Welcome WPHR students!
Plese post your final projects or comments in this thread, or log in and creat a new post. If you use the latter method, plese assign it to the “WPHR students” category by clicking the check box on the left under the “categories” section.
This is your area so pleaseuse it freely! I look forward to reading your projects…
© 2009 – 2010, Mark Wells. All rights reserved.
Jeanne Chambers
SSCI-E102
Equal Exchange: A Model for Human Rights and Development
Introduction
Human Rights and development are interrelated and co-dependant when efforts are made to approach development in poor countries via a rights-based approach. In a well-developed state or NGO project, civil, political, economic, cultural, and social rights will all be advanced to alleviate abject poverty among marginalized people (Alston and Robinson 21). Their goal would be to raise the level of capabilities of the population, in relation to the above mentioned rights and in relation to the goals the people set for themselves. The Right to Development as defined by UN agencies, has implications for States and their actions regarding their citizen’s rights to development and attending Human rights. In the almost 20 years since the HDR 1990 was issued, there has been little wholesale State change among poor countries that could count as a clear success of UN mandates to make HR the cornerstone of State practice (23). A countermeasure of human rights activism can be seen in NGOs such as Care and Oxfam, which use a rights- based approach in their project planning and implementation in developing countries (Hansen 6,14). The State agencies that could and sometimes do perform the same duties do not operate on a business model, but on a non-profit model of development, with the goal of empowering the populace to achieve rights and development. I propose that there is another model that can also advance Human Rights and the Right to Development, and at the same time, be profitable. This can be done by changing the business-as-usual practices that feature developed countries controlling the resources and people in poor countries. Fair Trade is a market-based approach that aims to change the way business is done. Equal Exchange, headquartered in West Bridgewater, MA, is an example of this type of business. It has been in business since 1986, beginning with their coffee business.
This paper will examine Equal Exchange and its practices in relation to the coffee trade, although it does trade in other commodities. I will examine the international coffee trade and the Human Rights especially affected by this trade. I hope to show that Fair Trade and particularly Equal Exchange are practical models that can compare favorably toe-to-toe with Human Rights markers. In short, Equal Exchange has made positive improvements in the lives of poor coffee producers, which as poverty alleviation, is a clear goal in the MDG Framework (www.un.org/milleniumgoals).
Coffee is produced and consumed around the world. Only oil is more widely traded than coffee (Golding 156). Most production is in the southern half of the world with the remainder being equatorial as in Central America; or in Asia, such as Vietnam (www.ico.org). As the included reports from the International Coffee Organization (ICO) show, virtually all production is from third world countries, while all importing, and hence one would assume most consumption, is in the US, EU, Japan, Norway and Switzerland. China, former Soviet countries, and Russia apparently do not belong to the ICO. These statistics are from the first half of 2008 and bag totals are for 60 K of beans (ibid). Exporting countries keep an undisclosed amount for their own domestic market (Jaffe 77). In fact, in many small farm communities, coffee is used as currency (ibid). As Daniel Jaffe notes in his book Brewing Justice, in the indigenous area of southwest Mexico, the coyotes use coffee as payment for groceries (ibid).
Of the aggregate totals in the attached table, only 0.01% is Fair Trade (Rehber & Grega 471). However, in the US, Fair Trade coffee is 2% of the total consumption, as of 2008 (Jaffe 16). An explanation of Fair Trade is in order here. Since WWII, international trade has ballooned in size. In the agricultural sector as well as other sectors, this is due in large part to the effects of industrial scale and the technologies to support it (Rehber 464). International agreements such as the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) and its successor, the World Trade Organization (WTO) have cemented the free market model of business and trade (ibid). As these agreements began to affect agriculture, the effects on poor countries were an increase in poverty, hunger, and an overall inequality vis-à-vis the industrialized North (ibid). This imbalance is reflected in many ways as Olivier de Schutter notes in his paper that appears in Alston and Robinson’s Human Rights and Development. In discussing transnational corporations, the author states that Foreign Direct Investment, as in the form of one of the four large coffee corporations, for this paper’s purposes, “can have very negative effects on local producers and investors…” (Alston 413). Also, modern technology in the form of improved agricultural techniques regarding coffee “does not automatically result in the transfer of technology to the country hosting [an FDI] investment” (414). In short, multinational companies, when entering bilateral economic arrangements with states will protect their investment, even if it means ignoring regulations or practices in the country which the multinational views as detrimental to its cause (417). Sustainable development, as based on the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and on the Rome Declaration on World Food Security in 1996, is a means of correcting some of the imbalances in trade (Rehber 466). Current practices have not supported sustainable agriculture on a worldwide scale. In fact, “poverty, hunger and inequality have increased due to present rules of trade” (467). Cheap imports dislocate local produce and farmers: “liberalization has cemented inequality rather than redressing it” (467). Sustainable development is a broad subject, too much so for the scope of this paper. But, one of the hallmarks of sustainability is maintaining food security over the long haul, to protect future generations (471). An adequate income is required for this as is land, available labor, and a non-polluted environment; this is where Fair Trade enters.
Fair Trade Basics
Fair Trade attempts to equalize the trade arrangement by supporting producing countries in their quest for what amounts to sustainable development. In other words, Fair Trade attempts to develop markets in wealthy countries for Fair Trade labeled goods so that producing countries can afford to advance sustainable development (Golding 156). Sustainable development is a UN recognized movement to improve the lives of impoverished producers. The three pillars of sustainable development as defined by the UNCTAD 2003 are social sustainability, economic sustainability and environmental sustainability (156). It is obvious that if these three categories are met successfully, lives will improve in producer areas and will continue to do so in future generations. The pillars imply a wide range of actions necessary to accomplish these goals. Fair Trade is one of the actions that agricultural producers and consumers can participate in to advance sustainable development (155). The goal is to form new bonds between Northern consumers and Southern producers (157). At the practical level, the aim of Fair Trade
in the agricultural sector is to support growers and empower them through guaranteeing a minimum trade price for their product, eliminating the market fluctuations that can devastate marginal producers (Davies 79). Fair Trade can therefore be understood as a way to protect and advance human rights while promoting development.
How can Human Rights be advanced by Fair Trade? Looking at Human Rights broadly in the context of development is fundamentally important (Mudho 26). As Mudho points out, Human Rights should not be viewed as an “add-on to be provided once a certain level of development is reached” (126). Fair Trade does not operate within the state confines dealt with in Mudho’s essay, but the sentiment vis-à-vis business is similar. Human Rights and trade need not be at odds. Mudho states: “Human rights empower people to achieve their development goals” (26). This is true in agricultural trade as well as in government relations with citizens. An interesting theoretical argument for Fair Trade is found in an essay by Raymond Dacey, examining the “Prisoner’s Dilemma, Hegemonic Trade and Fair Trade” (Dacey 501). His thesis is that cooperation is the key between people and states: the state that changed the game by defecting from the Hegemon and inducing cooperation created a system for Fair Trade” (503). Prisoner’s Dilemma is the game theory that explains how this works. In theory, two players are faced with conflicting choices that can affect them both adversely. In this game “both players prefer the outcome with the altruistic moves to that with the selfish moves” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 1). This theory gets to the heart of why Fair Trade, proper, can be successful. Given trade options that in the present world of diminishing resources and increasing world degradation, the players in the game of world trade will eventually devolve to the altruistic.
