This article was written by nodongo samba Sylla,
The unequal distribution of the gains of Fairtrade (FT) derives in a large part from the characteristics of certification. The certification system presents a twofold bias against the poorest developing countries.
First, there are considerations related to the costs of certification. These being the same everywhere, they are relatively more expensive for the most disadvantaged countries, all other things being equal. Then, due to its sliding-scale price structure, certification is less costly for large producer organisations than for smaller ones.
Finally, the cost of compliance with FT standards (changes in agricultural and administrative practices that often lead to an increase in working hours) is higher for small organisations due to their lower productivity and lower economies of scale. FT no doubt helps poor and vulnerable producers, but it certainly is not at the service of the poorest.
Effective certification demand is positively correlated to country income. Countries ranked by the World Bank as upper middle-income account for 54% of producer organisations having received FT certification against 21% in the case of low-income countries.
As for least developed countries (LDCs), they only account for 13.5% of effective certification demand. Whatever definition of poverty and economic vulnerability is used, the conclusion is the same: FT tends to exclude the poorest countries.
Some argue that in rich countries such as Mexico, there are huge social and economic inequalities as a result of which some populations find themselves in a situation of extreme poverty. This is undeniable, but not convincing. First, this argument does not explain why within these inegalitarian countries, the least poor groups are generally selected by FT.
Then, the criterion used to justify which nations deserve to enter the FT system is contradictory. France, for example, is a very rich country. Yet it has many poor workers and farmers.
So why not promote FT in France, as some have argued, or in the US or UK? FT protagonists will argue that these countries can tackle their own problems, as they have the means to do so. But this is also the case of Mexico and of the richest developing countries. Better still, differences in income between France and Mexico are much less pronounced than between Mexico and LDCs.
If we choose to favour Mexico over France based on the need criterion, the same logic should mean favouring the poorest countries at the expense of wealthier developing countries. <!-- Global site tag (gtag.js) - Google Analytics -->
<script async src="https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=UA-109237959-1"></script>
<script>
window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
gtag('js', new Date());
gtag('config', 'UA-109237959-1');
</script>
<!-- Google tag (gtag.js) -->
<script async src="https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=G-XDGJVZXVQ4"></script> <script> window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-XDGJVZXVQ4'); </script>
No comments:
Post a Comment