AIRBORNE MAGNETOMETRY

The importance of the certification approach and specifically that of FLO is well recognised (Nicholls and Opal 2005; Tallontire 2009, p. 1005). Indeed, in 2007, the last year for which comparative statistics are ava ilable, FLO certified goods accounted for €2.381 million of sales, whereas non-certified products were only valued at €265 million (Krier 2007, p. 8). However, despite this domination, overall growth has still

22 The alternative schemes discussed in this section are pertinent to the issue of public procurement in the UK. There are however, other certification and governance initiatives in producer countries such as

“Comercio Justo” in Mexico (Renard and Perez-Grovas 2007; Smith 2008b; Smith and VanderHoff Forthcoming), various initiatives in Brazil (Wilkinson 2007b) and indeed, throughout Latin America (Fretel et al. 2009), which can also be seen as parallel interpretations of fair trade.

51 required a growing range of products, approaches and also “standards and certification” (Fisher 2009, p. 985).

As well as a growing number of profit motivated companies commercialising FLO certified goods, original pioneering ATOs (such as Oxfam, Equal Exchange, TWIN²³ Trading, Traidcraft and Ten Thousand Villages) have continued to operate in a more professional manner (Fichtl 2007, pp. 15-17) – and have been joined by an increasing number of other such socially orientated actors (Barrientos and Dolan 2007, p. 10).

Although these organisations have taken on FLO certified goods, they have also continued to stock items which remain outside the certification system (Barrientos and Dolan 2007, p. 10; Tallontire 2007, p. 42 & 54). These organisations continue to rely on direct contact with consumers to uphold their claims of fairness (Raynolds 2009, p. 1086) and establish legitimacy by generating trust (Bezençon 2011, p. 61).

ATOs have also joined in partnerships to launch dedicated fair trade processing companies that produce finished fair trade goods under brand- names such as Cafédirect (Tallontire 2000; Wright 2004) and Divine Chocolate (Doherty and Tranchell 2005; Tallontire 2007, pp. 37-38). While these goods are mostly certified by FLO they are considered to have executed a “radical mainstreaming” (see Doherty and Tranchell 2007) that bridges social justice goals with a commercial strategy of sales growth.

Because of their social orientation, many of these ATOs expressly aim to go beyond FLO requirements – or in other words, operate a fair trade plus model (Murray 2011, p. 207). In the example of Oxfam, the organisation has aimed to “reflect more precisely Oxfam’s vision of how fair trade may function as a tool in development”

(Mayoux and Williams 2001, p. 3), and has specifically identified that the “proper function of fair trade” is “for producers to learn to compete on open markets”

(Mayoux and Williams 2001, p. 4). Likewise, TWIN Trading has invested with others to develop numerous dedicated fair trade companies (Brown 2007, p. 272). All these organisation operate what TWIN refers to as a “gold standard” (Brown 2007, p. 272) that goes above the requirements of FLO certification to: finance producer partnership

23 TWIN stands for the Third World Information Network and was founded in 1985 with the help of the Greater London Council (Bowes 2011). This is an early example of a politically active Local Authority taking action to support southern farmers.

52 programmes; support producers to control more of the supply chain and involve producer representatives in ownership and decision making²⁴:

This so-called ‘gold standard’ can be seen in the discourse and practice of TWIN’s spin-out companies themselves. Cafédirect coffee (founded in 1991 in partnership with Oxfam, Traidcraft, and Equal Exchange Trading²⁵, and one of the first products certified by the Fairtrade Foundation) is noted to have gone “beyond” (2004, p. 669) the requirements of certification, by extending ownership to producers themselves (Tallontire 2000). Likewise, Divine Chocolate²⁶ (started in 1998 with the Kuapa Kokoo cocoa growers’ collective in Ghana) has made the expansion of producer ownership a key element of its empowerment strategy (Doherty and Tranchell 2005;

Tiffen 2002) and is now 45 percent owned by the producer organisation (Doherty 2008, p. 206). Such ‘up-grading’ of producer involvement in the supply chain is expected to allow them to capture more value of the final sale via dividends, as well as have more power in the decision making processes that affect them (Raynolds and Ngcwangu 2010, p. 80). It is for these reasons that Davies (2009) concludes that ATO orientated fair trade has an ideological commitment to maintaining close relations with their suppliers and to improve their conditions and income.

As a result of this mission driven effort to do more than is required by FLO certification, there has been an ongoing concern of how ATOs can differentiate themselves from less producer focused operations (Davies 2010; Murray 2011).

Indeed, of particular concern has been how non-certifiable products, such as craft goods, can be legitimised in a competitive market place (Gendron et al. 2009, p. 68).

