The Plantation Debate Rages On

by Zarah Patriana

Published January 10, 2009 @ 11:56AM PT

In a recent post about Equal Exchange's response to Parminder Bahra's Times article exposing abuses on tea plantations, I posed a question to the Fair Trade community of next steps to be taken with regards to the role of plantations in the Fair Trade system. What should be done to bring less skepticism and bring about a stronger, credible, transformative and progressive movement. I also went over to the Equal Exchange blog and posed the same questions. Equal Exchange's Phyllis Robinson was kind enough to weigh in her personal opinions on the matter.

A few years ago, at a membership meeting of FLO that several folks from Equal Exchange attended, there was - as always - much consternation about the fact that FLO was allowing plantations into the system. A number of producer organizations, in particular the CLAC - the Coordinating Body of Small Producers from Latin America and the Caribeean - and the African Fairtrade Network (AFN) were calling for a moratorium on new plantations into the system pending a review of the impacts. Producers and many traders were concerned whether benefits would really reach the workers and whether plantations in the system would adversely affect small farmer organizations who typically don’t have the same level of financial resources, market or credit access.

That hasn’t happened.

Those in the Fair Trade movement are skeptical of plantations in the Fair Trade system because it shows that certifiers are becoming removed from the real needs of producers. I scoured for a quote I found in Daniel Jaffee's book, Brewing Justice on something independent Fair Trade consultant, Pauline Tiffen had to say about the matter:

Now we're in a situation where national initiatives seem to be able to make policy without true reference to farmers, but in the name of farmers, and FLO can do the same...And that means that someone can stand up to the SCAA [the Specialty Coffee Association of America Convention] and say, "We're going to include plantations," and everyone goes, "Sorry? Run that by me again?"... It's not even a good process if you're a certifier, let alone if you're an organization that professes to respond to producer concerns.

So, what can be done? The next steps? For Phyllis, her concerns are over conflicts of interest.

One of my concerns is over potential conflicts of interest. Typically, when organizations concerned about worker rights discover labor abuses on a plantation, part of the strategy to force change is to publicize the situation and put pressure on the plantation owners to improve conditions. When these same abuses are discovered on a Fair Trade plantation, it is against the interests of the certifying bodies to let these scandals fully come to light.

Personally, I believe that working conditions on plantations are better addressed by those organizations in the labor movement with a history, and effective strategies, to bring change. I just don’t believe that the Fair Trade system is the best place, despite all well intentions, to have impact. Perhaps what is needed is a separate third party certification system for “socially responsible plantations” that would be overseen by a more appropriate body with the experience, credibility and teeth to make a difference?

Thanks for your opinions Phyllis.

So, as concerned Fair Traders, is it time to appeal to the labor movement to speak on behalf of plantation workerss? To stand in solidarity with the Fair Trade movement so we can work together to see to it that the plantations are upholding Fair Trade standards and maintaining the credibility of the Fair Trade label.

I would like to hear more from the certifiers on this matter and I would also like to hear from those in the labor movement on how we can work together to ensure that worker rights are recognized.