#Fairtrade only really benefits supermarkets. A rethink is needed
The movement has honourable intentions, but offers too few benefits to producers of the global south. It’s time to enhance an outdated model
The FT economic model faces a structural contradiction. On the one hand, if the minimum price for FT products is high, they may not find outlets. Sales will be low. The economic benefits to producer organisations will also be negligible. On the other hand, if the minimum price of FT products is “competitive”, sales may increase but the impact in terms of poverty reduction will be insignificant.
Faced with the contradiction between the marketing logic of sales growth and the logic of poverty reduction at a very small scale, the FT movement has until now privileged the former.
Owing to free market principles, producer organisations that usually join the FT movement are not necessarily the poorest, but those that can meet market demands – ie those with the means to afford certification fees and a certain scale of production. No wonder producer organisations from the least developed countries tend to be under-represented.
A further issue regarding the FT model is the maintaining of countries of the south in a disadvantageous economic specialisation. While most of them have been exporting primary commodities since colonial times, this has not led to economic transformations beneficial to the vast majority of their populations.
The FT movement as a whole would have more impact if it focused on manufactured goods produced using local agricultural products. This type of model would have the advantage of generating productive employment and stimulating technological innovation in the countries of the south.
▻https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/04/fairtrade-benefits-supermarkets-global-south-outdated-model?CMP=share_b
#commerce_équitable #supermarchés #prix #réduction_de_pauvreté #pauvreté #label #certification #agriculture #produits_manufacturés #industrialisation #technologie #critique