On a more mainstream level, Fair Trade enhances Human Rights by basing production in agriculture on dialogue between producers, business, and consumers; transparency of economic issues; and respect of marginalized peoples (Golding 155). It works to secure the rights of producers and to secure recognition that the producer, i.e. farmer, is a key stakeholder (155). Fair Trade works to respect all and integrate social and environmental factors into decisions (155). These stated goals listed in Golding’s essay, but originally from a larger publication by FINE, a Fair Trade umbrella group, cover many of UN specified Human Rights found in the UNDR, as well as other approaches to rights such as in Sen’s Development as Freedom. Civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights are all affected in varying ways by trade, favorably so by Fair Trade. While most civil and political rights are affected by government actions, Fair Trade affects the political aspect of producers at the local level. One of the key aspects of Fair Trade is participatory decision making. In producer countries, grower cooperatives are the means of producing in the Fair Trade scheme. As Milford notes, “cooperatives are believed to have both a social and an economic function” (Milford 35). These cooperatives are small and located in growing areas; in this case, coffee growing areas. The economic benefits of cooperatives are “increased competitiveness, economies of scale, credit opportunities, innovation and member education” (35). Through these improved categories of development, the cooperative is able to trade directly with an international trader without dealing with a middleman (35). Perhaps even more important than the economic benefits for grower cooperatives is the social aspect of this method. The cooperative arrangement empowers participants and allows their voices to be heard (ibid) which is a cornerstone of a capabilities approach to Human rights. When growers’ opinions are heard and they are given a role in decision making, which happens in the cooperative model, they are then capable of making decisions that positively affect the farms they work on and the profits they can realize.
So, how is Fair Trade different from free trade? In a Fair Trade system, profits that growers realize in the cooperative model are not dependant on market fluctuations totally. The agricultural product is certified by the Fair Trade Labeling Organization (FLO), which is an international organization that supplants the middleman of commerce. As Milford outlines in flow-chart form (included), customary trade in coffee, which is the product examined specifically in this paper, goes from the producer to a private intermediary to a processing plant before entering the international market (9). In the Fair Trade model, the cooperative’s product is certified by the FLO and any other certifications that it may seek such as organic, then sold to an FLO participating trader (ibid). This is where the profit is made for the grower. The Fair Trade scheme’s hallmark from the business perspective is the consistent base price paid for the commodity, in this case, coffee. FLO registration makes traders more confident of trading with small coops in developing countries (ibid). The price support paid is at a per pound level, meant to cover costs of sustainable living for the grower and sustainable production of the product (ibid). As well as the base price, a premium is paid coffee growers when the international price rises above the support price so growers will be motivated to conform to the Fair Trade requirements, which fall into social, economic, and environmental categories (ibid). Therefore, the Fair Trade model is “a compelling example of a mechanism by which human rights can be protected within the economy” (Davies 79).
Equal Exchange
It is therefore established that the cooperative model for growers benefits farmers economically and socially and that, due to Fair Trade certification, they receive a level of income that is adequate for a sustainable livelihood. How then does the market distribute a product, in this case, coffee? Mendoza notes, “even primary exports from developing countries still face numerous barriers in developed countries’ markets” (Mendoza 8). Developed consumer countries set tariffs against imports as well as price supports for certain agricultural products. Combine this with the transnational companies’ practice of flooding the market with low-cost loyalty branded coffee, making it difficult for small producers to compete. Enter FLO roasters and marketers, such as Equal Exchange. Founded 20 years ago by three men with experience in a variety of NGO’s and farm co-ops, Equal Exchange is headquartered in West Bridgewater, MA with offices also in Minnesota and Hood River, Oregon. The company has an extensive website, from which most of the information about this company came for this paper (www.equalexchange.coop). As previously discussed, Fair Trade certified growers must fulfill certain criteria. Equal Exchange “believe[s] that we should expect no less from ourselves and each other than we demand of our farmer partners” (equalexchange: workerowned). The company maintains a set of four rights at the corporate level:
• “The right to vote (one vote per employee, not per share)
• The right to serve as leader (i.e. board director)
• The right to information
• The right to speak your mind” (ibid)
The economic structure of the company is share owned by the employees, with all employees receiving equal shares (ibid). The “top to bottom pay ratio is 4:1” (ibid). The climate of the company is democratic and transparent, these also being markers of a Human Rights approach to business. Each has an equal voice and equal economic share. On May 5, 2009, I visited the plant in W. Bridgewater. I took photos, (Appendix 10) as well as photos from Rodney North, who is the Media contact person and directed me to additional research sources. There are about 80 employees in the W. Bridgewater plant. I was able to briefly tour the plant and found it to be a relaxed atmosphere. The employee dining area is large and bright with full kitchen facilities available to all. A lending library is available also, as well as freely available Equal Exchange coffee, which is delicious. I spoke with 2 employees in the dining area, both of whom had come from traditional industries. They found Equal Exchange to be a welcome change in their work life. They both commented on the practice of allowing employees with more than one year of work to travel to partner producers’ farms. Both these gentlemen had done so; staying with the farmers in their homes and seeing firsthand the coffee co-ops farm practices. I could tell by how they described their experiences that these were life-changing events. Both men were middle aged, but these visits, which had taken place within the last few years, were among the most important things they had done in their lives. I know from my own life experience that events like this provide a completely different perspective of life, and for these men there is a definite connection to the people who supply the beans they roast and market. I spoke at length with Dia Cheney, who is the marketing director and has worked at Equal Exchange for 7 years. We talked primarily about the main concepts of Fair Trade, from the Equal Exchange point of view. There is an ongoing discussion in the movement, which I will discuss more at length later in the paper, as to whether and how Fair Trade should increase its market share. The FLO and the US subsidiary, TransFair, are moving toward certifying large plantations, which eliminates characteristics of Fair Trade that Equal Exchange values as much as price supports, that being a long term relationship with the growers as people and families. As Dia noted, “Equal Exchange is mission driven rather than market driven”. She stressed that a long-term relationship with co-op partners, company employees and consumers develops a feeling of commitment, so that when coffee is bought in the store, the consumer feels a tie to the grower and cares that this purchase will help keep the co-op intact. The other main characteristic is that Equal Exchange’s type of Fair Trade works to empower co-op members to make decisions on their own about their future development, such as building a clinic or school. Development for Equal Exchange is not dictated by a corporate office looking to burnish its image, such as is suspected of large corporations like Starbucks. The controversy going forward is how and whether to distinguish between corporate, market driven Fair Trade and mission-driven, Equal Exchange type Fair Trade.
Equal Exchange began in 1986, importing US-banned Nicaraguan coffee to support the peoples’ movement there and to begin to change the US trade system (equalexchange: coop/story). An alternative trade organization (ATO) of Dutch origin roasted the beans so they could enter the US (ibid). As the US government worked to close the opening for these beans, the founders enlisted the help of the now deceased US Rep. Joe Moakley and others to Nicaraguan beans (ibid 2). “This was the first fair trade [intentional lower case] coffee sold in the United States” (Sierra 2009: 39). The group succeeded and they then focused their efforts on expanding into South America in search of cooperative grower groups they could enlist in a Fair Trade system, such as existed in the EU (3). This is an interesting point. The founders of Equal Exchange did not create co-ops in coffee growing areas, but looked for locally operating systems with the goal of improving their circumstances but respecting their social and cultural practices. Here I believe is one of the characteristics of Equal Exchange that supports Human Rights. From the company’s earliest period, growers have been viewed as partners, not as in the typical business model as simply suppliers of a raw material. As de Schutter notes in his essay on transnational corporations, foreign investment can “take the form of acquisitions of local private firms, by mergers and acquisitions” (Alston 410). Equal Exchange has not done this. The local businesses, here the coffee co-ops, have remained in local hands and local control, but have benefitted from Equal Exchange’s expertise in trade.
