it means a small increase in theprice he/she pays. While it is a great gesture of human solidarity,without the other supports we have talked about, it will only bethe ‘smaller stream of business’.

One of the organizational innovations in fair trade is to limit thelinks in the chain of distribution, get the producers to sell directlyto the consumers so that cost of longer distribution is sharedbetween the two main economic partners. Cooperatives,producer associations and companies have performed a usefulrole.

There is a market phenomenon which we need to understand inthe commodity markets specifically, longer chain does notalways mean a higher cost/price. In produce markets whereprices fluctuate almost hourly, each link in the chain trades itsposition, making losses or profits affecting final price inunpredictable ways. Fair traders operating in these markets needto be conscious of this. Large volume of trade sometimesstabilizes the market.

Information asymmetry and transparency in market exchanges gotogether. Both state and corporate players have sought to provideinformation to the small producer, the former as a part of itsobligations to its citizens and the latter as a part of CorporateSocial Responsibility and good business practice.

Many states in the world have by legislation mandated auctionswhere the bidding is open and the producer has a right towithdraw if he feels that he would like to wait for another day.Not all auctions have been good examples of openness but themethod has merits provided the small producer is organized andhas the necessary staying power.

Fair traders have also sought to add value to the products to theircustomers; exit undifferentiated commodity markets and enterbranded consumer goods markets. There have been many successstories but this transition needs preparation.

If fair trade has to become the way all trade operates, they needto acquire a critical minimum size and support of many playersin the market. The excitement of creating a more ethical businessmode is exciting but making it a default practice is enduring.

�


Growing a localorganic movement:The MexicanNetwork of OrganicMarkets

Over the past several years, in response to the rapidgrowth in global demand for organic goods, the amountof organic production in Mexico has increased

dramatically. Indeed, while Mexican agriculture as a whole hassuffered severe crises, the organic sector has boomed, and todaymore than 83 000 producers farm organically on over 300 000hectares of land. Of these producers, 98 percent are small scale,farming an average of three hectares, and over 50 percent areindigenous people. Unfortunately, as is the case in manydeveloping countries, the vast majority of organic productionremains focused on export crops –particularly coffee, but alsococoa, coconut, and other fruit and vegetables– with 85 percentof organic goods being sent to foreign markets. From anenvironmental point of view, export-oriented production isextremely damaging because of the amounts of fossil fuelsrequired for transportation. In addition, packaging for exportconsumes precious resources and creates mountains of waste.Moreover, an export-oriented focus constrains the degree towhich domestic markets are developed, and it leaves Mexicanproducers highly vulnerable to international market fluctuations.

An alternative organic vision

These problems have not gone unnoticed in Mexico. In fact, as inmany other countries, a local organic movement has beengrowing alongside the more conventional industry. For example,some Mexican grocery stores now carry organic goods, and anumber of organic speciality shops and cafés have opened,primarily in and around Mexico City. One of the more grassrootsefforts, which focuses specifically on small scale local organics,has been the emergence of a number of organic markets acrossthe country. Supported by committed producers and consumers,and in many cases linked to universities and non-governmentalorganisations, 17 of these markets are already well established innine states, and new initiatives are continuously being developed.Since 2004, these markets have joined together to form theMexican Network of Organic Markets.

While remaining independent entities with distinctcharacteristics, the markets do share a common vision. Besidesthe desire to improve the environment by supporting organicagriculture practices, the Network views sustainability in broaderterms, regarding social and economic justice. In the Network’sview, promoting social and economic justice includes makinghealthy, safe, organic products more readily available to all

Mexicans – and not just to those who live in urban centres andcan afford to pay high premiums. Towards this goal, the organicmarkets focus on goods produced locally by small scale farmers,as well as on linking consumers directly with producers. Byreducing the transportation and packaging of products and byeliminating intermediaries, the organic markets make it possiblefor small scale producers to earn more from their productionwhile at the same time offering relatively affordable prices toconsumers. Supporting these kinds of linkages also serves amore philosophical purpose – of building community solidarityand trust relationships.

Indeed, community building is at the heart of Mexico’s localorganic markets. They are not conceived of as simply placeswhere people go to buy and sell goods. Rather, they are meant tobe spaces where commerce and consumption can become apolitical, social, ethical, educational, and enjoyable act. In aneffort to combine these various elements, the vast majority of theNetwork’s markets offer a wide variety of workshops, lecturesand other activities for both adults and children. In addition,many also host cultural events such as dance or musicalperformances, or other special events such as anniversarycelebrations or fairs. As a result, the markets are dynamicinitiatives that seek to support organic agriculture in a trulyholistic sense, helping move towards environmental, social, andenvironmental sustainability.

Challenges facing the Mexican Network of Organic Markets

Although the number of local organic markets in Mexico isgrowing rapidly and there are a considerable number of highlycommitted producers, consumers, and organisers workingtirelessly in support of the movement, each market confrontssome significant challenges, and many of these are commonacross the Network. One of the primary challenges for eachmarket is the struggle to secure the physical and humanresources required in order to function. Unfortunately, marketprofits are generally not yet at a level that enables groups to payfor things like space rental or salaries to co-ordinators. Thus, themarkets are heavily dependent on donations of resources andvolunteer labour, which can be problematic.

A lack of funds also limits the degree to which the Network canpursue training and education programmes for both producersand consumers. Significant numbers of producers have

The participation certification committee in action. The farm visit isviewed as an educational experience for all those involved.

Photo

: Er

in N

elso

n/L

aura

Góm

ez

Erin Nelson,Rita Schwentesius Rindermann,Laura Gómez Tovar and Manuel Ángel Gómez Cruz


demonstrated interest in shifting to organic production andaccessing an organic market, but they lack the necessaryexpertise, and cannot access the educational resources needed toassist them in the endeavour. The difficulties in getting access toextension services exacerbates another problem in terms ofgrowing local organic markets – insufficient supply of locallyproduced organic goods. In fact, although insufficient demand isoften cited as a problem for local organics, the reality for manyexisting organic markets is that sometimes consumers comelooking for goods and find them either sold or not available atall. In response to this problem, the markets are constantlysearching for new producers to expand the supply of existingproducts and introduce new ones to meet consumer needs andpreferences. The Network would also like to facilitate the inter-market exchange of products; however, a lack of funding fortransportation has meant that this has not yet been possible.

Participatory organic certification system

Another major challenge confronting local organic markets arethe economic and bureaucratic barriers that make it difficult forthe small scale producers involved to obtain organic certification.This can make ensuring consumer confidence in the integrity ofthe products for sale difficult. In response to this issue, theorganic markets that participate in the Network support thenotion of participatory certification, and are working to developsmoothly functioning “Participatory Guarantee Systems”. Keyaspects of these systems are that they minimise bureaucracy, donot require any payment from the producer, and incorporate anelement of social and environmental education for producers andconsumers. In a major step forward for participatory certificationin Mexico, the Network successfully lobbied for its inclusion inthe recently passed law governing organic agriculture. As aresult, products certified through participatory processes can nowlegally be referred to as “organic”.

In Chapingo’s organic market, for example, the first step for aproducer wishing to achieve participatory certification is tocontact the market co-ordinator and fill out a questionnaireregarding current and past production practices. Thisquestionnaire is reviewed by Chapingo’s participatorycertification committee, which consists of local consumers,producers, agricultural researchers and students. The committeeuses a combination of the norms of the National OrganicProgram of the United States and those of the Mexicancertification body Certimex as a reference. If, based on thequestionnaire, the producer meets the requirements for organiccertification, a visit to the farm is scheduled.

This farm visit is not viewed as an inspection per se, but ratheras an interactive experience designed to be educational for allthose involved. During the visit, committee members consult achecklist that includes basic data about the farm operation (e.g.size of territory, number of crops, etc.), as well as basic organiccontrol points such as the following: source of seeds and water;soil, pest and disease management practices; post-harvesttreatment of crops; and the potential for contamination fromneighbouring farms.

Following the farm visit, the case is discussed in a meeting of theentire certification committee. If producers comply with allstandards, they are granted organic status within the market andcertified without condition. In most cases however, certificationcomes with a set of conditions. The most common ones includethe need to develop natural barriers to prevent contaminationfrom neighbouring conventional farms, and to thoroughly

compost manure before application to crops. Provided that theproducers work with the committee to meet these conditions, andthat they are not in serious violation of organic standards, theycan then begin to sell their goods in the “natural” section of themarket, which is physically separated from the organic sectionand marked with a sign. Follow-up visits and continuouscommunication are used to ensure that the conditions are beingmet, and eventually the producer may be eligible for full organicstatus (refer to Figure 1 for the full picture of the process).Because transparency and community involvement are integralaspects of the system, the results of all questionnaires andcommittee decisions are available to the public, and anyone whowishes to join the certification committee is more than welcometo do so. In addition, consumers are encouraged to interact withproducers at the Chapingo market, and this interaction has led tothe development of strong relationships of trust, and in somecases friendship, between the buyers and sellers of organicproducts. These relationships are an important means ofsupporting the participatory certification process, as they providethe consumer with an extra sense of security.

It should be noted that the process of participatory certification isnot without its own set of problems and limitations. One of themost prominent challenges for the implementation ofparticipatory certification is that it is currently all done on avoluntary basis. This places significant constraints on the amountof time that people are able to devote to the process.

In addition, many participants come and go, and this creates alack of consistency and continuity within the certificationcommittee. Finally, a lack of training and education means thatseveral people who are currently active in the committee stilllack the sufficient expertise to carry out inspections. Thesechallenges have made it difficult to keep up with the demand forcertifying new producers who wish to enter the market, and alsoto consistently monitor the farms of existing market members.

Future steps

The Mexican Network of Organic Markets is expected tocontinue growing, as it is doing that now at a very fast rate.Looking into the future, the Network’s plans include to:

• solidify the participatory certification systems (i.e. make surethat they are codified in writing and that they are followedhomogenously in all markets);

• systematically determine the characteristics of the variousmarkets (including number of producers involved, productsavailable, income generated, resources invested, etc.);

• offer training for market managers;

• continue offering capacity building workshops on organicagriculture techniques as well as on price setting and smallbusiness management;

• address issues of gender within the local organic markets;

• increase promotion of the markets, for example by using radioand television and public events;

• visit elementary schools and offer education on the environmentand organic agriculture; and

• continue to host meetings three times per year where all marketswill be represented.

