27. Memorandum submitted by the members
of the International Federation for Alternative Trade (IFAT) UK
Fair Trade Leaders Forum (i)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This submission draws upon the experience of
UK Fair Trade organisations that have first-hand experience of
trading with developing countries. It outlines the perspectives
of Fair Trade Organisations and their trading partners overseas
and summarises the growth in consumer interest in fair trade in
the UK. The paper sets out the principles through which trade
can have a positive impact on poverty and, through a comparison
with prevailing practice, suggests a number of actions for the
UK government.
— Whilst Fair Trade has shown that
trade can have a positive impact on poverty reduction, in many
cases mainstream trade increases the vulnerability of producers
and can lead to increased poverty and environmental degradation.
— The UK Government has a vital role
to play in pressing for the development of a trading environment
which benefits both producers and consumers. This can be realised
by re-assessing the UK's position within the EU, the international
donor community and the WTO.
— Within the UK greater focus on policy
coherence is needed, bringing together the government departments
responsible for trade and sustainable development.
— The UK's role in enforcing economic
liberalisation is at odds with its poverty reduction remit and
its trading interests as a member of the EU compromise its position
as a development donor. Where these roles and interests overlap,
greater public consultation and accountability is required and
participatory poverty impact assessments should be conducted as
a priority.
— Whilst reforms to the enabling environment
for trade are essential, supply-side constraints in poor countries
must be recognised and meaningful capacity building programmes
implemented. Even so, if the regulatory and subsidy regime which
systematically disempowers producers from poor countries continues,
the capacity of any developing-country business to trade internationally
will continue to be limited.
— There is also a need to build greater
trade policy capacity in developing countries, and to facilitate
the links between domestic policy making and SMEs in developing
countries.
— At the same time the majority of
UK businesses continue to refuse to recognise their social and
environmental impacts, including in developing countries. With
the growth of Corporate Social Responsibility in the UK the government
is urged to facilitate a process whereby the claims of different
CSR initiatives can be assessed on the basis of corporate performance
on the ground.
Main recommendations
— Mainstream trade should be structured
to mitigate negative social and environmental impacts. Trade rules
should take into account the special needs of poor countries and
should be applied fairly and equally.
— Greater policy coherence is needed
across the different UK government departments responsible for
trade and sustainability.
— The UK should use its role as a leader
in the international donor community to ensure as a matter of
principle that developing countries are not pressurised into trade
liberalisation before meaningful poverty impact assessments have
been carried out.
— Poor countries should have the right
to protect their own markets to enable them to ensure the livelihoods
of their citizens. They should be allowed to subsidise their own
local production for domestic markets.
— The UK government should require
the EU to strengthen their Sustainability Impact Assessments,
ensuring greater participation from key stakeholders in third
countries.
— The UK Government should push for
greater accountability by UK companies of the impact of their
actions on developing countries.
— The Fair Trade model shows that trade
can be undertaken in a way which has a positive impact on poverty.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 As UK members of the International Federation
for Alternative Trade (IFAT) (ii), we welcome the enquiry by the
International Development Select Committee into trade and development.
IFAT is the international network for Fair Trade organisations,
who have a particular perspective on these debates as both trading
entities and campaigners for social justice. IFAT's membership
includes some 111 producer groups and export marketing organisations
in 35 Latin American, African and Asian countries. The content
of the following submission draws on the experience of sustainable
trading of IFAT members in the UK and their trading partners overseas.
1.2 IFAT's membership is diverse, including
multi-product Fair Trade Organisations, world shops and Fair Trade
brands. Though they differ in their business approach and remit,
all members of IFAT subscribe to the belief in promoting trade
as a vehicle for development and poverty alleviation. Other companies
also offer fairly traded products as licensees of the Fairtrade
Foundation. The Fairtrade Foundation is a member of Fairtrade
Labelling Organisations International (FLO) and awards the Fairtrade
Mark in the UK. Annex 1 details the UK members of IFAT who have
collaborated on this submission.