Equal Exchange expanded in the late eighties, adding coffees from cooperatives throughout Latin America and Africa (equalexchange.coop/story 3). By the early 1990’s, the company was an established Fair Trade coffee company, roasting and selling beans, decaf, different types of roasts and flavored coffees to food co-ops in Massachusetts (ibid). Outside financial involvement increased, the first large investment by the Dominican Sisters in 1994 (ibid). The company entered into faith-based initiatives in 1996 through Lutheran World Relief (ibid). The faith-based sector, an offshoot still under the Equal Exchange umbrella, made connections with over 120,000 religious communities across the US (ibid). In 2003, Catholic Relief Services began a Coffee Project to increase Fair Trade consumption (America 189.19). The organization allied with Equal Exchange in Nov 2003 (NY Times 27Dec2003). I became aware of Equal Exchange in 1999 when my local Catholic Parish began a social outreach effort to see what we could do for those in need outside our geographic area. We developed outreach in many ways and to many organizations. Through some of these contacts, I received a mailing about Equal Exchange products available in bulk for faith communities. I felt our parish should walk-the-talk, as it were, and instead of buying coffee for our fellowship gatherings from the cheapest alternative, I proposed Equal Exchange coffee, knowing that in a small way, we would be improving the lives of small farmers. We have been using Equal Exchange coffee ever since. Their mission and practice has not changed since my first encounter with the company, except by expanding into other product lines, which are not in the scope of this paper.
About this same time, the late 1990’s, a Fair Trade certification system in the US was established (equalexchange: coop/story 4). TransFair USA is an organization that manages the labeling of Fair Trade products as part of the worldwide FLO (peaceworkmagazine.org/print1283). I will discuss the FLO further in another section of this paper, regarding its relationship to controversy in the Fair Trade movement.
Equal Exchange has gone on to offer many products under the Fair Trade label and works with small farm cooperatives in 20 countries around the world (equalexchange/partners). The company’s website states that the income and support from Fair Trade participation has allowed coop partners to add business and education programs to their areas (ibid), which increases the capabilities and therefore the rights of the people involved. The products that Equal Exchange markets are now available in mainstream supermarkets, which increase consumers’ awareness of Fair Trade issues.
Some new developments for Equal Exchange are the awards given to the company in March/April 2009. The first was awarded in March 2009 in NYC by the Financial Times and JustMeans. This award is for “companies that balance the needs of shareholders and society…”(equalexchange/wins3awards). The second award, received March 27,2009, in Wellesley, MA, was the Aaron Feuerstein Spirituality and Business Award, based on Equal Exchange’s “86 member worker cooperative, both for its democratic practices within the company and for having designed its progressive policies into the structure of the enterprise” (2). The third prize, awarded April 16, 2009 in Boston, is the Green Business award, given by the City of Boston for Equal Exchange’s Echo-Café, located next to TD Banknorth Garden (1). The café is a top-to-bottom environmentally conscious shop offering Fair Trade products, and is the company’s first Fair Trade coffee shop (ibid).
The 2006 Annual Report, which includes the financial report found in the Appendix section of this paper, paints a very positive picture of Equal Exchange. For instance, in 2006, the company “facilitated over $2,072,070 in advance credit to farmer coops…and allocated $131,658 to our faith-based project partners for additional programs in farming communities” (2006 annual report 15). This is a critical issue for small farmers: the access to credit in order to start-up initially and then to begin each growing season. The report has testimonials from various farm co-op members and other activists. In total, Equal Exchange works with 38 farmer co-op partners in 20 countries (5).
Critiques of Fair Trade
Even though the evidence thus far shows Equal Exchange to be a positive force for rights and development in the farmer coops as well as in their corporate climate, there are criticisms of Fair Trade in general and of coffee Fair Trade in particular.
One of the basic criticisms of Fair Trade is philosophical. The certification protocols for Southern Hemisphere products have been developed by Northern Hemisphere consumer groups, which could be seen as neo-colonialism (Lyon 236). Certification standards are strict, often causing increased expenses for the producer, with no obvious benefit aside from the price premium the grower receives (ibid). Fair Trade certification has some degree of sustainability embedded in the code, which to growers, often include some initial risk (ibid). The growers may not see the value of the particular requirement unless monetary reward is apparent (ibid). Here is the economic principle of self-interest at play. Unless one is assured that the method suggested would advance one’s situation, there will be unwillingness to adopt the suggested protocol. Daniel Jaffe’s extensive study of two Mexican coffee growing villages reveals other reasons for not joining the “Michiza” (Jaffe 130), which is the cooperative that includes members of these two villages (ibid). He cites the extra work required for organic production, which this cooperative insists on, in order to sell to the Fair Trade Network (80). There are those who object to the many hours in meetings to plan cooperative tasks, which take them from their other family agricultural tasks (130). Jaffee also found that some families better adapted to the cooperative style than others (ibid). Finally, when the world price for coffee beans spikes, independent producers will often do as well as Fair Trade co-ops, which makes another obstacle to joining (131). However, what is improved with Fair Trade is the end of volatility in price, so it is easier for farmers to plan their crop (ibid).
Another criticism is regarding the FLO and the expansion of certification beyond small farmer co-ops. As Peter Taylor found in his 2002 study of Fair Trade coffee networks, there is increasing pressure among coffee co-ops in Mexico, at least, to sell directly to large transnational companies such as Starbucks (Taylor 9). “These contracts may include conditions that resemble Fair Trade but they occur outside of the FLO system” (ibid). There is the danger that the Fair Trade movement will be diluted by these moves (10) because, as business’ common practice, the bottom line is most important, not the producer’s livelihood. As Taylor states, “These new direct ties between producer organizations and large international corporations are controversial, both within the Fair Trade movement and within cooperatives themselves” (9). Jaffee notes three main conflicts: how to include the large transnationals, like Nestle; the certification of large plantations; and the disparity between companies that trade exclusively in Fair Trade, like Equal Exchange, and those that only dabble, like Starbucks (Jaffee 23). Jaffee also notes, transnationals’ motives are not the social justice motives of Fair Trade (17). The controversy with transnational companies is that a fair share of producers feel that they have to work with the Nestles of the world to advance the benefits of Fair Trade (ibid). Starbucks complied with customer requests and in 2000, “agreed to sell Fair Trade certified coffee in all 2300 of its US stores” (199). However, the results are meager. As of 2003, only 1% of Starbucks coffee was Fair Trade (200), hardly a stunning victory for the cause. The company, under pressure, claims it cannot obtain enough certified high quality beans and the demand is not adequate to search for more (202). This, the author, and I for that matter, find suspect. The initial demand came from consumers and shareholders, the latter pushing for 100% Fair Trade coffee (201). Worst of all, in my view, is that Starbucks has capitalized on the Fair Trade label, giving the impression that they somehow had a hand in developing the Fair Trade movement (203).