The rapid growth of the Mexican Network of Organic Marketsdemonstrates that there is a great deal of interest on the part ofboth Mexican producers and consumers to work together tocreate sustainable food systems. By increasing the links betweenproducers and consumers and by providing high quality organic


Over the past three decades, organic agriculture hasevolved into a global system of third party certificationand international trade. This system has seen

tremendous growth in recent years, but it has presented morechallenges than opportunities for small scale producers,especially those in the South. There are many who abide by theprinciples but who are unable to market their crops as organicbecause they lack the third party certification that the globalmarket demands. The reality is that most farmers are not able toafford the high costs associated with third party certification.The amount of paperwork that is required is also often seen asan obstacle. Aside from these barriers, the fact still remains thatinternational organic standards like the International Federationof Organic Agriculture Movement’s (IFOAM) Basic Standardshave been developed in the North, despite 75 percent ofIFOAM’s members being from the South. The result is standardsthat do not consider southern climates or economies.

In reaction to these challenges, small farmers around the worldhave created alternative systems of organic certification that aresuited to their local ecological and economic realities. Stillfounded on the principles of organic agriculture, these systemsare often loosely based on IFOAM’s Basic Standards but withthe necessary modifications made to reflect their community’sneeds, including different cultural means of quantitatively orqualitatively measuring “organic.” Most basic are changesinvolving reduced certification costs and amounts of requiredpaperwork, but more significant are the structural differences.Very much a community organisation, the shared emphasis ofparticipation in all these alternative systems has led to theoverall term, “participatory guarantee systems” (PGS). With afocus on the local community, standards are created jointly bythe producers and consumers that the system will serve. In thisway and others, both transparency and participation areentrenched as core values in these alternative systems ofcertification. Trust is also a cornerstone of PGS –not onlybecause of the joint participation of its creation– but alsobecause of the continued relationship between producers andconsumers in direct purchasing at markets or farm-gate sales anda close relationship between producers who work together tokeep the PGS functioning. Sharing information and experiencewith each other is one way that this trust is established. Capacitybuilding is also a key component of PGS, and training is often arequirement, as well as meetings to discuss farm management

issues and share solutions. Most PGSs are non-hierarchical,which is achieved through a relatively even distribution ofresponsibility among producers who belong to the PGS.

From participatory-driven principles to action, the EcovidaNetwork in Brazil provides an example of PGS. This scheme, setup by local NGOs and research institutions, has 2300 farmfamilies, 25 support organisations, 15 consumer groups, 8marketing enterprises and 7 small scale agro-industries asmembers. Most farmer members of the Network sell individuallyor through farmers’ groups at fairs and markets, but others sell toco-operative stores or agro-processing plants that are a part ofthe Network. Members are able to enjoy a price premium fortheir organic certification and are able to keep more of theirprofits as there is no intermediary.

IFOAM reports that there are dozens of PGSs around the worldand they range in scale as well as approach. Though PGSs havecommon founding principles, how they run differs according towhat is desired by the local community. It should be noted thateven with a system like the Ecovida Network, the focus is stillon direct local consumption. There are those within the PGSmovement who wish to gain access to niche markets in theNorth, but this ambition is far from being realised. There aremany signs that IFOAM recognises the importance of PGSs indirect, local consumption relationships, but not as an export-oriented system. Nevertheless, IFOAM has published a numberof suggestions to guide NGOs and policy makers in promotingPGS. Ideas include building PGS credibility through theestablishment of local markets, arranging access to urban areasfor rural farmers, revitalising the link between socioeconomicissues and organic agriculture and many other actions toencourage PGS, both in regions where it is and is notestablished. PGS presents the opportunity for the organicmovement to again support local consumption, in turnstrengthening community ties, economies and rural livelihoods.

�

Tegan Renner. University of Waterloo, 320-D Spruce St. Waterloo,Ontario N2L 3M7 Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

References- FAO, 2007. Participatory Guarantee Systems for marketingorganic products, Brazil. Food and Agriculture Organisation.Rome, Italy.- IFOAM, 2007. Participatory Guarantee Systems: sharedvision, shared ideals. International Federation of OrganicAgriculture Movements. Bonn, Germany.- Raynolds, Laura T., 2004. The globalization of organic agro-food networks. World Development, 32, 5.

Participatory Guarantee Systemsoffer alternative certification

Tegan Renner

goods at prices that are fair for everyone involved, these marketshelp broaden the reach of the organic movement whilesimultaneously returning it to its philosophical roots. Byfacilitating the involvement of small scale producers andencouraging a focus on local food networks, the notion ofparticipatory certification furthers this effort. Indeed, although stillin its early phases, the Mexican experience with local organicmarkets and participatory certification offers an importantalternative, not only to the conventional food sector, but also to theindustrialised, export-oriented, “mainstream” organic sector.

�

Erin Nelson. University of Guelph, School of Environmental Designand Rural Development. 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, Ontario N1G2W1, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

Rita Schwentesius Rindermann. Red Mexicana de Tianguis yMercados Orgánicos/ Cuerpo Académico Socioeconomía en Producción,Certificación y Consumo Orgánico, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo.Km. 38.5, Carretera México-Texcoco, Apdo. Postal 90, C.P. 56230Chapingo, México. E-mail: [email protected]

Laura Gómez Tovar. Departamento de Agroecología, UniversidadAutónoma Chapingo / Comité de Certificación Participativa delTianguis Orgánico. E-mail: [email protected]

Manuel Ángel Gómez Cruz. Cuerpo Académico Socioeconomía enProducción, Certificación y Consumo Orgánico, Universidad AutónomaChapingo. E-mail: [email protected]



Eco foot prints – using people’sparticipation as a way forward

Mathew John and Kunal Sharma

For millions of organic farmers who earn their livelihoodsfrom cultivating a host of diverse crops, much has changedfor the better in the past decades. The cycle turned as

natural farming gave way to chemical applications but now weagain see the return of the organic way of life. Various methodsof farming has been tried across eco-regions, however, theunderlying element that runs through all systems of sustainablefarming is the need to preserve and conserve the soil. It isaccepted that this element is manifested best through organicways of farming. Organic farming ensures that air, water and soilare unpolluted leaving the environment safe for the present andfuture generations. Thus, soil is considered as a living unit, onethat must be preserved for a healthy earth.

The interest towards organically grown products has increasedexponentially in the last decade, however the market share ofthese produce is still considerably low. Small organic farmersface a variety of problems. Not only do they have to competewith market forces but also ensure that their product is sold atcompetitive prices and brings sufficient profitable income. InIndia, with growing consumer concern over pesticide residues,there is a need to support and encourage organic production.

A practical system of certification and an assured market are but,two strands of the continuum that would define the future oforganic foods in the modern world. Organic producers around theworld have been developing methods to guarantee the organicintegrity of their products for fifty years. It was increasingly feltthat third party certification was not the answer in the long rundue to a number of reasons, primary among them, costs andbureaucracy. Today, what are generally referred to as Third-PartyCertification systems have become the dominant means oforganic guarantee. While Third-Party Certification is acomponent in the world trade, there are downsides to the system.The inherent expense and paperwork required in a multi-levelsystem discourages most small organic producers from beingcertified at all. This limits local and domestic trade as well asaccess to organic products. Worse yet, it limits the growth of theorganic movement as a whole.

Marketing of agro-ecological products will determine to a largeextent, the future of organic and ecological products. Fair tradeconstitutes the final link in the continuum as it will help ensurefair prices and help maintain social and environmental standardsrelated to the production of these goods. It is at this stage, thatinterest of producers needs to be sustained as organically grownfood would prove to be more remunerative to the farmer, if it isfairly traded. At Keystone, the emphasis on fair trade and organicproduce has been through the concept of local marketing.Keystone through its ‘Green Shops’ work with small indigenousfarmers and gatherers while providing them assistance in valueadding organic produce and ensuring conservation ofbiodiversity. Fair trade aims at conserving indigenousknowledge, traditions and crafts and promoting sustainable

harvesting and farming methods. It also ensures that a largeamount of trade occurs through local markets and providesemployment opportunities at the local level.

Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS)

The concept of Participatory Guarantee Systems or PGS arose tofill the gaps in third party certification. In 2004, a conferencesponsored by MAELA ((Latin American AgroecologyMovement) and IFOAM (International Federation of OrganicAgriculture Movements) was held in Brazil. Representativesfrom over 20 countries presented and shared their experiences onthe “alternative” certification systems that had been developedbased on the local context. Thousands of small-scale producersnow associate themselves with these alternatives programs,which are now collectively referred to as Participatory GuaranteeSystems (PGS).

Keystone and many other organisations around the world areinvolved in building this concept as they see PGS as a tool tohelp build credibility and increase the local market for organicproduce. PGS supports producer groups in mutually facilitatingimproved farming practices through the sharing of knowledgeand experiences and evolving a sense of community enterprisethat builds on trust and leadership.

PGS is a system of quality assurance that is directly managedand controlled by local stakeholders. PGS programs firstcropped up as an alternative to third party certification systemsfor small-holder farmers primarily selling directly to consumers.

Participatory Guarantee Systems subscribe to the same idealsthat guided yesterday’s pioneering organic farmers. PGSprograms require a fundamentally ecological approach toagriculture that uses no synthetic chemical pesticides, fertilizersor GMO’s, and further sustains farmers and workers in a cradleof long-term economic sustainability and social justice. There aredozens of Participatory Guarantee Systems serving farmers andconsumers around the world. Although details of methodologyand process vary, the consistency of core principles acrosscountries and continents is remarkable.

PGS in India

India has developed an internationally accepted Third PartyCertification system for the export of organic products, providingan export opportunity for India’s farmers. With growingconsumer concern over pesticide residues, the government hasrecognized the need to support and encourage organic productionfor domestic consumption as well – specifically from millions ofIndia’s small diversified farmers. For most of these farmers(many of who are illiterate) Third Party Certification is not seenas practical.