2. THE PRINCIPLES
OF FAIR
TRADE
2.1 Fair Trade sets out to address the inequity
of the present global trading system, which neglects the needs
of poor producers at the bottom of the supply chain who are not
represented in trade negotiations and have no negotiating power.
Fair Trade works in developing countries with producers of agricultural,
manufactured and handcrafted products whose circumstances effectively
marginalise them from mainstream trade system. In most cases these
producers will be workers' co-operatives and small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs), although this is not a requirement of Fair
Trade. Terms of trading are set in a way that ensures producers
receive a price that covers a fair return on capital costs and
labour, plus business training and support where needed. In many
cases it is necessary to provide pre-delivery financing, in recognition
of the economic vulnerability of the groups with whom Fair Trade
Organisations work. In particular Fair Trade Organisations work
to establish trading relationships that are transparent, equitable
and accountable thereby ensuring that producers are able to overcome
barriers to trade and establish sustainable livelihoods.
2.2 The fair prices and premium paid to
businesses and communities engaged in Fair Trade also allow collective
saving schemes which are then invested in community-owned projects
that improve the standard of living of all.
2.3 The Fair Trade market in the UK in 2002
was worth more than £60 million, with Fairtrade labelled
products making up about £45million in sales—a growth
of 40% year-on-year. (iii)
2.4 The market for Fairtrade coffee in the
UK has a value of £18.4 million, and constitutes 13.9% of
the roast and ground coffee market. Twenty-three companies now
offer fairtrade coffee (iv). Other products for which a Fairtrade
label currently exists in the UK include tea, cocoa, chocolate,
sugar, honey, biscuits, fresh fruit and juices.
2.5 In these ways Fair Trade is contributing
to the realisation of the Millennium Development Goals, which
seek to reduce the number of people living in absolute poverty
by half by 2015. Through engagement with a worldwide network of
producers and partner organisations who work with some of the
world's poorest communities the Fair Trade movement has first-hand
knowledge of the conditions under which trade can be a powerful
force for sustainable economic and social development.
3. THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN TRADE
AND POVERTY
REDUCTION
3.1 Fair Trade Organisations operate on
the principle that trade can make a sustainable and significant
contribution to poverty reduction. It is estimated that more than
five million producers around the world benefit from Fair Trade
terms and the producer support and capacity building that is provided.
(v)
3.2 However, trade is not synonymous with
social development; in many cases trade can and does increase
instability, vulnerability to shocks and exacerbate poverty. Furthermore,
many fair trade organisations emphasise the importance of environmental
factors for sustainable development. Mainstream trade can be destructive
of the environment, depriving the poor of sustainable livelihoods.
In order to minimise the injustice of mainstream trade, there
need to be fundamental revisions in the political enabling environment
for trade and development, as well as changes in the practices
of businesses themselves. For the purposes of this submission
issues will be collected under these two themes, with recommendations
on the UK government's role. In responding to such a broad Committee
enquiry these issues will of necessity be dealt with in summary,
although we would be pleased to offer more detail on specific
aspects on request.
4. THE ENABLING
ENVIRONMENT FOR
TRADE AND
DEVELOPMENT
4.1 Policy Coherence
4.1.1 There is a lack of policy coherence
across the different UK government departments responsible for
trade, sustainable development and corporate accountability. While
we welcome this enquiry into trade and development, we call for
a combined enquiry with the Trade and Industry Select Committee
so that these issues can be looked at in the round.
4.1.2 Similarly, the Fair Trade movement
relates both to DFID and the DTI (and DG Development and DG Trade
in the EU) and this contact makes us aware of numerous instances
of policy inconsistencies between the departments. In the UK,
a fully operational inter-Departmental working group involving
DFID, DTI, DEFRA and the FCO is needed in order to ensure policy
consensus and create a truly enabling environment for sustainable
trade and make good on the government's stated commitments to
fair and sustainable trade. A similar process is called for between
the different services of the European Commission (principally
DGs Trade, Development, Agriculture, Enterprise, Employment and
Social Affairs).
4.2 The UK's role in enforcing economic liberalisation:
how far is it pro-poor?