At this point comes the confluence of Fair Trade, transnationals, the FLO, and Equal Exchange. This is the point at which the movement is now and it is up in the air where it will go from here. Why is this an issue to explore here? I think Fair Trade in its best form is a means of raising poor coffee producers to a better standard of living through transparency of business practices, technology transfers, ecologically best practices, and finally, a better and more stable price for the product, which will increase the capabilities of producers and therefore the realization of economic, social and cultural rights. Hopefully, these will further advance civil and political rights of coffee producers by making them more confident and by improving their education. These last rights are certainly improved on the local level through the cooperative management practices at the producer level. The entry of large corporations is a co-opting of these rights as Jaffee see it: he sees the Fair Trade label as being turned into a “McFair” phenomenon (203). The FLO and its US agent, TransFair USA, certifies Equal Exchange coffee, which is 100% Fair Trade, and also certifies P&G’s Millstone brand on the same plane, even though the Millstone brand is part of a decidedly non-fair trade corporation. This dichotomy is evident in the roasters sector also. As Jaffee notes:
“Consumers can see no difference-at the level of the fair-trade seal-between a regional, 100 percent fair trade roaster [such as Equal Exchange] with two decades of collaborative relationships with producer cooperatives and a transnational roaster [such as Starbucks] seeking to burnish its corporate image with 1 percent fair trade purchases” (206).
This sets roasters such as Equal Exchange at odds with both the FLO and large corporate roasters. The former places high value on an equal playing field, democratic principles, transparency, and a long-term relationship with growers. The latter are purely capitalist in structure, responding to shareholder pressures for profit. So, what does the FLO label mean? Controversy over whom the label really represents forced the international FLO to separate its certification section from its marketing section (210) but TransFair USA has not followed suit (ibid). A further muddying of the label comes from the TransFair USA certification of large plantations that are non-unionized (211). This is very far from the vision of Fair Trade or Equal Exchange. The traditional fair-traders believe it is impossible to foster the qualities that make cooperatives effective partners in a plantation system (220). Even though the price paid to plantation workers may be higher than under independent growers, the very definition of a plantation cancels out any notion of democratic practices where every voice counts. Another problem with certifying plantation products for transnational companies is that once the labeled product hits the store shelves, the resources of the large corporation can subsidize the price, thereby undercutting small producer networks like Equal Exchange. This, in the long run, could marginalize small farmers and confuse the consumer (206). The owner of Dan’s Beans in Massachusetts is quoted in Jaffee’s book as having the same sentiment: “It makes a competitive advantage for those companies that only buy 10 percent, or 1 percent fair trade: it’s subsidized by the other 90 percent. So they put it on the market at a lower price. We can’t compete with that” (206).
Controversy is also evident between producers and certifiers regarding the minimum price. The base price was set in 1988 by the International Coffee Organization (ICO) (248), and has been raised only $.06/pound since (ibid). In the intervening years, household goods and labor costs have all risen. It is important to note here that raising the producer price paid will raise the consumer price, which is risky because Northern purchasers are very price conscious. Due to multinational’s corporate interests, the FLO, and the ICO, the price has not increased beyond the $1.26 for Fair Trade and $1.41 for Organic Fair Trade, per pound (237). There is some movement to raise the minimum price, coming from the producer side and the activist side (239). One of the activist groups working to improve the coffee market is Oxfam. In its 2006 Executive Summary, Oxfam called on the ICO to conform to a group of recommendations found in the 2007 International Coffee Agreement (ICA) (Oxfam3). The ICA used to be an all-powerful cartel, regulating “the coffee trade” (Jaffee 42). After the collapse of the ICA in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the world coffee price, the ICO lost relevance (42). However it has reformed as a UN recognized organization and as a “dedicated forum for discussing coffee-related matters at the international level” (Oxfam 3), and issued a new ICA in 2007 (ibid). Oxfam’s critique and suggestions were aimed directly at supporting sustainable coffee production, of which Fair Trade is a part (Ibid). Oxfam saw the 2007 ICA to be a tool to support transparency and participation in coffee production and to advance sustainability due to the increase in specialty markets, such as Fair Trade, and their ability to be an avenue for small farmer specialization (6). If the ICA accepted Oxfam’s recommendations, especially by increasing small farmer representatives on the Private Sector board (3), the likelihood that the base price support for Fair Trade could be more easily raised. An analysis of the 2007 ICA shows a mixed bag of results.
The 2007 ICA made definite note of the importance of sustainable practice in production and marketing of coffee in several Articles. However, the concrete actionable articles did little to change the power structure of the ICO and particularly of the Private Sector Consultation board. Oxfam’s recommendation for increased representation of small farmers and/or their representatives was not endorsed in this agreement (ICA 2007, Ch XI, Art. 29/2). Article 31/1 does commit the ICO to forming a consultative board to address finance and risk management issues for producers and Article 34/5 specifies access to information services for small farmers. Another goal for Oxfam was an increase in the production and publication of statistics by geographic and quality characteristics (Oxfam 6). Article 33 and section 1 of Art. 34 do this on an “as feasible” platform (27). My estimation is that the ICO still is influenced by big producers and multinationals so sustainable Fair Trade initiatives are watered down to the most palatable. Indeed, “Denis Seudieu of the [ICO] says, ‘the industry supports Fair Trade unless it gets so big that consumers stop buying [other] coffee’” (Jaffee 222).
Finally the last criticism of coffee Fair Trade is that it is not all that it seems on the surface from the perspective of the producers. Membership costs are steep (130). Individuals have disincentives to joining FT co-ops due to lost productivity, long hours at meetings, and extra work (ibid). One Guatemalan grower complained, “buyers want us to plant shade trees because they pollute a lot in the United States, but then they should pay us more money” (Lyon 235). Costs for certification are also high. Organic certification has always required the producers to pay for certification, but up until 2004, the FLO required Northern importers to pay the fees for Fair Trade certification (Jaffee 227). Since then, the FLO has changed course and now charges co-ops $2431 for initial inspection and $607 for annual recertification as well as $.02/k coffee sold (ibid). Organic certification, which many co-ops are moving toward, adds $250 on top of the other fees (ibid). Sarah Lyon lists a $200 daily fee for organic certifiers by the Organic Crop Improvement Assoc. (Lyon 235). These are very onerous terms especially when considering the co-ops get only $1.24 or $1.41 organic for their coffee. There are also many records that need to be written and stored, showing coffee farming practice (228). Cultural practices are also at issue in the critique of coffee Fair Trade, from the producer’s perspective. There is a view that presenting the Latin American and other producers around the world as authentic so that authenticity and indigenous identity can be rewarded with no real effort made by the corporation to insure cultural integrity (230). Indeed, this sometimes appears to be the case. In Equal Exchange’s publications and on their packaging, pictures of growers and their work are prominently placed. Is this commoditization of the indigenous people or is it creating and maintaining a relationship with partner growers? That question is debatable, but there certainly is a value-added aspect to knowing, at least vaguely, who produces one’s cup of coffee. Should this be part of the recompense the growers receive? Would this result in eventual “cultural homogenization” (ibid), because the North has endorsed the Southern producers with the gift of trade (Fischer 80)?
