2006 Conference Debate

From Hooked - Students for Trade Justice

Jump to: navigation, search

1 Great Fair Trade Debate

[edit] Great Fair Trade Debate

All debaters do not necessarily represent the organisations or companies they work for

Hooked Conference, 6\5\6

[edit] Affirmative side: Paul Caligiore, Gigante Coffee

…I missed the first few min.

not a compromise, a necessity by market forces
we don’t hold the moral high ground; it’s held by the farmers who are impoverished without it
spur for corporate soul-searching
- not compromising; it’s a driving force for trade based on ethics and solidarity

This article or section is a stub. You can help Hooked by adding content to it.

[edit] Negative side: Paul Deighton, Secretary, IFAT

profit orientation; peak: large corporations
contrast: small, justice-based organisations
- equity, sustainability, respect
FT has difficulty maintaining its values; in mainstream how can it?
is FT a part of the capitalist system? Or an alternative with different values?
Nestlé
- long-term, vociferous opponent of FT
- still insist it doesn’t work; violates free market principles
- they don’t and won’t publicise their FT sales figures
- FT clearly an alternative the mainstream can’t cope with.
FLO is moving more and more towards registering large organisations, not small. Fees introduced, etc.
- having difficulty supporting the collectives now, how much more when mainstream?
Moving FT into mainstream will take markets from small producers, and give them to large corporations
FT can only maintain values of alternative trade movement if it remains alternative

[edit] Affirmative: Melissa Crouch, Law Students for Fair Trade, Melbourne University

he said “FT started with small coopertaives, transparency justice”
- FT does have big aims, goals, and aim of impacting mainstream
he said “Nestlé etc. won’t be publicising their results in FT”
- if they’ve been able to obtain the FT certification; so they have to abide by the FT system—no transparency problem
he said “justice, equality”
- we’re firmly in support of those values
- boy on the beach, picking up starfish on the beach, dad “you can’t possibly make a difference.”
- Son: “It made a difference to that one.”
FT not about taking moral high ground; rather a market necessity.
Primary goal of FT movement has always been to merge values of FT into mainstream. Focus is on the farmers, not consumers—this will be enhanced in moving to mainstream.
FT started with niche market, this was necessary, but this was so we could build a market for FT; build awareness.
- always the goal: law a basis for fairer trade
one of the criticisms of FT: relies too heavily on consumers: information; choice, etc.
- emphasis in reality, always been on producers.
- FT definition by FLO, this, that, and somebody else: “a trading partnership that seeks greater equity in international trade, by offering fairer trading conditions…marginalised producers and workers”
E.g. efforts of Hooked
- the cafés that have added FT have not compromised the values of FT
  - bc introducing a line is the first step in changing completely
  - Castro’s previously had 1/3 asking for FT.
  - Others maybe didn’t know or didn’t want it
  - but now there are other cafés with FT, and Castro’s has switched completely
  - the other 2/3 customers are buying FT anyway! Benefits going back to FT. Also increases the chances of those who didn’t know, finding out they’re buying FT
McDonald’s, Nestlé have to abide by FT principles when they take it on
- this benefits the farmers
- East Timor & Starbucks:
  - 25% population rely on coffee. At present, only a small %age get benefit of working in FT co-op.
  - higher demand for FT increases the number who benefit.

[edit] Affirmative: Kirsty Wright, Oxfam (whose views she is not representing)

Nestlé one of most boycotted companies around world
- recently sued Ethiopian gov. for a company that had been nationalised
- now being sued for child slavery, trafficking, and _ in the US.
- huge market power
- chocolate industry relies on slavery for producing cocoa
  - 2001, horrific conditions revealed. In 2001, key players launched _ _ protocol
    - committed to eliminating __
  - identify and eliminate the worst forms of child labour
  - In July 2001, hardly any progress in establishing regulation
    - shows the industry is not interested in self-regulating
  - Nestlé’s FT coffee
    - benefiting 100s of farmers?
    - but undermines everything FT movement is about; and campaigners like us in room work towards
    - nothing more than green-washing; clever marketing ploy. Trying to avoid criticism, and gain market share in the new market. Pragmatic, not out of respect for principles of FT.
    - bottom line always profit not people
- Nestlé reduces the standard of the label

This article or section is a stub. You can help Hooked by adding content to it.

[edit] Negative: Cameron Neil, Fairtrade Certification Analyst, Oceania Fair Trade ANZ

3 points:
- alternative trade movement a broad church: diverse understanding
- the finding values
- if we have to compromise values? That’s a defeatist attitude. Everything the +ve side has said is a recognised question within FT movement
Nestlé a bad child, still misbehaving
- but we are complicit. We’ve allowed it. To see change, we must demand it.
- we’re sending a message about what values we want to see
  - poverty eradication, etc.
- Nestlé is greenwashing; but the market forces are compelling them to this
- Provocation: “Nestlé eradicates poverty”
  - by going belly-up?
  - or by becoming instrumental?
    - if the latter, how could this happen?
FT movement includes ppl of all kinds—Global Justice movement, etc. Some see that going mainstream, their values are compromised.
- so yes; have internal, healthy debates
- Negative side: these are the problems.
  - We do need strong participation and labelling systems.
  - we are indeed playing with an 8000 pound gorilla, yes. So we get out of its way. But we can’t go back on what we’ve developed.
moving from alternative trade to mainstream
- we created this alternative system; and so the mainstream begins to shift. Mainstream becoming closer to alternative trade. So we keep moving the goalposts in turn
- Nestlé is required to demonstrate its commitment to FT over time. Have to stick with it.
yes there are many challenges. Mainstreaming is going to be hard work. This is the fighting decade. Must maintain strong governance; know what we stand for

[edit] Affirmative: Mike Cebon, Coordinator, Global Tradewatch

VALUES of the ALTERNATIVE trade movement—that’s what we’re debating
100s of millions of farmers paid crap prices vs alternative: partnership and empowerment to take control over their destinies
it’s not a glorified aid program; it’s about transforming the relationship between consumer and producer
exploiting producers or partnering with them?
profit before people or vice-versa?
so far doing an all-right job: a goal, we’re working towards it
if we bring these massive exploiting corporations on board
- Nestlé that’s enslaving children to bring to chocolate, is part of the FT movement. A problematic concept!
corporations are legally required to put profit before people. They can never live up to the values of the alt. trade movement.
ppl will be mislead: Nestlé is a FT company. How can they be employing child slaves in Africa? Some products OK to buy, some not. Huh?
not interested in values, interested in profit
Paul “FT needed to be endorsed by mainstream to work”
- I think we can grow alt. trade movement to invest in the farmers, and make a difference that way
High moral ground?
- isn’t that everything we’re about? We need to live up to the values we supposedly espouse
Corporations with 100’s of billions of dollars; who’s changing who?
The economic system than makes “Edgar” work and work and work…we need to change that system.