4.2.1 The rules which govern trading relationships
at both the national and international level are critical in determining
whether trade can have positive impacts on poverty. For example,
as a critical tool for long-term sustainable development, Fair
Trade seeks to support the growth of a thriving domestic market
as well as export market. Rushed trade liberalisation—an
approach which prevails among industrialised nation governments
and among donors and international institutions—has been
shown in certain circumstances to lead to increased imports of
heavily subsidised northern products thereby undermining local
enterprises and exacerbating poverty.
4.2.2 Where there are special concessions
made by rich countries to poorer ones, these are usually little
more than short-term expedients. Yet there is a growing body of
evidence to show the damage to weak economies in developing countries
wrought by liberalisation. The results of the Zambian Trade Policy
Review (TPR) (October 2002) is a recent example. Despite a full-scale
liberalisation programme throughout the 1990s the TPR cites Zambia's
GDP per capita as having fallen in real terms and the proportion
of Zambians living in poverty as having increased from 70% in
1991 to 75%. (vi)
4.2.3 It has been shown that liberalisation
creates an economic environment that is worse for the poorest
and most vulnerable, whilst companies tend to consolidate their
supply base. Where merely boosting competition and economic openness
are the driving factors, the contribution that trade can make
to sustainable development can be minimal and in some cases—as
in Zambia—can be counter-productive. Developing countries
are often pressurised into liberalising their economies by donors.
4.2.4 The UK's role as a leader in the international
donor community means it has significant influence in economic
policy in developing countries, especially in relation to the
trend towards budgetary support for some of the world's poorest
nations. It has a responsibility to ensure that liberalisation
is not enforced as a "one size fits all" economic solution.
We therefore call on the UK government to ensure that—as
a matter of principle—no pressure is put on developing countries
to enter into liberalisation programmes that could be against
their national interest. Full, open, participatory and long-term
poverty impact assessments should be undertaken before any such
moves in the future.
4.2.5 While any progress on transparency,
accountability and anti-corruption is of course to be welcomed,
it is a fact that much donor pressure continues to be exerted
on developing country governments to transfer public services
and utilities to private ownership under the guise of liberalisation.
In many cases this process takes place without any meaningful
assessment of the likely social and environmental impacts of such
action. In certain cases, so-called corporate social responsibility
and fair trade can be used as "sweeteners". For example,
there is concern that the Asian Development Bank (ADB) is linking
support for various fair trade initiatives to the pressure it
is applying to recipient countries to accept privatisation of
the domestic water supply. DFID as a key donor to the ADB has
a responsibility to ensure that such unfair practices are ended.
4.3 The UK's role as a member of the EU in
multilateral trade negotiations: how far is it contradictory?
4.3.1 The UK government is active in its
support for multilateral trade agreements. It is a committed member
of the WTO and, together with its other EU counterparts, active
in the range of bilateral and multi-lateral trade agreements to
which EU members are now signatory.
4.3.2 We believe that poor countries should
have the right to protect their own markets and to negotiate trade
on terms which will protect the livelihoods of their citizens.
In addition, poor countries should be allowed to subsidise local
production for domestic consumption to enable them to compete
with intentionally dumped subsidised products from the EU and
USA.
4.3.3 In order to avoid contradictions and
competition between its separate trade and poverty reduction objectives
the UK government should broaden public consultation on areas
where these two overlap. While there are currently various mechanisms
where the government engages with civil society, such as the Trade
Policy Consultative Forum (vii), these are not sufficient in their
content or their remit. In particular the government should consult
widely and openly on the likely social and environmental impacts
of its planned trade positions ahead of any bilateral or multi-lateral
trade negotiations being entered into.
4.3.4 Where the UK government's position
is negotiated by the EU, the same principles should apply and
we call on the UK government to ensure that they do.
4.3.5 In particular, we are concerned that
the EU's current Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) process
is weak and inadequate, with an approach that is unlikely to deliver
meaningful results. The Fair Trade movement focuses considerable
resources on assessing and improving the poverty impact of its
own activities. Impact assessments are run by IFAT members as
a central part of their business management, in order to determine
future strategy. An important principle is that in impact assessments,
local organisations should be able to set their own objectives.