To summarize the critiques of Fair Trade in general and coffee Fair Trade in particular, the above discussion shows there are criticisms from all sides of the issue. Producers complain about costs in money, time and effort. Consumers don’t want increased price even if that would mean more comfort for producers. Fair Trade certifiers are muddying the label by certifying large plantations, which have questionable Human Rights practices. Transnational entrance into the Fair Trade market weakens the cause, potentially sidelining it. The ICO pays lip service to Fair Trade without changing basic practices that would increase producer voices. The basic guaranteed price is too low and needs raising, while cultural practices need monitoring and respect. This is quite a laundry list of critiques. How does Equal Exchange answer these and, more to the point, how does Equal Exchange represent a fulfilling of a Human Rights agenda?
Equal Exchange Answers the Critics
In order to make the evaluation of Equal Exchange clear, some criteria should be presented. First, the World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO) is an international umbrella group representing “ATOs worldwide as a direct response to the WTO and their onerous [as the WFTO would see it] trade practices. This organization promotes 10 Principles that Fair Trade Organizations must follow in their day-to-day work” (www.wfto.com/aboutfairtrade). These principles are:
• “Creating opportunities for economically disadvantaged producers
• Transparency and accountability
• Capacity building
• Promoting Fair Trade
• Payment of a fair price
• Gender Equity
• Working Conditions
• Child Labour
• The environment
• Trade Relations” (ibid)
As to the first requirement, Equal Exchange does create trade opportunities for those who would be marginalized economically if trading with middlemen and transnationals at the floating world price. The structure of the co-op in this country is transparent, as previously discussed and as the annual report shows. The company “trades directly with democratically organized small farmer cooperatives” (www.equalexchange.coop/ourcoop). The main office is accountable and transparent in its management style; for example, the West Bridgewater facility is undergoing an environmental audit and will publish the results. Accountability is expected of producers also, both for quality of beans (products/coffee) and for their management (our partners). The third principle, Capacity Building, is the basic premise for Equal Exchange. The company provides the avenue for small growers to access specialty markets. The cooperative model, as shown previously, requires meetings and classes to organize and maintain the co-op. Equal Exchange does admit some problems with this. In a 2005 Time magazine article, the director of marketing at the time stated, “uneducated farmers sometimes don’t understand why their cooperative has made certain decisions” (Time 12/9/2005: 1). But as a counter to this, the cooperative, supported by the higher FT prices, is capable of improving the lives of their members. The same Time article noted examples of a Guatemalan health clinic and a Salvadoran school to show the benefits of trade with Equal Exchange (ibid). As far as promoting Fair Trade goes, Equal Exchange does this with gusto. The website is full of links to social action sites that benefit workers and small producers. Also, the website is very informative for the consumer regarding the process of Fair Trade coffee production. The fifth criteria, a fair price, is debatable. Certainly, Equal Exchange pays the premiums set by the FLO for quality beans and more for organic beans. However, as previously noted, there are many, including people at Equal Exchange, who want the Fair Trade rice to rise (equalexchange/call to action). It will take international action and consensus for this to happen. Gender equity, the next criteria, is respected and promoted at Equal Exchange. The annual report 2006 highlights participation of women in farmer co-op hierarchy and decision making (equal exchange 2006 annual report). Working conditions, criteria #7, are not addressed specifically on the website. Coffee growing is hard, physical labor. The mountainous growing area, where most of Equal Exchange coffee is grown, increases these physical difficulties. One area where safety is improved is in the move toward organics, so workers are exposed to less chemical inputs. Child labor and adherence to the UNCRC is not a specific issue for Equal Exchange coffee producers, who operate largely in family units. One of the benefits of Fair Trade is the ability of families to afford school for at least some of their children, and this is so for Equal Exchange partners also (equalexchang/partners/dominicanrepublic). Equal Exchange is also working to end child labor in the chocolate trade (equalexchange/chocolate), but a discussion of this is beyond the scope of this paper. The environment, criteria #9, is an important element in Equal Exchange’s mission. The company has moved into organic sourcing in a big way: “90% of our coffee, and 100% of our tea, chocolate and sugar come from certified organic farms” (equalexchange: letsgreentheplanet). This is especially important regarding coffee production as Dicum describes in “The Java Zone”, stating that most coffee around the world is grown in very environmentally sensitive areas (Dicum 37). The company’s trade relations with the producer partners, the last principle, are very positive. Through the increased income gained through Fair Trade, farmer partners have learned better growing practices as well as how to use funds to improve their communities (equalexchange/partnerprofiles).
Reflecting on the criteria that the international Fair Trade group demands, Equal Exchange comes out fairly well in my estimation. They are a big player in the US Fair Trade market, importing in 2004 3.69 million lbs of green coffee beans (equalexchange/faqs). While maintaining a leading sales position, the company maintains a democratic, participatory business model.
How then, does Equal Exchange reflect and promote Human Rights goals? The first of these to examine is the Right to Development (RTD). Stephen Marks added comments by the Independent Expert in the essay “The Human Right to Development: Between Rhetoric and Reality”: “The right to development is a composite right to a process of development…the realization of the right to development requires an improvement of this vector, such that there is improvement of some or at least, one of those rights without violating another” (Marks 149). This composite includes the rights of civil and political nature as well as social, cultural and economic rights. While Equal Exchange is not a state government nor an NGO whose roles should be guided by a Human Rights agenda, it is a company dedicated to being a democratically run organization that helps small producers gain control of their economic life and educates the consumer about the plight of the world’s farmers. It is not managed by outside investors, but is a community working for honest and respectful relationships in trade (equalexchange: history 1). These goals relate to transparency and participation: their corporate management style is pure democracy of one worker, one vote (equalexchange: workerowned). As a type of government, even though business related, this is a model of a human rights approach to civil and political goals. Social, cultural and economic goals are addressed primarily by the relationships Equal Exchange has with the farmer partners. A good snapshot of the capabilities enhanced and rights realized via Equal Exchange’s involvement in Chiapas, Mexico, is available at http://smallfarmersbigchange.coop from March 24, 2009. CESMACH is a co-op, which, besides producing excellent coffee beans, has added value by efforts in education, community development, women’s initiatives, health care and environmental improvement (smallfarmersbigchange 3/24/09). These efforts do not solve all the rights issues of the communities touched, but they operate on the vector toward full development and human rights. These efforts also comply with the elements of a rights-based approach to development as noted in “Development as a Human Right” by Hansen and Sano: “express linkage to rights, accountability, empowerment, participation, and nondiscrimination and attention to vulnerable groups” (Hansen &Sano 6). In my analysis, Equal Exchange does advance these rights in actions they take, both in their company headquarters and in their working relationships with the farm cooperatives with which they contract.