In 2006, FAO and the Ministry of Agriculture, in consultationwith farmers, NGOs and state government officials, beganworking on a model PGS programme specific to India. After anational workshop in September 2006, pilot PGS programmeswere launched with 14 groups of India. The structure is being


slowly built up with the programme based on farm appraisals bypeer farmer groups and facilitated by NGOs. The PGSdocuments as finalized, have been translated into 6 regionallanguages – Marathi, Tamil, Hindi, Telugu, Kannada andMalayalam and are being pilot tested in different parts of thecountry.

One must realize that PGS and Third Party certification are notparallel, but complimentary systems of certification. The use ofboth within India will bring the greatest number of farmers into asystem of committed organic production. Working at a grassrootslevel with the direct involvement of farmers and consumers, PGScertification of millions of farmers can take place relativelyquickly; providing safe clean healthy produce to millions ofIndian families not likely to gain access to Third Party certifiedproducts.

Fair Trade in Practice

Keystone’s role in marketing was necessitated by theinterventions in organic and natural products emerging from itsdevelopment interventions in the Nilgiris. Promoting traditionalagriculture and creating a local market for crops grown in theNilgiris are the prime objectives of Keystone’s local marketingeffort.

The primary source of livelihoods for these communities hasbeen hunting and gathering. Though, this still continues, theyalso work in nearby plantations to supplement their income.Products like honey, other Non Timber Forest Produce andagricultural produce were being sold to traders at very lowprices.

Presently, local marketing in Nilgiris is so poor that almost allthe produce is grown for the outside markets and even vegetablesgrown organically are sent to large wholesale urban markets.Food security is not given priority as food items are broughtfrom the plains and the entire population including farmingcommunities depend on it.

The first step towards local marketing began with the GreenShop at Kotagiri, Keystone’s base in the Nilgiris, that has beenexpanded to other towns of Nilgiri district. The supply base forthese products have been through a network of resource centresacross the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve. Keystone helped to set upthe centres and provided them training on many aspects likevalue addition. The communtiies were also trained on how tomanage the centre - procurement of raw materials, setting prices,weighing, packing, invoicing, stock maintenance, cash, etc. Thishas been an ongoing process and constantly needs fresh inputs tokeep these aspects strong.

Keystone has six full fledged Production Centres. TheProduction Centres are mainly run by tribal women whoundertake value addition activities and share benefits amongstgroup members from sale of its products to Keystone. Around 6-8 people work in each of the centres, full time. During seasontime or when they get large orders, 20-25 people are involved.These centres are independent - they have their own bankaccounts, revolving funds etc., which they operate. Keystonecontinues to be a facilitator in the process.

Keystone is dealing with honey, beeswax products, valued addedforest products, organic homestead products, organic spices,pepper, coffee and herbs. Presently, three Green Shops inKotagiri, Coonoor and Ooty are selling the products in retail.Our Green Shops act as the interface between small indigenousfarmers and consumers. Creating awareness and bringing forth

the values of the products are the key responsibilities of theshops. Sales accrue from tourists visiting the Nilgiris and a set ofregular customers who subscribe to organic values. The productsare also sold to firms marketing organic products and networkorganizations who work with indigenous communities andorganic farmers in different parts of the country.

Today, there is an assurance with relation to market prices aswell as the confidence of sale. There are close to 1000 harvesters/farmers who supply a range of products. Today, they are able toprocess produce from their own areas which apart fromincreasing their incomes, gives them a stake in the forests andfarms as well as provides them employment opportunities.

With well laid out quality parameters and insistence ontraditional and sustainable farming practices with multi croprotations, we try to balance the needs of the consumers with thatof the farmers. Assuring a stable market for the locally produceditems, doing away with premium pricing and giving acompetitive and realistic value for both the farmer and consumeris our goal. In its efforts to promote local marketing, Keystone isorganising Bazaars every week to sell organically grownvegetables and fruits from the Nilgiris. Efforts are being made tospread awareness among consumers and encourage farmers totake up organic farming. This initiative is essential as it bringstogether the consumers and farmers to a common platformwherein they earn and gain from each others perspectives.

Conclusion

Keystone’s experience from the past years points out that theefforts of marketing organic homestead produce and forestproducts, grown and collected by indigenous communities, needsto be expanded. Keystone now brings produce from otherorganisations as well as supplies to a network. The need is tointegrate PGS and fair trade principles. It is challenging but onethat is likely to be overcome in the near future resulting incombined benefits for the consumer and farmer.

Keystone is a member of the IFOAM International Task Force onPGS, the PGS Organic India Council (PGSOIC) andInternational Foundation For Fair Trade and Development(IFFAD)

�

Mathew John and Kunal SharmaKeystone Foundation, Keystone Centre, PB 35,Groves Hill Road, Kotagiri 643 217, Nilgiris District,Tamil Nadu, Indiaemail: kf@keystone foundation.org

Case of Amuthasurabhi Makkal Kulu

This young dynamic group was formed about 4 years ago andtoday is quite efficient in being able to handle and executeorders. Though the group has had its share of problems withkeeping themselves together, they have continued to persevereand today are suppliers of unique products - bees wax candlesand balms. They have worked hard at acquiring the skills andcontinuous training by Keystone, provides them the opportunityto constantly improve product quality. These products are theonly items that are also exported through a fair trade company,IFFAD, based in Chennai. Apart from these, they also work onamla candy, amla mouth freshners and pickles. The grouptoday supplies about 4 lakhs worth of products to Keystone.

For the first time, in Jan 2008, a system was devised thatenabled to have a share in the profits. This has given them atremendous incentive.


Organic bazaars – linking smallproducers with urban consumers

B N Vishwanath

In India, the term organic farming has caught the imaginationof all those farmers and consumers, who are seriously tryingto do away with harmful chemicals and pesticides, to have a

cleaner and healthier environment and food. Of late the numberof farmers who have taken to organic farming is also increasing.However, marketing remains a problem for organic farmers, aswas the case with conventional farming.

The concept of Organic Bazaars was conceived byDr. Alexander Daniel, IIRD, even before the central governmentissued the NPOP and NSOP (National Standards). The conceptof producer-consumer relationship through production-marketingnetwork of organic products was operationalised during 2003-04. IIRD expanded its work to the four South Indian statesthrough a network of partners. It partnered with Janodaya, aCivil Society Organisation in Bangalore, Karnataka.

Janodaya chose to work in the villages surrounding Bangalorecity. Around 10% of the land has access to irrigation wherefarmers have been growing 6-8 types of vegetables and fruitstrees, using a lot of chemicals. Firstly, Janodaya organized anumber of village meetings highlighting the benefits of organicfarming. Interested farmers were organized into “Organic-farming groups”. The farmers were trained on composting,vermicomposting, azolla, panchagavaya application. Rainwaterconservation was also included – making farm ponds and usingthe collected water for vegetable production. The simple rules oforganic farming convinced the farmers for switching over toorganic cultivation. Farmers followed a simple method called“belief certification” which involves the farmers to haveinteraction directly with consumers.

Setting up organic bazaars

However, lack of proper marketing facilities for organic producewas still a limitation. To address this issue, Janodaya startedorganic bazaars, outlets for organic produce within the citylimits – one bazaar at one location on a particular day of theweek. Initially, farmers used to collect the produce, transport itby a bus and deliver at different sale points. It was important that

the produce reached in the early morning before 7 AM, whenmost of the women bought vegetables for the day. However,sometimes it was found difficult to maintain the time as farmershad to depend on public transport system for reaching theproduce to the sale points. To overcome this, Janodayavolunteered to collect these produce at a common collectionpoint within the city limits, and then distribute to the various salepoints through its own transport system.

Farmers found this marketing system very convenient andremunerative too. Price of vegetables is fixed at 1-2 rupees perkilogram more than what is offered at Horticultural ProduceCooperative Marketing Society (HOPCOMS) of Bangalore. Ofthis only one rupee is deducted towards transport costs and therest goes to the farmer. This way, farmers started receiving onpar with the price offered by HOPCOMS. This was about 200%more than what they were receiving earlier.

At present, there is 17 such organic farming groups spread over17 villages. Around 476 farmers, including 213 women farmersare involved in organic cultivation of vegetables and fruits.Crops like tomato, beans, carrot, cabbage, pulses, horse gram,guards, ground nuts, greens, chikku, coconut, banana lady finger,cucumber, sweet potato, green chilies, coriander, pudina, drumstick, limes etc., are being grown on 695 acres.

Spreading consumer awareness

Meanwhile to sustain this process, Janodaya started creatingawareness among the urban consumers on the importance ofconsuming organic food. They participated in several exhibitionsto promote the concept of organic bazaars. About five Consumerawareness workshops were held to raise awareness on use oforganic vegetables. These were mainly attended by housewives,members of women welfare associations and retired people.These people were further motivated to grow their ownvegetables on their roof tops and backyards. Further, threegrower-consumer meets were also organized to strengthen thebond between the farmers and consumers. With all theseactivities the number of organic consumers has increased to 600.

To expand the organic promotion and marketing services, besidesproducers consumers linkage; a network of interested and likeminded NGO’s was taken up, since last year.

The concept of “Farmer to Consumer” not only benefited thefarmer in leading a decent life but is also helping the consumerin getting natural and healthy food. In future, Janodaya wants tointroduce the concept of Participatory Guarantee System forcertification.

�

B N Vishwanath, Kadur Agro, No.503, IV Main,6th Cross, Kengeri Satellite Town, Bangalore – 560 060.Ph:9845627217email: [email protected]

Mobile organic bazaar


Awareness on benefits of organic farming and hazards ofagrochemical residues in food is well established.Consumers from several segments have demonstrated

willingness to pay premium price for certified organic produce.Realizing the long-term implications of agrochemicals onagricultural sustainability, the number of farmers shifting toorganic farming is increasing. Today, however, the direct linkbetween the producers and buyers is in its nascent stage. Severalsmall farmers practicing genuine organic farming are deprived ofthe premium price for the organic produce. This is mainly due tolack of know-how on certification, shortage of financialresources required for certification and lack of assured markets.In India, the surge in the retail sector is leading to developmentof several new supply chain models. The fragmented supplychains of the traditional markets are being replaced by wellcoordinated and streamlined ones.

