Liberty Alone

Given my dislike for the whole Fairtrade organisation but being concerned with the levels of poverty across the world, I like to look out for things I can do to help (aside from rabbit on about freedom and free trade in the hopes that I might change at least one mind on the issue which will lead to a worldwide revolution establishing utopia - which is an unlikely scenario…).

Whilst looking for coffee in Tesco’s at the weekend I discovered Good African Coffee. My eye was caught by the ‘Trade not Aid’ slogan, which sums up what will actually help Africa and other poor areas of the world so I bought some and its not bad coffee. Better than the rubbish I put up with at work at least, and better than the Fairtrade coffee I’ve sampled. They also have at least three different blends.

The company seems to be owned by Ugandans and to be an entirely local initiative. 50% of profits go to the growers (which is quite a lot - hopefully enough to enable the growers to set out on their own in time and to invest in other trades and infrastructure).

I suggest people do go and try the coffee. If you think its good quality and worth it, then buy it. If not, then buy what you prefer.

No seems to be the answer:

Despite Fairtrade’s moral halo, there are other, more ethical forms of coffee available. Most Fairtrade coffee on sale in UK supermarkets and on the high street is roasted and packaged in Europe, principally in Belgium and Germany. This is unnecessary and retards development. Farmers working for Costa Rica’s Café Britt have been climbing the economic ladder by not just growing beans but by also doing all of the processing, roasting and packaging and branding themselves. Shipping unroasted green beans to Europe causes them to deteriorate, so not only is Café Britt doing far more to promote economic development than Fairtrade rivals, it is also creating better tasting coffee.

But Café Britt is not welcome on the Fairtrade scheme. Most of Café Britt’s farmers are self-employed small businesspeople who own the land they farm. This is wholly unacceptable to the rigid ideologues at FLO International, Fairtrade’s international certifiers, who will only accredit the farmers if they give up their small business status and join together into a co-operative. “It’s like outlawing private enterprise,” says Dan Cox, former head of the Speciality Coffee Association of America. Many African farmers, organised along tribal lines, are similarly excluded from the scheme. Other producers complain that accreditation is needlessly bureaucratic and costs five times as much as organic certifications.

I don’t have anything against cooperatives if people wish to form them, but by only supporting cooperatives and working against mechanisation the Fair Trade movement is inadvertently working to sustain poverty (in a large part due to its dominant position in the market).
People grow rich, not by just selling goods, but by increasing productivity. That means less people will be involved in growing coffee- but those people will be free to work on other things - such as processing the coffee, growing other crops, being merchants, making other goods which people desire.

We should really be boycotting Fair Trade and instead buying good quality coffee (and other produce) from independent producers and many of the other schemes which seek to aid development. I know Rainforest Alliance works to try and aid development and help save the rainforests of the world in a far more sensible manner and I’m sure there’s others.

If anyone is tempted to dismiss this article as the ravings of loony right-wingers: Alex Singleton’s work is firmly grounded in our liberal heritage, his biggest inspiration is Richard Cobden, one of the great heroes of British liberalism and radicalism. He’s travelled throughout the poorest areas of the world, talking and listening to the people who need help. He shares the desire of Fair Trade campaigners, the difference is he looks to see what people in the developing world actually want and what actually works.

I’m sure we all want a good deal for the poorest, but Fair Trade, unfortunately does not offer that. Its really in the business of selling political ideology to the poor and feel good conscience salves to the rich.

Recently the results of a review into price fixing by the supermarkets was released. The anti-supermarket brigade celebrated, now they could point to how the evil supermarkets were raising prices! (whilst ignoring recommendations that the planning process should be relaxed to allow more supermarkets and greater competition…).

Except, what the supermarkets claim they were doing was reacting to consumer demand for British farmers to be given higher prices. So, in the way most anti-supermarket types tend to approve of elsewhere, they added a premium to try and raise prices at the farm gate, in other words, they unilaterally adopted so called fair trade.

Of course, the difference is that they didn’t offer an alternative, but why should they? After all, most Fair Trade types want it to become compulsory anyway, they’re always going on about making ‘Councils Fair Trade’ and similar initiatives.

So what are supermarkets to do? They were wrong to collude, but now farm campaigners (often the same people as the critics) will start saying how evil supermarkets are for charging low prices…

It reminds me of a joke:
In Soviet Russia three men were in prison, for not supporting the revolution. They asked each other why they were in prison:
The first was there because he was late to work so wasn’t pulling his weight to support the revolution.
The second was there because he was early to work - so he was guilty of trying to gain advantage over his comrades and therefore undermine the revolution.
The third was in prison for always being on time to work. The others looked astonished. That was until the explanation was given - being on time meant he must be undermining the revolution by having a western watch.

Supermarkets are in the same position. Charge too much they’re gouging the consumer, charge to little, they’re gouging the producer, charging the ‘right’ amount just isn’t possible…

There’s been a little lunacy emanating from the Welsh Liberal Democrats recently, but this really takes the biscuit.

This is basically a call for tariffs and protectionism. Its a call for putting the interests of farmers over those of everyone else.

Farmers already gains from obscene tariffs and the inhuman Common Agriculture Policy which sees $1200 a year taken from the pockets of a 2 child family to spend on farming and around $20 billion in losses a year from the developing world - far more than we spend on aid.

This goes to give each cow in the EU $2.50 a day - when billions of people struggle to live on under $2 a day.

This is obscene.

Now we’re told that the farmers cannot cope and need more help, now dressed up as ‘fair trade’ (remember, free trade is the only fair trade).

If they cannot survive with the obscene level of support they already have then frankly what are they doing in the business?

I’m sure people will complain about the job losses - but its not liberalisation which causes them, its the protectionism which encourages stasis and protects from the competition which breeds progress and success.

The Liberal Democrats are meant to be a party of free trade, a party of the individual and the masses against the classes. Not a lobby group for today’s high profile campaign.

As for British farmers being labeled ‘Fair Trade’. If the Fair Trade group lets them then fine, they can apply and be approved or not.
If they can’t, then develop their own branding. See if you can get people to pay a premium for that. That’s all fine, but it is not the politician’s place to support that.

Update:
The hypocrisy of this still rankles.
Why is Fair Trade seen as neeed? Because the developed world is deliberately pursuing protectionist policies designed to remove the developing world’s comparative advantage and means to develop and get out of poverty.