Conclusion
Fair Trade coffee, as exemplified by Equal Exchange is an alternative business model, which works in the real world to improve the lives of workers and make a profit at the same time. The latter fact may be the sticking point for free-trade thinkers and the neo-liberal trade, gain, profit model. But as Poggee states, “we must be concerned with how the rules structuring international interactions foreseeably affect the incidence of extreme poverty” (Poggee 206). The reason we should be concerned with how the rules of trade are set is that, as Poggee states, “one great challenge to any morally sensitive person today is the extent and severity of global poverty” (203). Fair Trade is an important instrument to enable improvement in the lives of the poor; but this is not the only way to end injustice (peaceworkmagazine 2). Nor is Fair Trade always used as a positive force for change: “individuals appear to often use the fair trade movement’s ‘squeaky-clean’ public image, and its charitable connotations, in order to gain certain advantages” (Davies and Crane 83). This appears to be so in the marketing of small percentages of Fair Trade coffee by large transnationals in order to burnish their image, as previously discussed. A large problem facing Fair Trade is how to go forward: do coffee growers (the sector examined here) remain small co-ops, selling to Fair Trade co-ops and therefore limiting their reach, or do they expand their reach by bringing more transnational companies into the Fair Trade camp? How can this be done and still adhere to a Human Rights approach? Can a larger tent still protect worker rights and advance development? There are those that think so: “Decision makers can rationalise such decisions by placing the one stakeholder [the growers] above all others, as is common [in]…for-profit companies in relation to share-holder value” (90). In other words, instead of making huge profits for shareholders the main goal, the well-being and the rights of the worker/producer is the main goal. Golding and Pealtie conclude that Fair Trade and traditional commercial interests need not be at odds (Golding & Pealtie 164). They think that FT can expand but “will need a blend of the two [FT and commercial interest] in which the promotion of the coffee brand is balanced by the promotion of Fair Trade as a social proposition” (ibid). What is definitely true, however, is that Fair Trade does improve the lives of families. As Milford found in her in-depth case study, “the Fair Trade subsidy is important…makes possible for cooperatives to finance their non-economic activities such as education programmes, credit schemes, and political activity” (Milford 63).
The UN is fully supportive of sustainable development. The conclusions of the UNDP Capacity 2015 report states that “community-based enterprises can be crucial vehicles for achieving the MDGs” (UNDP 26). But as Olivier de Schutter discusses in his essay in Alston, change in the behavior of transnational corporations is not dependant on state laws or international goals (Alston 443). However, “change…must probably come from elsewhere. A first step towards channeling TNCs in the direction of becoming agents of human development is for the developed states to recognize the paradox of the situation they have created [my emphasis]” (ibid). So Equal Exchange is at a crossroads. The FLO and ICO are at odds with the stated goals of the movement regarding large plantation certification (Jaffee 219). I surmise that Equal Exchange’s view is similar to Pogge’s in that the world must be more in line with the larger picture of Human Rights. Pogge often makes clear that rich nations bear a responsibility for the world as we know it now and also bear a responsibility for its future. For Equal Exchange’s part, the company needs to be ever vigilant about eliciting honest and knowledgeable input from producer partners. Several researchers found that some Fair Trade producers did not understand the processes of the economic arrangements or the benefits to them (Jaffee 128, Taylor 6). Uvin points out that developers must “adopt honest and explicit style…where local people might be pulled into these debates” (Uvin 81). Certainly the Fair Trade coffee industry needs to seek out other producers, such as lowland small farmers who have been locked out of the specialty market because of past plantation practices that destroyed shade and polluted with chemicals (Peluspessy & Diaz 136). Many of these coffee-growing regions have been abandoned, but could be re-developed to provide new sources of sustainable, Fair Trade beans (ibid).
There are challenges ahead for Fair Trade. Companies like Equal Exchange have the integrity, experience and skill to apply a Human Rights approach, grown out of a social mission, to an increasingly broad basket of agricultural products. It is imperative, in my view, that Fair Trade expand, but not at the expense of the original mission, that is to respect the Human Rights of the producers as the same as the rights of the worker/owners. As Andreassen states, in “Development as a Human Right” states bear a responsibility to hold corporations accountable (Andreassen 210) and “…control the potentially exploitative and harmful power of national and international economic actions” (ibid). I think this will come to pass out of necessity. The world’s shrinking resources and growing climate change will exacerbate the growing economic divide. The “Prisoner’s Dilemma” discussed earlier will come into force: society and business will be forced to reform to avoid calamity. In the mean time, rights conscious consumers should support Fair Trade whenever possible.
Appendix
1. FLO International: Fair Trade Producers, 2001-2007 bar graph
2. FLO International: Value of Fair Trade Product 2004-2007 bar graph
3. Jaffee, Daniel. Brewing Justice. p. 103 Table 13. Coffee Harvest, Fair Trade vs. Conventional 2002-2003.
4. Milford, Anna. Coffee, Cooperatives and Competition: The Impact of Fair Trade”. P.9, Fig.2.4. Flow Chart comparing conventional marketing and Fair Trade labeling chain.
5. Equal Exchange coop. Famer partners World Map.
6. ICO.org. Exports in 60 kilo bags, by exporting countries, 4 grades Table 200I8
7. ICO.org. Imports in 60 kilo bags by importing countries. All sources. 2008
8. Equal Exchange 2006 Annual Report, pgs. 16-18: Financial report.
9. Photos, downloaded via e-mail attachment from Rodney North
10. Photos, taken by Jeanne Chambers,at Equal Exchange Headquarters, W.Bridgewater Ma 5/5/2009.
Works cited
Alston, Philip and Mary Robinson, ed. Human Rights and Development. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005.
Andreassen, Bard A. “Development and the Human Rights Responsibilities of Non-State
Actors”. 2005. Harvard Extension School SSCI E102 Class Download
Development as a Human Right: Legal, Political, and Economic Dimensions
Avery, Kristen. “The Coffee Trade and its MDG Ramifications”. UN Chronicle Online Edition
2007. 4 April 2009.
Cheney, Dia. Personal interview. 5May 2009.
“Catholic Relief Services has launched its C.R.S. Coffee Project to boost consumption of
fair trade coffee bought at living-wage prices.” America 189.19 (Dec 8, 2003): 5. Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Morrill Memorial Library. 2 May 2009
.
Dacey, Raymond. “Inducing Fair Trade Out of Hegemonic Trade”. Synthese 100:497-504.1994
SpringerNetherlands. 17 Apr. 2009.
http://springerlink.com/content/n5485j51k6lw2944/doi.10.1007BF01063913>
Davies, Ian A. and Andrew Crane. “Ethical Decision Making in Fair Trade Companies”
Journal of Business Ethics 45:79-92 2003. Kluzer Academic Publishers
31 Mar 2009
http://springernetherlands/1573-0697/doi10.1023/A:1024124629399
Dicum, Gregory. “Destination: The Java Zone”. Sierra.Jan/Feb. 2009. 3 Mar 2009.
Equal Exchange. Equal Exchange Coop. 2009. 8 Apr. 2009
http://www.equalexchange.coop/index.php
Fisher, Carolyn. “Selling coffee, or Selling Out?: Evaluating Different Ways to
Analyze the Fair Trade System”. Culture & Agriculture. 29(2) 78-88 2007.
4 Apr. 2009. http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintinfo.asp.doi.10.1525/cag.2007.29.2.78
Golding, Kirsty and Ken Peattie. “In Search of a Golden Blend: Perspectives on the
Marketing of Fair Trade Coffee” Sustainable Development 2005 13:154-165
John Wiley &Sons, LTD and ERP Environment.
http://www.interscince.wiley.com/doi:10.1002/sd.274
“International Coffee Agreement” 2007. International Coffee Organization, London:Sept 2007.
Jaffee, Daniel. Brewing Justice. Berkeley, Ca: University of California Press, 2007.