This article reflects on the outcome of the efforts made by BAIFDevelopment Research Foundation in Vansda, Kaprada andDharampur blocks of South Gujarat for establishing a linkbetween small farmers and corporate buyers of organic produce.Predominantly inhabited by tribal communities, the area ischaracterized by hilly terrains and high annual rainfall with highsoil and water erosion. Denuded forest resources have madeagriculture the primary source of livelihoods. Traditionally,agriculture has been rainfed and subsistence based. Paddy andfinger millets are the major crops grown. The decliningagricultural productivity owing to depleted soil cover and waterscarcity has forced the tribal families to migrate in search oflivelihoods.

The intervention

In order to break the vicious cycle of starvation, malnutrition andmigration, BAIF launched a comprehensive programme for tribaldevelopment. The programme aims at promoting livelihoods aswell as improving the quality of lives of the participatingfamilies.

The participants established drought tolerant fruit species likemango and cashew on 0.4 ha of their degraded lands. Initially,the poor soil quality would not support growth of mango grafts.An integrated plant nutrition and pest management approach wasadopted in the initial years. The fruit plantations receivedbalanced application of chemical fertilizers with organicmanuring. Methods like vermicomposting, NADEP and in-situcomposting were introduced for recycling available biomass.Over a period of 15 years, more than 20,000 tribal families haveestablished their orchards on nearly 7,600 ha. of waste land. Acooperative, namely “Vasundhara” was established forprocessing and marketing of the fruit produce.

Constant application of manures and soil conservation measuresresulted into eventual improvement in the soil status. A completeorganic approach was adopted in the latter years. If certified,these organically produced mangoes had a potential to fetch apremium price. Certain challenges involved in achieving thiswere shortage of financial resources for certification and lack ofassured high value market.

Partnership for Organic Production

In 2005-06, emerged a corporate partnership with ITC, one ofIndia’s foremost private sector companies engaged in diversifiedbusiness activities including food processing. ITC was on thelookout for organically produced mangoes for its processedfoods. BAIF facilitated a mutual agreement between Vasundharaand ITC for certification and supply of organic mangoes. ITCextended financial resources for certification of the orchardsthrough SKAL International, a reputed certifying agency.

BAIF trained the village level people’s organizations andVasundhara in maintaining records and logistics management. Itwas involved in standardization and extension of package ofpractices to maximize production.

The organically certified mangoes received a premium price withan assured market. Farmers now get a premium price of around20% at their farm-gates over the prevailing market price, hencesaving the cost and efforts on transporting the produce to themarket. ITC takes care of the costs required for inspection andcertification.

Several farmers have been attracted by this concept leading torising number of farmers opting for organic certification. Thenumber of certified orchards is expected to reach 3500 during2008-09.

Conclusion

This partnership strategy has resulted in a win-win situation.Farmers now have an assured market for organic produce. ITC isbenefited through the centralized procurement, economies ofscale and reduction in coordination cost besides an assurance onthe quantity and quality of the mangoes. The partnership strategyhas helped BAIF in fulfilling its objectives of helping thousandsof small tribal farmers move up the value chain, promotingagricultural sustainability and environmental safety.

�

Yogesh Sawant and Meghraj SapateBAIF Development Research Foundation, Dr. Manibhai Desai Nagar,Warje, Opp. Popular Nagar, Pune - 411058. Ph: 020-25231661 email: [email protected]

Reaping benefits through Public-PrivatePartnership

Yogesh Sawant and Meghraj Sapate

Comparative Returns in a Typical Case (Year 2007-08):

Particulars Traditional Public-PrivateSupply PartnershipChain (Rs./Kg) (Rs./Kg)

A) Price of Mango 15.00 18.00

B) Transport Cost (at farmers end) 0.25 -

C) Commission to Traders 1.20 -

Net Selling Price of Farmer(A-B-C) 13.55 18.00

On an average a farmer sells approximately 650 Kg mangoes. Ina typical case, certification of the produce will fetch Rs. 11,700/-against Rs. 8,807/- under the conventional system.


Community Supported Agriculture:An alternative local food system

Petra van de Kop, Klaas Nijhof, Henk Kloen and Arnoud Braun

In a situation of growing globalisation of food systems,questions are increasingly being raised about the integrity ofour food supply, the impact of its production on the

environment and animal welfare, and the fairness of tradebetween consumers and workers along the food chain. Theseconsumer concerns have led to a growing international marketfor fairly traded and organic products, and also to localinitiatives where consumers buy directly from producers.Around the world, small-scale farmers are diversifying theirproduction and income as a response to the changes in theworld’s food systems. Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)is a marketing approach that encourages local, environmentallysustainable food production.

The CSA concept originated in the 1960s in Switzerland andJapan, where consumers interested in “safe” food joined up withfarmers who were seeking stable markets for their crops. InJapan, CSA is called teikei which translates as “putting thefarmer’s face on food”. CSA is a partnership of mutualcommitment between a farm (producer) and a community ofsupporters (consumers). The partnership provides a directeconomic and social link between the production and

consumption of food. CSA can take many forms, but the essenceis that CSA members make a commitment to the producer tosupport the farm throughout the growing season, by purchasing ashare of the season’s harvest – up front. The farm provides, to thebest of its ability, a supply of seasonal fresh produce throughoutthe growing season. In return, the farm is guaranteed a reliablemarket for a diverse selection of crops, and the farmer receives aguaranteed yearly income. One of the key differences betweenCSA and the industrial food system is that the risks of productionare shared equally between the people who benefit. A growingnumber of CSAs have developed in Europe and North America,particularly, since the early 1990s.

The experience of De Nieuwe Ronde

In the Netherlands, there are over 100 CSA initiatives, about 80percent of which are organic farms. De Nieuwe Ronde (meaning“The New Circle”) is a CSA farm located in Wageningen, in thecentre of the Netherlands. This initiative started in 1998 and hasgrown to a farm serving 150 households (approximately 220adults) on 1.5 hectares of land. The CSA business model consistsof a producer and an association of members (consumers). The

The June 2007 “strawberry celebration”, encouraging children to get closer to nature

Photo

: H

enk

Klo

en


basic aim of De Nieuwe Ronde is to use the farmland in asocially, environmentally and economically sustainable manner(also known as the “3Ps” – people, planet and profit).

Social farming

Members have different motives for joining De Nieuwe Ronde,ranging from product quality (organic, fresh, good taste), nothaving time or energy to garden themselves, desiring a nice andinspiring environment, wanting a closer link with foodproduction, or simply because they want to support a moresustainable food system. Although the farmland belongs to theproducer, the members perceive it as “their land”. It is a placewhere members can harvest, meet, relax and sometimes assistwith farming activities. A website and a monthly digitalnewsletter informs members about social (e.g. harvestcelebration, flower arranging or cooking workshops) and farmingactivities, including availability of vegetables to be harvested.Members can also assist with various jobs on the farm, such asweeding and jam preparation. In general, members appreciate theinitiative and about one third is actively involved in theassociation (see Box).

Environmental farming

The farm is organically certified according to the standards of theDutch certification company, SKAL. Members, however, wantedto go beyond the SKAL standards and De Nieuwe Ronde uses awider crop rotation to prevent crop diseases. Also, certainlandscape elements such as hedges and border strips of shrubshave been placed in order to increase its environmental value andbiodiversity. The farmland also offers a place for members’children to discover and learn about the crops.

Economic farming

Members pay a fixed annual membership fee that covers allfarming costs as well as the producer’s salary. In return for thisfee, members can harvest a pre-defined share of vegetables, fruit,potatoes and flowers during the growing season. If there issurplus harvest, it is processed by the association and sold tothird parties for income generation. The members of theassociation share the risks of crop failure equally: if productionof a certain crop is lower than expected, each person harvestsless. On the other hand, they also benefit if there is more toharvest when production is higher than expected. Every year anannual report is prepared that reports about the “3Ps”, and theproducer shares his financial report with members at their annualmeeting. In this meeting the producer and members also jointly

agree on the cropping plan and level of the membership fee forthe next year.

Main lessons learnt

De Nieuwe Ronde is a successful example of a CSA marketingrelationship. One of its important characteristics is that theproducer (along with a group of supporters) started the farmwithout any external financial support. They were simplymotivated people who managed to realise their ambitionsindependently, though the producer took the financial risk for theinitial investments. Ideally, this risk should be shared with theassociation, but the bond of trust needed time to grow first.Values such as integrity, trust, responsibility, collaboration andopenness have been crucial to its success. Besides time,intensive communication (formal and informal) between theproducer and consumers is needed, to develop trust and sharedvalues. Once established, the bond proved to be strong enoughfor sustainable co-operation between producer and members, butalso amongst the members themselves. Experience shows that,over time, a clear and shared vision has evolved. As theassociation has become a network of people with very differentassets, their knowledge, thinking power and financial means canbe mobilised to overcome new challenges. For instance, theassociation convinced local authorities to offer additionalfarmland, and members themselves proposed to increase themembership fee to enable the producer to get a reasonableincome.

Besides the positive contribution of consumer involvement, aCSA set-up creates new demands on producers. They must investmuch more time into communicating with consumers and mustalso give up some control and autonomy. They must acceptpeople coming to their farm at various times, and doing thingsdifferently from themselves. These issues reflect a considerablepsychological barrier for many farmers. The farmer is,nevertheless, always free to express some limits, for instance byclosing off part of the farm, or for part of the day, or to restrictthe types of jobs undertaken by members.

De Nieuwe Ronde is just one example of a CSA initiative thatdeveloped in a particular situation. Community SupportedAgriculture exists in many different forms, and variations on thistheme are developing around the world. For example, consumerscan receive a weekly bag of food products rather than harvestingthemselves; farmers can serve one group of consumers togetherto offer an even wider range of food products; consumers can

Producer

• General farm management and cultivationof vegetables, fruit, herbs and flowers.