4.3.6 By contrast, those (few) SIAs that
have been conducted by the EU to date have been a parallel process
to the launching of trade negotiations; they have not been conducted
well in advance as they should, nor have they been transparent
and participatory, involving all stakeholders in a public dialogue
on the issues. The EU's SIA have also been expensive—the
current budget for the SIA of the Cotonou Agreement is one million
Euros. Most recently, regarding the Cotonou Agreement (viii),
the SIA process was launched, but only after the Cotonou Agreement
was signed and the commitment to reciprocal free market access
between some of the richest and poorest nations on earth had already
been made legally binding. The critical aspect of reciprocity,
which distinguishes Cotonou from its predecessor Lome conventions,
risks potentially enormous damage to public sector finance through
customs revenues and poses the threat of competition to ACP SMEs
from EU business. With the commitment to the principle of reciprocity
already made, the SIA on Cotonou risks being little more than
a token. While the SIA identifies "flanking measures"
such as corporate social responsibility and Fair Trade, which
might ameliorate some of the adverse impacts of Cotonou, the EU's
current approach suggests that they will be little more than sweeteners
to a process which is likely to be unfavourable to some ACP countries
and counter-productive to achieving sustainable development through
trade.
4.4 Market access: the need to build meaningful
trade capacity in developing countries
4.4.1 One of the central principles of IFAT
members is that trade should be a transparent, accountable and
equitable partnership. In this spirit of partnership, IFAT members
in industrialised countries commit resources to build the capacity
of their partners in the South. This aspect of capacity building
can range from pre-order financing to the provision of a range
of long-term business development services, and goes well beyond
the norm of short-term (often only seasonal) embedded service
delivery found in mainstream commercial supply chains.
4.4.2 This principle of partnership underpins
the Fair Trade movement's approach to market access. Through this
experience IFAT members recognise the importance of dealing with
supply-side constraints in building more sustainable trade between
rich and poor nations. While this is an issue which is receiving
increasing political attention, including from the UK government,
the provisions made remain insufficient. The need is not for increased
market access alone, but market access linked at every stage to
capacity building programmes to increase the ability of developing
countries to compete in new international markets. It is the experience
of Fair Trade Organisations, who work with economically marginalised
groups, that long-term capacity building inputs are needed across
a range of business development services including marketing,
pricing, product design, quality assurance, health and safety
compliance and logistics. One of the reasons cited by the EU as
a reason for abandoning the (non-reciprocal) Lome Conventions
was that they did not deliver significant market development to
ACP countries. Given the difference in capacity and subsidy between
businesses in the EU and the ACP this was to have been expected.
Regulatory changes to market access without coherent business
development inputs will mean that the economic benefits of international
trade, and the consequential benefits to livelihoods in poorer
countries, will not be realised.
4.4.3 It is important to stress that capacity
building of itself will only achieve limited success in market
development. Trade rules and regulations in numerous sectors continue
to shackle businesses in developing countries, made more unjust
by vast subsidies to EU and US businesses, and a plethora of import
barriers and restrictions. While this regulatory and subsidy regime
continues the capacity of any developing-country business to trade
internationally will continue to be limited.
4.4.4 Fair Trade was established to support
marginalised producers access appropriate markets—including
local, regional and international markets. Developed-country tariffs
for processed agricultural goods are often much higher than for
raw materials. This poses a critical barrier to the development
of export markets in many goods where developing countries are
competitive and on which many poorer producers rely. It also deprives
producers of the ability to add value to their goods, placing
a "glass ceiling" on developing countries' ability to
integrate into the world economy on an equitable and sustainable
basis. Thus initiatives such as Everything But Arms are limited—EBA
itself only applies to Least Developed Countries and to raw commodities,
which prevents producers from adding value in the country of origin.
