Absolution in Your Cup.

Kerry Howley's article "Absolution in Your Cup" (March) is well-documented in certain aspects (especially the historical background of coffee) and brings up some real concerns about the fair trade certification model. But many other elements don't correspond to reality.

Howley states that the fair trade certification system has grown into a "complex bureaucracy" without really explaining what she means by that. To maintain the integrity of the logo; to make sure that producers fully benefit from the fair trade system; to be able to monitor all the transactions and therefore guarantee to consumers that the fair trade standards established by Fairtrade Labeling Organizations (in consultation with different stakeholders) are met, some "bureaucracy" is needed. The core of the certification system hasn't changed much during the last few years. At TransFair Canada, we have put a lot of effort into simplifying the reporting system and all business requirements that we impose on our licensees. But as an independent, third-party certification body, we also have to ensure the integrity of the logo, traceability of the products, and respect of the standards by our licensees. I know that FLO does the same when dealing with fair-trade-certified organizations in the South.

Why certify only coffee that comes from cooperatives ? An important percentage of the coffee grown in the world comes from small, family-owned lands. Those producers, who rely entirely on coffee to make a living, are the most vulnerable ones and the worst affected when coffee prices drop. Most of them live in remote areas and are illiterate and highly dependent on intermediaries (like coyotes) to buy and transport their coffee.

That is why, since the beginning of fair trade certification for coffee, the cooperative model has been encouraged. Cooperatives bring producers together, empower them, and give them better access to Northern markets and a better understanding of the market. They provide members with technical support, give them training on quality issues, and help them diversify their crops. Most of the time, the benefits a co-op receives by selling some of its coffee on the fair trade market accrue as well to the larger community, as when the fair trade social premium is used to build a school, provide health services, or build a road.

Most cooperatives FLO deals with have between 50 and 500 members. As long as a co-op has a proven record of participatory decision making, good service, accountability, quality, and environmental responsibility, it can be certified by FLO. As for hired labor, the cooperative and the producers are fully entitled to hire additional people when it is harvest time; there is no limitation on that, as long as it is occasional. It is true that under the current system, small or medium-sized coffee farms cannot be certified. That might change at some point.

Most co-ops sell only 20 percent to 30 percent of their coffee on the fair trade market because the demand in the North is still not high enough. When most small producers are able to sell 100 percent of their coffee on the fair trade market, the next logical step will be to open the door to coffee farmers like Gregorio Martinez, who is mentioned in the article.

I was quite surprised by the claim, quoted in the article, that "Fair Trade does not incentivize quality." If fair trade relied only on concerns about social justice without incentivizing quality, it wouldn't have grown as it has. If there is one thing that customers and roasters tend to agree on, it is the great quality of most fair-trade-certified coffees. Many of these coffees have won prizes at the Cup of Excellence (a coffee competition held annually in Central America) over the years and have brought a lot of pride to the producers. To respond to the needs of the Northern market and to have a better price for their coffee, many cooperatives have invested in technical support and quality control at every step of cultivation.

Chantal Harvard

TransFair Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

Kern/Rowley replies: If I failed to explain the term "complex bureaucracy" in the body of the article, Chantal Harvard does so for me here. TransFair requires an extensive, expensive reporting and monitoring system to maintain the brand. The question isn't whether such a bureaucracy is necessary to the existence of TransFair but whether the costs imposed by such a bureaucracy are worth paying at the supermarket counter. I argue that they are, in that certified coffees deliver what they promise: a particular vision of social justice in which cooperative production is favored over individual enterprise. Consumers who support this vision are getting what they pay for.

Harvard argues that because some fair-trade-certified coffee is of good quality, it must be true that fair trade encourages quality improvement. Perhaps a better way to put it would be that the success of the Fair Trade brand incentivizes high-quality producers of financial means to seek certification. Gourmet coffee growers will continue to seek out and pay for the FairTrade label. This hardly proves the system itself encourages producers to improve the quality of their beans.