• Striving for a slight overproduction tocompensate for failing harvests and forgreater environmental value

• Informing association members aboutharvestable crops

• Providing sufficient labour formanagement of farmland

• Providing and maintaining suitable farmequipment

• Purchasing sustainable production inputs• Farm administration

Association

• Harvesting crops that are indicated asharvestable by the producer, usingappropriate harvesting methods

• Helping with farming activities ifnecessary (e.g. weeding, processing)

• Monitoring farm use when producer isabsent

• Activities such as production ofnewsletter, website management,organisation of social activities,processing of surplus harvest

• Ensuring that all members of theassociation pay their membership fee

Joint responsibility

• Developing cultivation plan, once theproducer makes a proposal anddetermines the “boundary conditions”

• Fixing the level of the membershipfee; the board of the associationmakes a first proposal

• Determining the short term and longterm farm strategy

• External communications (field days,seminars, workshops andpublications)

Division of tasks and responsibilities between producer and association


pay farm investments in return for several years’ harvest; orconsumers can “adopt” a fruit tree (getting fruit in return) or acow (and visit the farm at times).

Relevance for small-scale agriculture in middle and low-income countries

Locally-based food markets are also developing in middle andlow income countries, in response to changes in society.Smallholders, on the one hand, are increasingly confronted witha rapid spread of dynamic modern retailers, wholesalers and foodprocessors in their countries. This imposes serious challenges onthem, because they are required to produce consistent, highquality supplies in required volumes, while complying with newsafety, environmental and social standards. On the other hand,many developing countries also have emerging middle classes inthe bigger cities that have become concerned about the quality oftheir food. This can offer opportunities for small scaleagricultural producers, especially those close to urban centres. InVietnam for instance, there is a growing group of concernedurban consumers that is willing to pay a higher price for “safe”(pesticide-free) vegetables.

While rural people are more likely to be able to grow a smallpatch of vegetables for their own consumption, this option isoften not available for many urban consumers. CSA has thepotential to play a role in spatial planning. It may help to keep

green areas close to or even within urban centres, offering acounterweight against expanding cities.

New initiatives have appeared globally in various forms, inwhich farmers and consumers have jointly developed foodsystems that are tailored to the local possibilities and needs ofboth sides. In Mexico, the “Circle of Responsible Production”brings together organic farmers and consumers in Jalisco state.The Circle was formed during the mid-nineties and bringstogether producers, consumers and promoters that share commongoals about achieving food security, environmental justice andthe provision of healthy food. In this initiative, promotersorganise meetings to bring producers and consumers together tolearn more about each others’ experiences and concerns.Environmental educators also support the Circle by organisingradio programmes, presentations and workshops that discuss thenegative effects of agro-chemicals on human health and theenvironments. In Brazil, at the Serra Grande plateau in the stateof Ceará, another CSA initiative started in 1997. A growingnumber of organic farmers in the area wanted to create marketoutlets for their produce while there was an interest byconsumers to access organically produced food. Meetings wereheld to discuss the costs of producing food, and the availabilityof vegetables throughout the season. As a result, consumers payan agreed monthly membership fee and can either access a “freechoice” or a weekly box with ten different varieties of organicvegetables. In 2002, the project fed 450 consumers with producesupplied by four vegetable and fruit smallholders and threepoultry and milk producers. The initiative has given theconsumers access to organically produced food at lower pricesthan available through conventional retailers, while also enablingproducers to receive a guaranteed income double that of theregional average.

In conclusion, CSA experiences show how rising concerns ofurban consumers can lead to co-operation with farmers, restoringthe balance between rural areas and urban areas, between globaland local food chains, and intensive and small scale foodproduction.

�

Petra van de Kop (Board Member), Klaas Nijhof (Producer), ArnoudBraun (Member), De Nieuwe Ronde, Wageningen, The Netherlands.E-mail: [email protected], [email protected],[email protected]

Henk Kloen, CLM consultancy, Culemborg, The Netherlands. E-mail:[email protected]

References

- Simmons, L. and S. Scott, 2007. Health concerns drive safevegetable production in Vietnam. LEISA Magazine 23-3.

- Friends of the Earth, 2002. Towards a Community SupportedAgriculture. Friends of the Earth, Brisbane, Australia.

- Altieri, M.A., L. Ponti and C.I. Nicholls, 2006. Managing peststhrough plant diversification. LEISA Magazine 22-4.

- Friends of the Earth, 2002. Cultivating Communities. 14th IFOAMOrganic World Congress.

Farmer Klaas Nijhof taking care of his crops at DeNieuwe Ronde

Photo

: M

aria

nne

van d

er P

eijl


The Narayana Reddy Column

Linking growers andconsumers

Farmers undergo a number of difficulties in growing acrop. Most of the times they work for 12 to 16 hours aday in various farm activities like cultivating, manuring,

planting, irrigating, pest control and harvesting, expecting agood returns. But this hard work does not fetch good returns asthe traders or the middlemen make more profits than the farmer,working just for few hours. The State and Union governmentshave tried through legislation and also through introduction ofAgriculture Produce Marketing Communitees (APMC) to avoidmiddlemen in the marketing process. But these systems have notbeen of much use, mainly because of the innocence of thefarmers themselves and the administrators of this APMC.

After realizing the need for a direct deal between the producersand the consumers for organic products, a new trial was startedin Erode town recently which is working very well. A group of20 enlightened social workers contributed Rs. 10,000 each asshare amount and registered as a co-operative society and namedit as ‘green shop’. Then they made 100 consumers who wereaware of the goodness of organic foods as share holders. Theyidentified about 50 farmers from around Erode city who have aself-certification system to brand their produce. This selfcertification system works very well without any expenses - agroup of 5 farmers is organised and three members of the groupwill certify the produce of the other two based on mutual trust.Green shop purchases from their member farmers and also fromsimilar producers and certified cooperatives of the state andneighbouring states. Prices are offered at a premium of 20%than the wholesale market price. The produce is sold to theirmember consumers and if available, to others, at an added 10%of cost price, to meet losses in damages during storage andmaintenance. The profit is paid as dividend to its shareholderseach year after auditing.

In Bangalore city, some people have started such organic shopsin a small way. One such shop is Era Organic working at Dollarcolony, RMV Extension, Bangalore. They have a system ofcollecting vegetables and fruits directly from certified farms,twice a week. This benefits the farmer in saving time andmoney. They have plans of opening 5 more outlets during thenext year. In Maharashtra, almost every big city has shops likethis, particularly in Pune city they have a grower – consumer co-operative working since 10 years.

In the western countries there is a beautiful arrangement ofgrower-consumer link. About 50 consumers in the city gettogether and find 10 growers in the peri-urban area. They hold ameeting and come to an agreement, so that the consumers placean indent for the whole year for vegetables, fruits and dairyproducts. Every week two consumers collect the produce fromthe growers and share among other consumers. Another goodsystem is that the consumers form into groups and spend 10hours each week working with the farmers from whom theypurchase. This system not only makes the consumer confident,

but also makes him to understand the difficulties of growingcrops.

Hence in each city and town, consumers and the farmers shouldform such groups, so that both of them are saved fromexploitation of the middlemen. Of late, in cities like Mumbai,Delhi, Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad, some corporatehouses are coming into marketing vegetables and fruits, bypurchasing directly from the growers. But I am afraid how farthey will benefit growers and consumers. It is always better thatthe direct linkage between grower and consumer is made throughcooperatives, if not possible, through small groups or individualsso that more people share the benefit. A giant company maydisplace many poor people from business.

In Sivagangai, Tamil Nadu, we have an association of about 20organic farmers under the guidance and help of ASSEFA (TheAssociation for Sarva Seva Farms). ASSEFA got a groupcertificate from Lacon, Germany. Farmers are producingvegetables, fruits and rice. ASSEFA has made arrangements tomarket our products at one shop in Uluvar Santhe (farmer’smarket) of the state government and another shop at MahatmaGandhi Park. Both growers and consumers are being benefitedby this arrangement. So it is very important that every town andcity in this country should start such system, so as to save bothfarmers and consumers being exploited by traders andmiddlemen.

Here I would like to mention my views as a grower. We need tosupply only good quality of our products, so that the consumersprefer to purchase only through such cooperative stores orprivate shops who collect products directly from the growers.There are instances where some greedy farmers sell betterquality products in the open market for a higher price and secondgrade products to the co-operative shop or private regular shop.We have to struggle to maintain the goodwill of consumers allthe time, so as to compete with giant company outlets.

�

L. Narayana ReddySrinivasapura, Via Marelanahlli,Hanabe Post, Doddaballapur Taluk,Karnataka.Phone : 080-27601103;Mobile : 9343533632, 9367713963


50 reasons to buy fair trade by Miles Litvinoff and John Madeley,2007. ISBN 978-0-7453-2584-2. Pluto Press, 345 Archway Road,London N6 5AA, U.K., and 839 Greene Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan48106, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected];http://www.plutobooks.com

This book invites consumers to makesimple choices in the way they shop, opt forfair trade products, and thus helpdisadvantaged farmers and workers get abetter deal from trade, help end exploitativechild labour, and persuade companies andgovernments change the way they dobusiness. It presents fair trade as the“success story of our time”, with anincreasing number of fairly traded productsavailable in an increasing number of places,in a way that “everybody can be part of thefair trade revolution”. Consumers can makea difference by backing a system that benefits the poor, paying a fairerprice, helping rebuild lives and livelihoods, or by 47 other reasons.