4.4.5 At the same time there is a need to
develop greater awareness among consumers throughout the EU on
the link between trade and development, in order that they can
make truly informed purchasing decision and so help build markets
for sustainable business from the South. The full costs of production—including
social and environmental costs as well as financial costs—should
be made plain to consumers. The government has a role in ensuring
that disclosure from companies on these matters—whether
voluntary or mandatory—is accurate and accountable.
4.5 The need to build meaningful trade policy
capacity in developing countries
4.5.1 The Fair Trade movement around the
world subscribes to a rigorous set of voluntary standards regulating
terms of trade. We support the principle of a rules-based trading
system provided that system is transparent, accountable and fair.
We believe that free trade can only be fair if the rules that
govern it take into account the special needs of poor countries
and do not prevent national regulation in the public interest.
In addition trade rules need to be applied fairly and equally.
It is outrageous that the USA and the EU are allowed to subsidise
and dump crops in developing countries when those same developing
countries are not allow to subsidise local production for domestic
consumption.
4.5.2 The rhetoric of the Doha Development
Agenda does not take account of the immediacy of the problems
facing developing countries in engaging with multilateral trade
negotiations at the WTO. Willingness to share the riches of the
world more equitably, expressed in the final agreement of the
Uruguay Round, has not yet been borne out in practice. Existing
rules need further assessment to ensure the greatest possible
benefit for people in poor countries. This has to happen before
the so-called "new issues" can be tackled in any sustainable
way.
4.5.3 Above all, we believe that the World
Trade Organisation should exist only for the formulation and monitoring
of trade rules that will benefit all people equally. Issues that
are not trade issues should not be dealt with at the WTO. There
are serious developmental risks in increasing the WTO's remit,
not least in increasing the potential barriers to industrialised
markets of developing country producers.
4.5.4 While welcome efforts have been made
since Seattle to make the WTO more transparent—in terms
of access to key documents—the process remains grossly undemocratic.
If the true spirit of the Doha Development Agenda is to be realised
the practice of conducting WTO business at unrepresentative mini-Ministerials—of
the kind that took place in Sydney on 14 and 15 November 2002,
where only twenty-five members were present—must cease.
4.5.5 It is recognised that many developing
countries—even those with a permanent trade representation
in Geneva—face an impossible task in keeping up with the
meeting schedule that, by its very nature, favours richer countries
with far larger representation. The capacity building programmes
and trade negotiation training that have been offered through
the Technical Co-operation Division of the WTO and through the
WTO Training Institute are insufficiently country-specific or
long-term to prepare developing country representatives adequately
to engage in the WTO process. DFID has an important role as a
donor supporting trade policy capacity building and a full participatory
evaluation of existing training provision should be undertaken
as a priority.
4.5.6 At the same time there are capacity
problems in many developing country capitals. In many cases there
are simply not the resources available in government to assess
and evaluate trade policy options and then instruct resident representatives
in Geneva.
4.5.7 Linked to this is the fact that the
SME voice in developing countries is not heard in national policy-making.
The perspective of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) is often
lost in the debate on trade and development. Many of IFAT's members
are themselves SMEs and other members work to encourage the development
of SMEs through the provision of business support services and
through direct trading links which prioritise such enterprises.
In many developing countries the SME sector is a significant employer,
particularly amongst the poor. SMEs also provide one accessible
route out of poverty. Various Fair Trade Organisations are working
with SMEs in the South to help them strengthen their voice in
domestic trade policy.
4.5.8 In many of the countries where IFAT
members operate national strategies in trade negotiations—as
in other central policy prescriptions such as poverty strategies—do
not yet adequately represent the needs or interests of SMEs and
so policies are adopted, and trade agreements signed, with no
dialogue between national government and the SME sector as to
the implications—for better or worse—to their businesses
and the livelihoods dependent upon them. A long-term programme
of meaningful capacity building is needed to solve these disconnects,
until which time the current WTO system will not cease to be unfair.
5. THE PRACTICE
OF BUSINESS
5.1 Corporate Social Responsibility
5.1.1 The reduction of poverty and making
a real difference to disempowered people's lives is the explicit
aim of Fair Trade. This characteristic distinguishes Fair Trade
from other forms of corporate social responsibility (CSR), for
example ethical trade which focuses on improving labour standards
as its central objective, with its assumption of improving livelihoods
as yet untested.