Looking into the issue in the 1990s, a DFID investigation suggested that “this is a particular problem for Traidcraft and Oxfam in the UK” (DFID no date, p. 11 footnote 14).

In response to this situation, there has been the parallel development of an alternative system of certification specifically designed to accredit 100 percent fair trade

24 Also see Renard and Perez-Grovas (2007, p. 152) and Raynolds (2009, p. 1087)

25 An organisation which itself “goes well beyond FLO requirements” (Raynolds 2009, pp. 1086-1087).

26 Which changed its name from the Day Chocolate Company in January 2007 as a means to more closely align the company name with that of the leading brand.

53 organisations dealing with both handicraft and agrifood produc ts. In the view of some, this is a more radical approach to the certification of fair trade (Rosenthal 2011, p.

168), and it is to a discussion of this certification that the chapter now turns²⁷.

The Rise of WFTO Certification

The WFTO came into existence in 1989 as the first networking organisation to directly link producers in developing countries with retailers operating in Northern markets (WFTO 2009a WS). Throughout its history the organisation has been composed of members which are “100 percent authentic fair trade” or dedicated socially orientated organisations (Davenport and Low forthcoming, p. 5) – and thus their approach has sharply contrasted with that of FLO whose strategic intention has been to involve profit orientated companies in the fair trade movement.

While there is very little academic discussion of the WFTO, the organisation is composed of farmers, growers, producers, and supporters working through cooperatives, networks, brands and businesses to deliver US$2.2 billion in fair trade sales worldwide (WFTO 2011 WS). The WFTO is made up of regional Chapters as described in Table 5 – a structure that reflects the organic development of the organisation (Ullrich 2007, pp. 7-8) – and is a multi- level membership organisation in which each member has one vote within their respective community (Davenport and Low forthcoming, p. 5).

27 It should be noted that another system of accreditation available to UK based organisations is administered by the British Association of Fair Trade Shops (BAFTS). However, because this accreditation is grounded in FLO and WFTO governance, it is described in Footnote 83 below.

28 Bangladesh, China, India, Nepal, Philippines, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam.

29 As of December 2008.

30 As of December 2008.

54

Table 5: The Chapters of IFAT

In response to requests by its members, the WFTO has also slowly developed an accreditation function in parallel to that of FLO (Davenport and Low forthcoming, p.

6); and as such, has initiated what some explicitly see as competition in the provision of fair trade certification (Smith and Fischlein 2010, p. 516). Starting in 1997, the WFTO now has a formal monitoring process for its members which is composed of self-assessment, mutual review and external verification (Davenport and Low forthcoming, p. 6) against Ten Fair Trade Principles. These can be found in full in Append ix 2, but cover the areas of:

1. Creating Opportunities for Economically Disadvantaged Producers 2. Transparency and Accountability

3. Trading Practices 4. Payment of a Fair Price

5. Child Labour and Forced Labour

6. Non Discrimination, Gender Equity and Freedom of Association 7. Working Conditions

8. Capacity Building 9. Promotion of Fair Trade 10. Environment

Unlike FLO certification, the WFTO system is “not as certification for the products of organisations but rather the organisations themselves” (Gendron et al. 2009, p. 69). As such, the WFTO mark, which became available in 2004, can only be used as part of an organisation’s identity, and is not licensed to appear on products (Davenport and Low forthcoming, p. 10). This condition has reinforced the organisation’s objective that “The Fair Trade Organisation Mark serves to distinguish Fair Trade Organisations from commercial traders, such as Starbucks, that are involved in fair trade only through the purchase of products labelled under the FLO certification system” (Ullrich 2007, p. 16)³¹. The membership system also offers third-party certification to those who fall outside the FLO system, either because of produce type or geographical position – as there is no such limitation on WFTO membership.

In addition to this membership system, the WFTO is developing product certification, the Sustainable Fair Trade Management System (SFTMS), which can be applied to

31 Also see Barrientos and Dolan (2007, p. 10).

55 individual product packaging. This development has been partly motivated out of the perceived marginalisation of the WFTO’s approach by FLO certification (Ullrich 2007). The SFTMS is also designed to be more cost effective – being based on the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) for small and medium organisations – and less bureaucratic for developing world producers (Davenport and Low forthcoming, p. 11). Perhaps most interestingly for the current study, the WFTO (2010, p. 2) notes that the new certification:

“anticipates future global and European Union initiatives following the development of Fair Trade voluntary regulations in several EU member states…[and] also supports sustainable public procurement [as]…voluntary standards are becoming de facto mandatory in some countries and market segments”³².