Lyon, Sarah. “Maya Coffee Farmers and Fair Trade: Assessing the Benefits and Limitations of
Alternative Markets”. Culture and Agriculture. 29 (2) 100-112. 2007 University of
Kentucky. 10Apr.2009
http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/cag.2007.29.2.100
MacDonald, G. Jeffery. “How to Brew Justice: COFFEE IMPORTER EQUAL EXCHANGE
SHOWS HOW TO MAKE GOOD MONEY WHILE PAYING FARMERS HIGH
PRICES” . Time (Dec. 19,2005): A16 Expanded Acedemic ASAP. Gale. Morrill
Memorial Library. 2 May 2009.
http://find.galegrouo.com.norproxy.minlib.net/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM.
Marks, Stephen P. “The Human Rights Framework for Development: Seven approaches” 2003
Harvard Extension School SSCI E-102 class downloads
—“The Human Right to Development: Between Rhetoric and Reality” Harvard Human Rights
Journal Vol. 17 Harvard Extension School SSCI E-102 download
Mendoza, Ronald U and Chandrika Bahadu. “Towards Free and Fair Trade: A global
public good perspective”. Unedited Draft: 25 June 2002. (1-30). UNDP. 4 Apr. 2009
Milford, Anna. “Coffee, Cooperatives and Competition: The Impact of Fair Trade”
Development Studies and Human Rights 2004: 6 Chr Michelsen Institute, Norway
2 Apr. 2009. http://www.cmi.no.publications/isbn82-8062-081-8
Mudho, Bernards A. N. “Structural Adjustment to Human Rights” Development Outreach
World Bank Institute 2006.
Harvard Extension School SSCI-102 class download
http://www1.worldbank.org/devoutreach/october06/article.asp?id=384>
North, Rodney. Photographs. 7May 2009
Oxfam USA. “Grounds for Change”. 2006. 12 APR. 2009
Pelupessy,Wm and Rafael Diaz. “Upgrading of lowland Coffee in Central America”.
Agribusiness. Vol 31(1) 118-148. 2008. 10Apr. 2009
http://www.interscience.wiley.com/doi:10.1002/agr.20150
Plieninger, Tobias. A review of: “Jaffee, Daniel. Brewing Justice: Fair Trade Coffee,
Sustainablility, and Survival.” Society & Natural Resources. 2009. 22(3) 289-292
http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/08941920802627145
“Prisoner’s Dilemma”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philospophy. Sept.4,1997,revised
Oct. 22, 2007. 4 Apr. 2009.
http://plato.standford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/
Rehber, Prof. Dr., Erkan and Grega Assoc. Prof. Dr., Libor. “Agriculure, Trade and
Sustainablity” The European Legacy . Rutledge:2008.13:4, 463-479. 4 Apr.2009
Harvard Univ. download
Poggee, Thomas. World Poverty and Human Rights. Cambridge UK: Polity Press, 2008.
Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books, 1999.
Taylor, Peter Leigh. “Poverty Alleviation Through Participation in Fair Trade Coffee Networks:
Synthesis of Case Study Research Question Findings” Sept. 2002. The Ford Foundation
Colorado State University
Transfair USA. Fair Trade Certified 20 Mar. 2007. 7Apr. 2009.
http://transfairusa.org/content/about/mission.php
“Equal Exchange Launches GroundsforAction.org” US Newswire July 21 2003. Comtex News
Network, Inc. 2 May 2009.
http://find.galegroup.comnorproxy.minlib.net/itx/printdoc.do?contentSet=IAC-Document
Uvin, Peter. Human Rights and Development. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press, 2004.
World Fair Trade Organization. “10 Principles of Fair Trade” 2009. 5 May 2009.
http://www.wfto.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2&itemid=14
Zezima, Katie. “Helping Farmers, a Cup of Coffee at a Time”. NewYork Times New York,
NY: Dec 27, 2003. B6. 2 May 2009.
http://proquest.umi.com.norproxy.minlib.net/pdqlink?did=515674421&Fmt=3&clientld=68001&RQT=309VName=PQD
—THE PHOTOS AND CHARTS I COULD NOT INCLUDE–=NOT TECH SAVY ENOUGH!!! HAPPY READING!
JEANNE
Interactive and Mobile Enabled Technology as a Change Agent
By Mark Wells
I.Introduction
There are nearly one Billion men, women, and children suffering from extreme poverty today. It’s nearly impossible for anyone to fathom this number and the amount of human suffering it represents. In the time it took me to construct and write the last two sentences, 30 more people have just died for want of simple nutrition, most of them children.
I believe it’s safe to say that nearly everyone who grew up in the US has heard some variation of this emotional appeal before, unfailingly just as we’re about to drift off into the tryptophan-fueled abyss known as the post-thanksgiving football game.
At the time of this writing, the American people find themselves in the middle of a deep recession, possibly on the brink of a major depression if we are indeed approaching the “winter” of the current Kondratieff economic wave cycle. Historically, the US has been one of the largest, if not the largest contributor(nominally) to relief efforts for the poor around the world, but as more people begin to see themselves drift closer to poverty, charitable contributions to organizations such as UNICEF will undoubtedly diminish.
Therefore, it is more important than ever to put a “real face” on those who suffer – taking them from being a more or less abstract entity in the Western collective conscious, and delivering them to the status of real people that those in a position of economic and political power can genuinely relate to.
This is one of the many functions that interactive web and mobile communications technology have the potential to provide.
It could be argued that the TV commercials aired during the aforementioned sporting event fulfill this purpose to some degree. This may have been true at one time. But currently, it appears that much of western population is largely desensitized to such images and the events that go along with them, possibly due to their being relatively ubiquitous over the course of a given year of televised news broadcasts.
This leads to the “quick turn the channel” effect when televised
It is also unlikely that any elected government will be able to bring about significant policy change with respect to developing nations without public approval.
If the fact that more people voted during a single run of “American Idol” than voted for the winner of the 2004 presidential election1 proves anything, it is this: The American media consumer craves drama. From this idea we can reasonably extrapolate that the people can be engaged if they feel a personal connection of some sort and have an interest in the drama of the outcome.
It is also very important that the world’s extreme poor should never become the “dramatic subjects” of western consumers ala the current reality show popularity trend. There is a fine line to be walked between providing content that garners public interest and in so doing raises awareness of poverty, and having that become the focus, rather than positive action.
How then might emerging interactive web and mobile technologies act to facilitate and support this change?
To answer this, we must first briefly define what we mean by terms such as “Web 2.0” and “interactive mobile.”
II.Web 2.0, and interactive mobile communications.
In the early days of the worldwide web, content was almost universally static – that is it was analogous to a billboard on a highway – you can read it, you can continue on to another place or places it attempts to connect you with, but what you saw was what you got.
Then about the same time the dot com bubble burst, new web-based technologies emerged which allowed for a greater range of interactions beyond reading and clicking links to new things to be read. At a conference brainstorming session between Tom O’Reilly and Dale Dougherty2 of O’Reilly Publishing, the term “Web 2.0” was coined.
O’Reilly is arguably the worlds premier technical publisher, at least in the standards-based and open source world, but even they note in the above referenced article that the technical definition of this term is the subject of ongoing debate.
Essentially, web 2.0 represents the idea of technologies generally accessed via a common web browser, but that provide the user some mechanism or mechanisms for actively contributing content, or interacting in unique and personal ways with content and service providers.