5.1.2 Fair Trade Organisations actively
promote development in a number of ways. They encourage entrepreneurship
and self-reliance by bringing capital back to small and family-run
units. They encourage participitative models of working. They
promote rural development by providing the rural poor with an
alternative to urban migration. Fair Trade is inextricably tied
to and promotes womens' development. Fair Trade Organisations
see social responsibility as being central to the objectives and
management function of their businesses, not an "add-on"
or part of a company's brand building, which is often how CSR
is presented. For trade to truly contribute to development the
UK government should be examining the numerous claims made by
companies that are in any way involved in CSR, in order to assess
precisely how CSR is changing corporate performance —and
impacting on livelihoods and the environment—throughout
the global supply chain.
5.1.3 The UN Universal Declaration on Human
Rights and the International Labour Organisation's Core Conventions
set out expected standards of behaviour that are internationally
agreed. In most countries these internationally agreed standards
have been enacted into national legislation. Many companies directly
and indirectly continue to violate these agreed standards.
5.1.4 In addition the CSR debate in the
UK remains dominated by EU companies and EU thinking, despite
the fact that there is a growing body of knowledge about CSR in
developing countries. Given the multinational nature of the supply
chains of many EU-based companies the government should, when
reviewing any progress on CSR in the UK, facilitate the participation
of CSR initiatives and the SME sector in developing countries.
This is particularly important in reviewing the establishment
of corporate codes of practice, in order to ensure that codes
are mutually productive, culturally appropriate and are not simply
another form of barrier to market entry for Southern businesses.
5.1.5 There needs to be much greater recognition
by Northern companies that the decisions they make can greatly
affect the lives of people on the other side of the world—for
good or ill—through international supply chains, foreign
direct investment etc. Both governments and international bodies
need to recognise the need for companies to take account of their
social and environmental —as well as economic—impacts
when making trading decisions.
5.1.6 While the profile of CSR is growing
around the world, it is important to remember that the vast majority
of companies, especially SMEs, do not make any attempt to recognise
their social and environmental impacts, especially in relation
to supply chains in developing countries. The model of Fair Trade
shows that social responsibility can go hand in hand with commercial
viability and that listening to stakeholders can reduce a number
of risks associated with operating in developing country environments.
UK Members of IFAT
January 2003
ENDNOTES
(i) The UK Fair Trade Leaders Forum is comprised
of UK members of the International Federation for Alternative
Trade (IFAT): British Association for Fair Trade Shops (BAFTS),
Bishopston Trading Company, The Body Shop Foundation, Bookchair
Company Ltd, Cafeédirect Ltd, Day Chocolate Company, Equal
Exchange Trading Ltd, One World Shop, Edinburgh, Oxfam Ireland,
Oxfam GB, Shared Earth, Shared Interest, Traidcraft Plc, Traidcraft
Exchange, Tropical Forest Products Ltd, Tropical Wholefoods/FM
foods and TWIN Trading. It is a platform from which they speak
both collectively and individually. For further information on
IFAT see www.ifat.org.
(ii) This submission has been compiled by
members of IFAT in the UK, together with the Fairtrade Foundation,
which has observer status with IFAT.
(iii) Fairtrade Foundation. See www.fairtrade.org.uk.
(iv) Spilling the Beans on the Coffee Trade,
Fairtrade Foundation (updated May 2002).
(v) European Fair Trade Asssociation. See
www.eftafairtrade.org.
(vi) WTO. See www.wto.org.
(vii) The TPCF is organised by the DTI as
a means of civil society engagement, to which members of the UK
Trade Network (UKTN) are invited. The UKTN includes members of
numerous NGOs interested in trade and development, including various
Fair Trade organisations, notably the Fairtrade Foundation, IFAT
and Traidcraft.
(viii) The Cotonou Agreement will set the
terms of trade between the EU and the ACP group of nations.
Annex 1
THIS SUBMISSION WAS PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING
UK MEMBERS OF IFAT
BRITISH ASSOCIATION
FOR FAIR
TRADE SHOPS
(BAFTS)
BAFTS is the network of independent Fair Trade
or "World" shops across the UK. It was established in
1995 to promote Fair Trade retailing in the UK and as a voice
for Fair Trade retailers; it provides contact and communication
between Fair Trade shops. It is a full participating member of
the Network of European World Shops (NEWS!). BAFTS is a democratically
run membership organisation whose members are Fair Trade shops
meeting the agreed criteria. It offers established criteria on
which to base Fair Trade activity, development advice to shops,
information including newsletters, leaflets and a directory of
Fair Trade Importers and Producers, as well as networking opportunities
at conferences and co-ordination for the UK annual European World
Shops Day.
Day Chocolate Company
Founded in 1998, the Day Chocolate Company is
a Fair Trade joint venture company owned by the Ghanaian cocoa
growers cooperative, Kuapa Kokoo, Twin Trading Ltd, the Body Shop
International, and supported by the UK charity Christian Aid.
Its terms of trade involve partnerships with democratic and co-operative
farmers' ventures, a minimum and remunerative price for the cocoa
beans, a social premium paid on every tonne, trade credit and
secure contracts. Its mission is to take a quality and affordable
range of Fair Trade chocolate bars into the mainstream chocolate
market.
Fairtrade Foundation
The Fairtrade Foundation exists to improve the
position of poor and marginalised producers in the developing
world by promoting fairer ways of trading. It is the UK member
of Fairtrtade Labelling Organisations International (FLO) which
sets global standards with the participation of key stakeholders,
including producer partners and commercial partners, and monitors
them against those standards. We operate the Fairtrade Mark, build
awareness of Fairtrade among consumers and promote research into
and education about the impact of international trade and conditions
of employment on poverty in the developing world. The Fairtrade
Foundation has observer status with IFAT in the UK.
One World Shop
The One World Shop, Edinburgh, was founded in
1983. By practising Fair Trade, it aims to provide economic security
and improve living and working standards of producer communities,
as well as to act as a positive influence in the local community
and raise awareness of Fair Trade among consumers. It has a second
outlet in Glasgow. The One World Shop buys largely from Fair Trade
importers but imports a small amount directly from craft producers.
It is a member of the British Association for Fair Trade Shops
(BAFTS) and works with them to raise awareness and campaign for
Fair Trade by providing educational materials, background information
on products, campaigns and related issues.
People Tree
British retailer People Tree Ltd is the UK arm
of the Japan-based Fair Trade Company, based in Tokyo. It sells
fashion goods, accessories and gifts according to the principles
of paying fair wages to economically marginalised people in the
developing world. It has a turnover of £4m and works with
250 groups in 20 countries focusing on capacity building work,
with a special emphasis on design, product development, marketing
support, credit support and market exposure.
Shared Interest
Shared Interest is a co-operative lending society
which provides finance for fair trade. Over 8,500 individuals
in the UK invest in Shared Interest providing a total share capital
of £17.7m. Our main way of providing credit is through the
Shared Interest /IFAT Clearing House, and our main lending product
is short term trade credit. Membership of the Clearing House is
open to members of IFAT who have satisfied our credit criteria.
We currently work with 26 fair trade buyers and make payments
to over 300 of the producer organisations that they work with.
Directly we provide credit to 41 of these producer organisations,
touching the lives of more than 50,000 people in the developing
world.
Traidcraft
Comprises a trading company (Traidcraft Plc,
turnover c£11m) and a capacity building NGO (Traidcraft Exchange,
turnover c£2m), committed to fighting poverty through trade.
In addition to its fair trading activity, Traidcraft also works
closely with a number of regional partner organisations, which
include Business Consult Africa (Malawi), Kenya Gatsby Trust (Kenya),
AMKA (Tanzania), IRFT (India), ECOTA (Bangladesh) and APFTI (Philippines).
Together these represent 550 marginalised producer groups employing
nearly 200,000 workers.
| 