Black gold: Wake up and smell the coffee (DVD, 88 min.) by NickFrancis and Marc Francis, 2006. Speak-it Films / FulcrumProductions. E-mail: [email protected];http://www.blackgoldmovie.com

This award-winning documentary gives acompelling look at the multi-billion dollarcoffee industry. Black Gold follows TadesseMeskela, leader from Ethiopia’s OromiaCoffee Farmers’ Co-operative Union, as hevisits producers, auctions, trade fairs andwestern supermarkets, following the coffeecherry from the tree to the cup, whiletirelessly campaigning for a fair price forhis producers. The film highlights the plightof underpaid coffee growers in Ethiopiaand the effect this has in their communities.It provides stark contrasts between theorigin of coffee and the blissfully ignorant consumers in thedeveloped world. The film also enters into the mechanics of theglobal market as a whole and its unfair governance, and includesfootage from a World Trade Organisation meeting in which leaders ofdeveloping countries try to get behind closed doors to have their sayin setting trade rules.

Business unusual: Successes and challenges of fair trade by AnjaOsterhaus (ed.), 2006. ISBN 978-90-902092-6-3. Fair TradeAdvocacy Office, Rue du Commerce 124, B-1000 Bruxelles,Belgium. E-mail: [email protected];http://www.fairtrade-advocacy.org

Fair Trade is presented as a successful global movement, involvingmore and more farmers and producers, and with sales growingspectacularly all over the world. This book explores the reasonsbehind success, and also the challenges emerging nowadays. The firstchapters of the book cover the general issues regarding fair trade,looking at producers, consumers and private companies. The secondpart focuses on specific products, serving as examples: handicrafts,coffee, rice, and cotton and textiles. By showing that fair trading ispossible, the authors want to encourage all business actors to applysimilar principles, while simultaneously aiming at changes in thepolicies regulating world trade.

Local marketing of organic products in developing countries:Guidelines for practitioners by Felicitas Flörchinger, Annette Bern,Thomas Becker, Berthold Schrimpf and Johannes Kotschi (eds),2007. AGRECOL, Rohnsweg 56, 37085 Göttingen, Germany.E-mail: [email protected]; http://www.agrecol.de

This manual looks at the most importantissues to be considered when trying todevelop or improve the marketing oforganic agricultural products. Written forfarmer groups, NGOs involved in thepromotion of local marketing, governmentalorganisations or processors and traders, itprovides a hands-on guide for helping farmfamilies develop and improve theirmarketing efforts, with a special focus onorganic products (where “organic” does notonly refer to certified products, but to allthose referred to as such by the local group). Its different chapterslook at the basics of marketing, such as planning, pricing or thepromotion of specific products.

Developing markets for agrobiodiversity: Securing livelihoods indryland areas by Alessandra Giuliani, 2007. ISBN 978-1-84407-468-6. Bioversity International / Earthscan, 8-12 Camden High Street,London NW1 0JH, U.K. E-mail: [email protected] ; http://www.earthscan.co.uk

This book presents the results of a pilot study conducted in drylandagrobiodiversity environments in Syria, carried out with the objectiveof contributing to a better understanding of livelihood options and useof underutilised plant species. Looking at how communities aredeveloping markets for local products derived from these species, thisstudy showed the potential of biodiversity to make a significantcontribution to livelihood security. The cases selected (figs, jujube,laurel, capers and others) confirmed the importance of strengtheningthe marketing options in order to support the strategies of ruralhouseholds and conserve the species in situ.

Breaking into mainstream food markets in the U.K.: Accessingfirst world food markets, information for third worldentrepreneurs (CD-ROM), 2003. Tropical Wholefoods, FullwellMill Ltd., Unit 5d, Southwick Industrial Estate, North Hylton Rd.,Sunderland SR5 3TX, U.K. E-mail: [email protected];http://www.tropicalwholefoods.com

Based on real-life experiences, this CD-ROM looks at all the keyaspects related to food marketing in the United Kingdom, aiming toassist those working in the food sector in the developing world lookin a more analytical way at the steps required for accessingmainstream markets. It presents the relevant legislation, looks at theprocess of setting up a business on the basis of practical experiences,and does a market analysis for many products. Although it isspecifically about developing products for U.K. mainstream markets,the lessons are just as applicable to businesses developing productsfor smaller, regional or local markets in the developing world.

Producer organisations and market chains: Facilitatingtrajectories of change in developing countries by Giel Ton,Jos Bijman and Joost Oorthuizen (eds.), 2007.ISBN 978-90-8686-048-7. Wageningen Academic Publishers,P.O. Box 220, 6700 AE Wageningen, the Netherlands.E-mail: [email protected];http://www.wageningenacademic.com

The different chapters which make up thisbook show how local, regional andinternational market chains are developingrapidly around the world. As the demands onproducers increase, small scale farmers run therisk of being marginalised. Considering thatstrong producer organisations can play animportant role in the economic developmentof rural areas, this book presents various approaches to support them.The book’s second section looks at the development of value chains

SOURCES



with producer organisations, with “fair trade” as a specific form ofvalue chain. The third section looks at the institutional environment,as one which may facilitate or make producer organisations workmore efficiently.

Organic cotton: An opportunity for trade by Peter Ton, 2007. ITCTechnical Paper No. MDS-07.121.E, International Trade CenterUNCTAD / WTO, ITC, Geneva, Switzerland.E-mail: [email protected]; will soon be downloadable from the ITCwebsite, http://www.intracen.org

This document analyses the global market for organic cotton fibre,textiles and clothing. It gives a definition of organic and fair tradecotton; provides detailed figures for organic cotton production, tradeand consumption, and presents the geographic markets for organiccotton fibre and textiles. It also describes the involvement of manylarge brands and retailers, reviewing organic cotton markets in theUnited States, Switzerland, Germany, United Kingdom, and France. Itfurthermore provides a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunitiesand threats) analysis of the organic cotton market worldwide, andincludes recommendations and a bibliography.

Exploring fair trade timber: A review of issues in currentpractice, institutional structures and ways forward by DuncanMacqueen, Annie Dufey and Bindi Patel, 2007. ISBN 978-1-84369-630-8. IIED Small and Medium Forestry Enterprise Series No. 19.Natural Resource Group, International Institute for Environment andDevelopment (IIED), 4 Hanover Street, Edinburgh EH2 2EN, U.K.Downloadable as a PDF file from http://www.iied.org

This paper explores the options for making progress towards fair tradetimber. Both fair trade and forest certification are undergoing rapidmarket expansion – but this does not include community timberproduction. This paper gives a background to fair trade in agricultureand examines the implications of this for timber. Included are someexamples of organised community timber producers who are takingadvantage of their community status to secure better deals for theirproducts. There is a pressing need to pilot and scale up mechanismsthat deliver greater benefits to communities. To this end, an alliance ofinstitutions interested in promoting fair trade timber is beginning toform. This report outlines some of the options available for buildingon current efforts and ensuring that the producer communities benefit.

The agro-food chains and networks for development by RuerdRuben, Maja Slingerland and Hans Nijhoff, 2006. ISBN 978-1-4020-4600-1. Wageningen UR Frontis Series, Volume 14. Springer, P.O.Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, the Netherlands. Downloadable as aPDF file from http://library.wur.nl/frontis

Agro-food chains and networks play an increasingly important role inproviding access to markets for producers from developing countries.This was clear from the cases presented at the Frontis Workshop onAgro-Food Chains and Networks for Development, held inWageningen, the Netherlands, in September2004. Together with an analytical frameworkfor analysis, the proceedings of thisworkshop present these cases, as examplesfrom different parts of the world. Thedevelopment and integration of agro-foodchains is shown in examples from Peru(banana), Nigeria (cassava) and othercountries. Business cases are also included,such as those built around fresh fruits andvegetables in Thailand or around medicinalplants in India. The last three chapters look atthe main lessons and challenges needed to betackled.

Producer organisations: A guide to developing collective ruralenterprises by Chris Penrose-Buckley, 2007.ISBN 978-085598-575-2. Oxfam Skills and Practice Series,Oxfam GB. Oxfam House, John Smith Drive, Cowley, Oxford,OX4 2JY, U.K. E-mail: [email protected];http://www.oxfam.org.uk

Small scale producers have to compete withlarge commercial producers, while statesupport services have been cut back, marketsare volatile, and buyers demand high qualityand safety standards. This book looks at themost important strategy that these producerscan adopt in order to access, compete, andinfluence markets: collective action in theform of producer organisations (POs). Theseare farmer co-operatives, associations orinformal groups; all of them having thepossibility of influencing policy decisions,competing in the market, and providing the services their membersrequire. The purpose of this book is to provide practical guidance forthe staff of development NGOs involved in supporting POs, using tencase studies from around the world. It avoids unnecessary jargon;technical terms are explained in the text or in the glossary.

Fair Trade for All : How Trade Can Promote Development/Joseph E. Stiglitz and Andrew Charlton. New Delhi, OxfordUniversity Press, 2005, xxvii, 315 p., tables, figs., $30. ISBN 0-19-929090-3.

“How can the poorer countries of the world behelped to help themselves through freer, fairertrade? In this challenging and controversialbook Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E.Stiglitz and his co-author Andrew Charltonaddress one of the key challenges facing worldleaders today. They put forward a radical andrealistic new model for managing tradingrelationships between the richest and thepoorest countries. Their approach is designed toopen up markets in the interests of all and notjust the most powerful economies, to ensure that trade promotesdevelopment, and to minimise the costs of adjustments. Beginningwith a brief history of the World Trade Organisation and itsagreements, the authors explore the issues and events which led to thefailure of Cancun and the obstacles that face the successfulcompletion of the Doha round of negotiations. Finally they spell outthe reforms and principles upon which a successful agreement mustbe based. Accessibly written and packed full of empirical evidenceand analysis, this book is a must read for anyone interested in worldtrade and development.”

Forthcoming

Creating food futures: Trade, ethics and the environment byCathy R. Farnworth, Janice Jiggins and Emyr Thomas, 2008. ISBN 978-0-7546-4907-6. Gower Publishing, Gower House,Croft Road Aldershot, GU11 3HR Hampshire, U.K.E-mail: [email protected]

This book considers how people trade, process and purchase the foodthey eat. It draws on examples and evidence throughout the worldthat indicate that a global transformation in food supply andconsumption is taking place which is putting our food security at risk.The authors ask whether there is scope for creating food futures thatexplicitly favour considerations beyond those of commerce andconsumption.



NETWORKING

Fair Trade Advocacy Officehttp://www.fairtrade-advocacy.orgRue du Commerce, 124, B-1000 Bruxelles, BelgiumE-mail: [email protected]

The Fair Trade Advocacy Office speaks out for fair trade and tradejustice with the aim to improve trading conditions for the benefit ofsmall and marginalised producers and poor workers in developingcountries. The office coordinates the advocacy activities of the fourmain fair trade networks: Fairtrade Labelling OrganizationsInternational (FLO), International Fair Trade Association (IFAT),Network of European Worldshops (NEWS!) and the European FairTrade Association (EFTA). The website provides links to variouspublications, and there is a monthly newsletter you can sign up to.

FLO Internationalhttp://www.fairtrade.netBonner Talweg 177, 53129 Bonn, GermanyE-mail: [email protected]

Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO) is an umbrellaorganisation that unites 20 labelling initiatives in 21 countries andproducer networks representing Fairtrade Certified ProducerOrganisations in Latin America, Africa and Asia. FLO is part of aworldwide network of fair trade organisations actively involved insupporting producers, awareness raising and campaigning for changesin the rules and practices of conventional international trade. It is theleading standard setting and certification organisation for labelled FairTrade products. Currently, FLO facilitates the sustainable developmentand empowerment of disadvantaged producers and workers in 59countries, helping them build necessary social infrastructure withimproved access to low or no-interest loans, technical assistance,communications systems, or through better health care and educationprogrammes. Their website presents many stories from the field,showing the impact and difference which fair trade has made. It is alsopossible to subscribe to the FLO Newsletter.

Organic Link - International Trade Centrehttp://www.intracen.org/organicsITC, Rue de Montbrillant, 54-56, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland

The International Trade Centre (ITC) is the joint technical co-operationagency of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development(UNCTAD) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). ITC aims tocontribute to the UN’s Millennium Development Goals, specifically tothe goals relating to fostering global partnership for development,reducing poverty, promoting gender equality and ensuringenvironmental sustainability. Organic Link is a web portal serving theorganic business communities.

This website helps exporters and importers of organic products to findeach other through an easy-to-access database of business contacts. Italso contains useful information about organic products and markets,with detailed data from selected countries.

The International Social and Environmental Accreditation andLabelling (ISEAL) Alliancehttp://www.isealalliance.orgUnit 1 Huguenot Place, 17a Heneage St, London E1 5LJ, U.K.

The growing number of voluntary standards and labels makes itdifficult to differentiate credible standards from other claims. TheISEAL Alliance aims to address this by creating the tools necessary toimprove how voluntary standards are set and to evaluate the credibilityof these initiatives. The ISEAL Alliance is an association of leadingvoluntary international standard-setting and conformity assessmentorganisations that focus on social and environmental issues.

International Fair Trade Association, IFAThttp://www.ifat.orgPrijssestraat 24, 4101 CR Culemborg, the Netherlands

IFAT has developed the Fair Trade Organisation (FTO) mark thatidentifies organisations whose core activity is fair trade. IFAT’smission is to enable producers to improve their livelihoods andcommunities through fair trade. It has three main areas of work:market development, fair trade monitoring (building trust in fair trade),and advocacy.

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development,ICTSDhttp://www.ictsd.orgICTSD, International Environment House 2, Chemin de Balexert 7,1219 Châtelaine, Geneva, Switzerland

The International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development(ICTSD) was established in Geneva in September 1996 to contribute toa better understanding of development and environment concerns inthe context of international trade. As an independent non-profit andnon-governmental organisation, ICTSD engages a broad range ofactors in ongoing dialogue, and facilitates the interaction betweenpolicy makers and those outside the system to help trade policybecome more supportive of sustainable development. By helpingparties increase capacity and become better informed about each other,ICTSD builds bridges between groups with seemingly unrelatedagendas. It seeks to enable these actors to discover the many placeswhere their interests and priorities coincide. One of ICTSD’spublications, available online, is the Bridges Monthly Review, whichprovides information and analysis on the interface between trade andsustainable development (in English, Spanish and Portuguese).

The BioTrade Initiativehttp://www.biotrade.org

Trade and Environment Branch, UNCTAD. Palais des Nations,Building E, CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland. E-mail:[email protected]

UNCTAD, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development,launched the BioTrade Initiative in 1996 during the third Conferenceof the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Itsmission is to stimulate trade and investment in biological resources tofurther sustainable development in line with the three objectives of theCBD: the conservation of biological diversity; sustainable use of itscomponents; and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising fromthe utilisation of genetic resources. Since 2003, the BioTrade Initiativehas also hosted the BioTrade Facilitation Programme (BTFP), whichfocuses on enhancing sustainable bio-resources management, productdevelopment, value adding processing and marketing.

New Portal for Codes, Standards and Certification Systemshttp://www.fairmatchsupport.nl/Portal.htm

FairMatch Support, Utrechtseweg 29, Unit K, 3811 NA Amersfoort,The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]

FairMatch Support and ICCO has launched a web-based portal thatcompares codes, standards and certification systems promotingenvironmental sustainability and fair trade. The portal compares 14popular codes and standards on aspects including their benefits,requirements and costs, with a strong focus on the food sector and theEuropean market. The portal aims to bring clarity in this standardsjungle. One of its key objectives is to assist producers and small andmedium enterprises (SMEs) in developing countries in assessing theapplicability and pros and cons of the various codes, standards andcertification systems. In addition, the portal aims to provide tradingand marketing companies in Europe with clear insights into thepossibilities and implications of individual codes and standards.



A history of world agriculture: From the neolithic age to thecurrent crisis by Marcel Mazoyer and Laurence Roudart, 2006.ISBN 978-184407-399-3. Earthscan, 8-12 Camden High Street,London NW1 0JH, U.K. E-mail: [email protected]; http://www.earthscan.co.uk

This book considers the different agriculturalsystems that form “humanity’s agrarian heritage”,looking at the slash and burn systems in forestenvironments, the Incas’ terraced mountainsystem, or at the hydraulic systems in arid regionssuch as the Nile valley. Each is analysed in detail,leading to a chapter on industrial agriculture andthe resulting global agricultural crisis. As theauthors put it, their aim is to show how thesafeguarding and development of the “ill-equipped and relativelyunproductive agriculture of the poor”, with their enormous wealth inknowledge and natural variety, can contribute to solving this crisis.

Springs of participation: Creating and evolving methods forparticipatory development by Karen Brock and Jethro Pettit (eds.),2007. ISBN 978-853396-47-2. Practical Action Publishing,Schumacher Centre for Technology and Development, Bourton onDunsmore, Rugby, Warwickshire CV23 9QZ, U.K.E-mail: [email protected];www.practicalactionpublishing.org

A group of practitioners of participatory methodologies, working indifferent parts of the world, came together in June 2005 to discuss andshare their experiences in creating and adapting methods as part oftheir daily work. This book presents their reflections and analyses, puttogether with the aim of showing how academics and field levelpractitioners can learn to develop effective and sustainable workingmethods. The cases presented include, for example, the Reflectapproach, as one that links literacy to empowerment, or theparticipatory village poverty reduction planning method; all of themillustrated by examples of their practical application. In each of them,the authors consider what enables and constrains creativity,adaptation, and innovation.

Assessing and learning for social change: A discussion paper byIrene Guijt, 2007. Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Universityof Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RE, U.K. Also available as PDF file onhttp://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/part/proj/socialchange.html

This document builds on the discussions and interactions heldbetween a group of development professionals, grouped by theircommon “concern with the chasm between the need for reflectivesocial change practice and the existing understanding and repertoireof approaches”. Discussions were structured around four themes:understanding social change; the frameworks, concepts and methodsused to ensure critical reflection; dealing with different actors inassessment and learning; and the issues of scale andinterconnectedness. These themes provide the structure of this paper,ending with an agenda for action for donors, social change activists,and facilitators.

Agriculture Cannot Wait - New Horizons in Indian Agriculture,Ed by M. S. Swaminathan, 2007, Hard Bound Book (6¼” x 9”),Pages : 540, ISBN -81-7188-625-6, Rs. 995.00 ; US $ 69.95

While scientists can develop yield enhancing technologies, these willnot make an impact on production and productivity withoutappropriate support from public policy and investment. NationalAcademy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS) has from time to timeassembled groups of eminent scientists to analyse public policy issuesin important areas related to agriculture and prepare papers relevant topolicy formulation. The present book includes 39 policy papers issuedby the Academy during the last 15 years covering a wide range ofissues like: Sustainable Livelihood and Nutrition Security, WaterResources Management, Soil Health Enhancement and Fertiliser Use,

Agro-biodiversity and Biosafety, Agricultural Research andEducation, and Globalisation and Agri-Exports. Many of thesuggestions and recommendations contained in the book present aroad map for rescuing the fate of farmers and farming from thepresent agrarian crisis prevailing in several parts of the country.

This book will be useful for scholars in agricultural universities andresearch institutions and for policy and investment decisions in thefield of agriculture.

Endogenous Development in India – Revisiting Swadeshi, AV Balasubramanian and Coen Reijntjes (Eds), 2007,Center for Indian Knowledge Systems (CIKS), 92 pp, Rs.125/-,CIKS, # 30, Gandhi Mandapam Road, Kotturpuram,Chennai – 600 085, email: [email protected].

The publication provides an overview regardingthe experiences of the Indian partners in the areaof endogenous development during the previousphase of the COMPAS project that concluded inDecember 2006. This also includes a chapterwhere the Indian experience has been synthesizedbased on inputs that have been received from allthe partners.

BOOKS

Documentation in Practice

LEISA India Consortium programme on Documentation

– a process document

Prepared by K V S Prasad and T M Radha

Driven by a strong desire to strengthenthemselves in documentation and sharing, theLEISA India Consortium Partners got involved ina two-year Documentation and CommunicationProgramme. This was facilitated by LEISA Indiateam in consultation with ILEIA, Netherlands,during the years 2003 – 2005. The focus was onenabling processes to intensify and prioritisedocumentation and communication programwithin the organizations. Select staff from MYRADA, GEAG,LEISA Network and AME Foundation participated in thisprogramme.