Text based and mobile browsing devices have followed a similar path of development. For example, pagers began as one way mobile text delivery devices and have now been virtually abandoned in favor of SMS text messaging in which the user can both send and receive text and multimedia messages.
Due to their portable nature, mobile devices often have reduced capabilities compared to a “fully functional” web browser, but in fact for certain purposes, they can be just as effective.
It follows then that the next step would be a smooth integration of these two technologies.
III.Problem: Poverty Unseen is Poverty Unaided
How then does this technology help the person in the unfortunate position of being only a day or so away from dying for want of a bowl of rice or a source of clean water?
The short answer: It doesn’t.
At least not by itself. In the most dire circumstances, there is simply no substitute for adequate nutrition and clean water.
Therefore the potential niche this technology can fill, and that it is currently beginning to fill is to nurture the early seeds of development. This is not to suggest that there is no potential for having a direct impact on extreme poverty; Based on cell phone usage statistics in developing countries, it is entirely possible that someone in extreme poverty may have a friend or family member who has a mobile device and the capability to relay the story of their plight to the world.
to play a pivotal role in bringing to light the plight of those who are severely or moderately impoverished, oppressed, and exploited.
As previously mentioned, people of Western society often (metaphorically and literally) “turn the channel” when exposed to content depicting extreme hardship thousands of miles away. Relief organizations undertake the herculean task of trying to mitigate this suffering, but based on the numbers, the problem appears nearly insurmountable. This is particularly interesting in light of [author]‘s assertion that every country on earth does in fact posses the resources to end starvation within their own borders. The reasons for this disconnect are many – economic greed, political ambition, exploitation to name a few. Surely there is a unique mix of these in every country, but what is to be done?
Many do not believe that the UN has enough power, authority, and resources to effect change. So widespread is this perception that it has become a popular culture cliche that atrocities or gross security violations committed by states will result in a “strongly worded letter” being written.
There may some truth to this in that the UN does often lack support for its efforts, from the American people in particular. This effect then “trickles up” to elected representatives who display lackluster or nonexistent support for UN programs.
The problem now becomes how to create an urgent or immediate sense of interest in the plight of the impoverished, and channeling that interest to create a positive impact.
IV.Introducing wphr.org
Wphr.org was created with this specific goal in mind, but also with a strict eye toward balancing the creation of interest in the human element and personal stories of contributors with the need for vigilance against the site devolving into a haven for prurient interest, that is to say – a proverbial or even literal “freak show.”
From a development and human rights perspective, it could be argued that the charitable relief organizations using the “sponsorship and correspondence” model to involve contributors in ways that go beyond their monetary contribution are engaging in the same paradigm shift that web 2.0 represented: That of feedback and participation by both parties involved. The main differences and clear disadvantages being speed(paper letters take weeks), and (lack of)wide dissemination of the story.
Wphr.org solves this problem by providing the capability for both real-time feedback and worldwide dissemination of the results of both successes and failures of relief efforts. It also provides a forum accessible by those who would normally have no voice and no way of communicating their plight to the rest of the world.
How will this be accomplished? Through the use of already widespread mobile devices.
Wphr.org effectively accomplishes the merging of Web 2.0 type interactivity with the advantages of mobile devices by allowing users to post content from their mobile device via text message and have it instantly visible on the web site following approval from a site editor or administrator3. The need for this approval is a temporary measure necessary for the reduction of spam and other unrelated, commercial, and blatantly inappropriate content. It is hoped that the site can eventually transitioned to a “craigslist-style” model of community policing and “flagging” of inappropriate content.
If you have a mobile device, you can send a text message to hr@wphr.org and when any user with editor status or higher approves it, your message will be posted as a new article.
V.Availability of Mobile Technology and Internet Access in the developing World.
We are at a unique point where the availability of technology intersects with a dire need for so many to achieve the enjoyment of the basic rights to food, housing, education, and all the other first and second tier human rights. Many countries with severely oppressed and impoverished populations, though they can’t manage to feed their starving masses, have large numbers of cell phone users.
New cell phone networks in developing countries are almost elusively based on the GSM(Global System for Mobile communications) standard. This means that SMS(Text messaging) capabilities should be available to every user as SMS is part of, and was developed specifically for GSM.
For example, according to the CIA world fact book, as of 2007 Zimbabwe has more than 1,226,000 cell phones in use in a country with a population of approximately 11 million.4 This statistic is not unique in the developing world – many have comparable levels of mobile technology adoption.
This represents an enormous potential pool of contributors. Even in areas with no cell coverage, phones can be used to take pictures or write short accounts which can be transmitted at a later time when and where the individual enters a coverage area.
VI.Communications Technology as an Agent of Political Change and Development
World food production is sufficient to feed the current global population, and is projected to increase and keep pace with population levels through 2030 and beyond. In fact, the growth rate for the demand of cereal grains has steadily dropped for decades 5
Yet we still have nearly a billion undernourished people, and many without access to clean water, health care, or housing.
One of the most common reasons that resources such as these are unavailable to a given population is political corruption, despotism, and collusion with profit-seeking entities resulting in large segments of the population being deprived of land access rights, water rights, and all of the other resources necessary for the right to development to be realized.
When we view poverty as capabilities deprivation6, in many cases we may find that a population, though lacking the capability to consistently provide many basic needs, may find themselves in possession of or at capable
The conundrum is that by virtue of having absolute or near-absolute power, corrupt and oppressive regimes often use that power to suppress the people and mechanisms which might begin to effect positive changes in areas such as resource allocation or infrastructure development. A good example of this is when governments monitor internet activity and communications, and then either restrict access to content deemed “undesirable,” or suppress and take retaliatory action against those who would report the regime’s wrongdoings to the outside world.
A recent article in MIT’s Technology Review profiles some of the leading technology for anonymizing internet activities such as reporting atrocities, election tampering, and violence, highlighting in particular the Tor Project, which uses both encryption and multiple proxies/relays for anonymization to make it nearly impossible for would-be retaliators to trace those who put their very lives on the line to inform the world about wrongdoing.
For an excellent example of this in action, visit http://www.sokwanele.com. This site graphically documents atrocities committed by the Mugabe regime. It is the stated goal of wphr.org to follow a model similar to the Sokwanele model, but on a global scale, and with support and optimizations for mobile-based communications.
The article also mentions an ongoing study by the OpenNet Initiative, a research project based at Harvard as well as the Universities of Toronto, Oxford, and Cambridge, has determined(thus far) that at least 36 countries take steps to suppress the online speech of their citizens. 7
This problem is perhaps the key barrier to be overcome in the quest to effect positive change on behalf of those suffering from extreme poverty.
To this end, as of 5/7/09, wphr.org has become a fully functional relay node for the Tor network.
As mentioned earlier, there is no substitute for adequate nutrition, but in many places where people lack it, it would appear that a large segment of the population has access to communications technology, either mobile or land-based. Perhaps a friend or family member, or any other interested party.
It is the goal of wphr.org to provide a mechanism for individuals in possession of cell phone and text messaging technology to be able to easily and safely(anonymously) report on conditions in their region, and have it archived and published in a public forum.
The technology can also be used positively for such things as resource allocation and coordination of relief efforts or even infrastructure development projects. The challenge will be spreading awareness that this technology is freely available to everyone with a cell phone, and education would-be contributors about the anonymous aspect of the site.
VII. