It was only a few years ago that a distinguishable white coffee cup laden with two green emblems was the most chic of fashion accessories. This cup, of course, came from Starbucks, the overly-priced and en vogue coffee brand that everyone wanted to be seen drinking.
No longer is this the case. The Starbucks cup, once synonymous with Louis Vuitton purses and designer jeans, has been replaced. In the cup’s stead, spoiled, trendy teenagers are holding self-righteous pitchforks and torches in preparation of lynching the coffee company they once loved. These tools are supplied by the growing “fair-trade” coffee movement, which claims that Starbucks viciously manipulates impoverished farmers for its own gain.
How do fair traders want to rectify the situation? By forcing Starbucks to give more of its profits to farmers. How should these profits trickle back to farmers? Starbucks should pay the governments of coffee growing nations for the right to buy local coffee beans. Unfortunately, this tactic is so dangerously unrealistic that, if Starbucks heeds “fair trade” advice, the company will further impoverish the very farmers fair traders wish to help. How can this be so? Let’s begin unraveling the “fair trade” myth by examining the movement’s favorite example of Starbucks’ injustice: Ethiopian farmers.
The international aid organization, Oxfam, recently jumped on the “fair trade” bandwagon by announcing a study that claimed, “for every cup of Starbucks coffee sold, just 3 cents goes to coffee farmers in Ethiopia.” Oxfam also added that the adoption of “fair trade” practice “could bring an estimated additional $88 million a year in revenues.”
Let’s assume this is true. $88 million dollars a year will make a big difference in the lives of farmers, right? Not so fast. That’s because fair traders want Starbucks to pay up, not to poor farmers, but to the Ethiopian government. That’s the same government that killed innocent civilians two years ago when it was accused of rigging parliamentary elections. That’s the same government that received a score of 2.4 out of 10.0 when rated on its transparency and lack of corruption. The chances that the Ethiopian government will take it upon itself to distribute the extra funds amongst its impoverished citizens, therefore, are rather small. Thus, “fair trade” coffee money would simply enable a corrupt regime to further suppress its citizens.
Okay, so maybe Ethiopia isn’t the best choice for “fair trade” support. Surely “fair trade” policies would help in other countries, wouldn’t they? Again, this is not the case. Imagine, for example, that “fair trade” policies worked exactly as planned and all of the excess funds were fairly distributed to farmers. This would encourage farmers to grow more coffee by eliminating the production of other crops. Two results would ensue. First, the increase in coffee bean production would drive down the price of coffee, thus forcing farmers to sell their products at extraordinarily low prices. This lower income would compound farmer poverty. Second, with too much coffee grown, the soil is raped of the nutrients necessary to grow any crop. This means farmers are forced to cut more trees to create more fields. And, as fair traders are surely aware, such practices aren’t exactly good for the environment.
Global Exchange, a “fair trade” organization, disagrees. They believe that farmers won’t partake in these environmentally damaging practices. Why? Because “Fair Trade farmers don't have the capital input to clear forests, buy chemical fertilizers and pesticides.” In short, “fair trade” ensures that farmers are just too poor to do anything bad for the environment.
Sources:
What is Fair Trade Coffee All About?
Ethiopia vs. Starbucks
What is Fair Trade
Starbucks Reacts
Oxfam on Fair Trade
Transparency Ratings
• Facts: Poverty
• Poverty is the Greatest Challenge for Humanity
• Fasting for Darfur