The programme processes were built on Planning for Learning,Learning by Doing and Building on the Learning. The programmewas built around documenting and sharing experiences asprioritized by the partners themselves. It was rooted in continuitywith identified staff getting involved in longer periods throughcapacity building processes, which included ‘learning by doing’workshops, assignments, Planning and Review processes. It wasbased on participatory learning processes with participants as‘peers’. Expert resource persons provided their wisdom wherenecessary.

The programme has helped the participating organizations inrecognizing that documentation needs to be a much morepurposeful and deliberately planned activity within theorganisation. A perceptible improvement in quality of content aswell as presentation was noticed. Also, resulted in improved effortsby civil society organisations to share their experiences in publicdomain.

If interested in the initiative/ copies, please contact:

K.V.S. Prasad/ T.M. Radha, LEISA India, AME Foundation,No.204, 100 Feet Ring Road, 3rd Phase, 2nd Block, 3rd Stage,Banashankari, Bangalore - 560 085.Phone: +91-80-26699512 / 26699522; Fax: + 91-080-26699410E-mail: [email protected] website: http:\\india.leisa.info



Direct trade thatbenefits poorcommunities in Indiaand the U.K.

Mari Marcel Thekaekara

“Just Change” is becoming well known in fair trade anddevelopment circles around the world. It is an initiative whichaims to establish an alternative and direct trading mechanismthat will benefit poor communities. We have been successfulin directly linking communities in India, the U.K., andencouraging them to trade amongst themselves. In our ownway, we are standing globalisation on its head.

The origins of Just Change go back more than 20 years, andthe development of the initiative is related to the struggle forsurvival of some of the poorest people in India. In 1985, agroup of people founded the Action for CommunityOrganisation, Rehabilitation and Development (ACCORD),with the aim of helping the adivasis –the indigenous peopleof the Gudalur valley in the Nilgiri mountains of Tamil Nadu,southern India– take control of their own lives. We wanted tosupport them in resisting being exploited by settlers, govern-ment departments and large tea plantations. To do this, webegan a movement to reclaim ancestral lands. The adivasipeople later planted tea on their newly reclaimed lands.

In the next few years, incomes began to trickle in from thenewly planted tea, coffee and pepper, making a perceptibledifference to the health and nutrition of the adivasi popula-tion. The mid 90s, however, saw a sudden drop in tea pricesand with it, a drop in incomes. We were told that this was aresult of the global market scenario. It was frustrating towatch all the gains of the previous years dissolve. Yet whileall adivasi tea growers had their incomes reduced to less thanhalf, we realised that tea prices for the consumer did not dropat all. It was obvious that someone somewhere was making akilling – but the farmers were being cheated as sellers, whileconsumers were being fleeced as buyers.

In the early 90s, a women’s co-operative visited us, bringingwith them beautiful handloom saris which they made them-selves. They sold these to our team at half the price the sariswere going for in Gudalur town. Our team pounced on thesaris amazed and delighted at the good deal. The womenweavers took back Gudalur tea which they considered abargain. They sold this for a slight profit back home. Both thegroups had gained considerably by the transaction and a fewmore exchanges took place. It reconfirmed the fact that themarket was treating us unfairly, and set us thinking.

In 1995, more than 200 adivasi village leaders resolved topurchase a tea plantation as a community asset, to “stand onour own feet” as they said. Supporters from the U.K. andGermany helped to buy a 176 acre estate called Madhuvana,and plant tea on it. Finally in 1998, the Gudalur adivasis

became the proud owners of a tea plantation. It was anothermilestone crossed. Now, Madhuvana has about 100 acres oftea planted. On an average, about 20 000 kilos of tea leaf isproduced every month.

With all this going on, we began an in-depth analysis of theproblem in Gudalur. We realised that when the exploiter wasthe local landlord, we all could do something about it. But,when the exploiter was a faceless enemy such as the “globalmarket” it was beyond our grasp. In such cases it wasessential to work out a new strategy and build networks withcommunities in other parts of the world. We had succeeded inexchanging our tea for saris and sold our tea to our supportgroups in the U.K. and Germany. We now needed toformalise these efforts – to build a strong network of poorand deprived communities, and to use globalisation to ouradvantage.

A step beyond fair trade

Just Change emerged from the concept of fair trade. Theslogan “Fair Trade not Aid” was new, exciting and one whichwe embraced wholeheartedly. We began our fight for a fairdeal for adivasi tea planters and for the poor producers whenwe first sold our tea in Germany. On a visit to Germany,Bomman, an adivasi leader, was shocked to discover that ourGerman friends had to travel far to buy our tea, and also thatthey paid more for it. “But they are our friends and support-ers, they should pay less,” he protested. We soon realised thatmany unemployed people in Europe could not afford fairtrade products. We also realised that we were depending onthe goodwill of socially aware, middle class people, sincethey paid more for our tea in order to give the producers abreak. Making people aware that fair trade could eliminatethe need for aid was great. But there remained an element ofbenevolence. Wasn’t it slightly patronising? It didn’t changestructures or trade relationships, or even question them. Wedecided we had to go one step further. Since poor peoplewere being exploited in rich countries as well as poor, whynot join the two communities through trade? That way, bothgroups would benefit. Then the solidarity would not be one-sided – it would be mutual. Forming a co-operative of poor

Through growing and selling tea, adivasi women have gainedmore independence

Photo

: A

uth

or



consumers and producers created a global solidarity groupthat could tackle the negative impact of globalisation. Localcommunities, both in the U.K. and in India, adored the idea.In this way, Just Change was born.

Trading between communities

The concept became a reality when Gudalur adivasis tradedtheir tea with various communities in Kerala and Orissa. Thiswas a phase in which we identified more products for tradingbetween poor communities, realised the potential of the JustChange network and decided to bring more groups in.

The face to face contacts between the Kerala, Gudalur andOrissa groups produced a strong sense of solidarity andworking together for one cause. Women’s groups from Keralabegan to send us a coconut based soap which was hugelypopular. Orissa and Kerala loved our tea. The Just Changeidea took off in Gudalur because we began to provide rice topeople who found an enormous difference in price, qualityand quantity. They discovered that for decades local tradershad cheated them on both weight and price. So loyalty to JustChange and determination to succeed increased. As tradingtook place successfully, the Just Change identity emergedand, with it, confidence and trust in each other. We grew inexperience and learnt much from outside advisers, who gaveus new ideas and insights. We ironed out many problems andglitches and learnt from our mistakes.

On January 6, 2006, we took another giant step forward,when the Just Change India Producer Company was formallyregistered. We launched the company with adivasis, Orissafarmers and women’s groups as the founding members andshareholders. We often confound ourselves and others by thesheer audacity of our ideas! But we try to break the mould, sothe inauguration of our producer company happened under atree. Community leaders lit lamps – no ribbon cutting. Therewas joyful singing and dancing, the cultural expression of ourcommunities. The shareholders’ focus was not on profits ordividends, but on benefits to producers and consumers – onjustice!

The U.K. connection

The Just Change story also became inextricably linked andwoven in with events in the United Kingdom. In the summerof 1994, ACCORD was invited to the U.K. by the CharitiesAdvisory Trust and the Directory of Social Change to write areport on “Poverty in the U.K. from a southern perspective.”ACCORD was struck by the fact that unemployed peopleliving on welfare on housing estates were paying unnecessar-ily high prices for the endless cups of tea they drank. What ifwe could connect the two groups? They would pay less andwe would get more. The idea seemed brilliant.

A number of experimental exchanges took place, at first withlittle success. However, with a volunteer who became theface of Just Change U.K., the idea moved along. A group ofyoung people in Manchester started to sell tea to localcommunity groups and through alternative shops. Othershops around the country started to buy our tea. We alsorelied on various supporters in the U.K. to keep us going. In2001, an adivasi group came to the U.K., and met friends andsupporters of Just Change in Hawick, Manchester, Gloucesterand London. One of the strengths of Just Change U.K. lies in

the volunteer groups – many of them young people who havespent a summer with us in Mysore, taking part in ourprogramme, “Development from the inside”. In 2006, wewere able to set up a Board for Just Change U.K. We havealso had articles published and the resulting publicity hashelped to strengthen our networks. For example, the BBCpublicised a blind taste test where Just Change tea came outtops, winning over the most popular local brands.

Nevertheless, Just Change was still not linking up with poorcommunities in the U.K. Then in March 2006 we met theMarsh Farm group. They are a group of 3000 people livingon a housing estate near Luton, in southern England. Theyhave formed a collective to work on community regeneration.There was an instant synergy and connection between peoplefrom Marsh Farm and the adivasis, as each told their storiesof struggle for survival and justice. This seemed like thebreakthrough we had been looking for since 1994. In May2007, we formally launched Just Change U.K. amongst theMarsh Farm Sunday market traders. Just Change supportersfrom around the U.K. arrived, and the launch was lively. Avisiting adivasi group played drums, flutes and danced,attracting a lot of attention. We hope the tea will now take offin a big way from Marsh Farm. We also hope to find fundingfor a person to devote a few days a week to support JustChange in the U.K.

Towards the futureThe New Internationalist and Amnesty International sell JustChange tea and soap through their catalogues. Both havedone pretty well and we couldn’t get more global than that! Itis a great feeling to be fighting the war on our terms on their(global market) turf and to see the tide turning. While weneed the volumes of tea to increase considerably in order tomake a real difference economically, it is an enormouslysatisfying feeling to note the progress being made slowly butsurely, as the idea and message spread, with all corners of theworld responding to the concept of creating a just economicorder. May the struggle continue.

�

Mari Marcel Thekaekara. ACCORD. Post Box No. 02,the Nilgiri district, Gudalur, 643212 Tamil Nadu, India.E-mail: [email protected]

A Village Consumer Society in Calicut, being run by the JustChange India Producer Company

Photo

: A

uth

or

http://india.leisa.info

indi leis a...mar 01, 2008 · conducive environment for its further development. leisa is a...

Documents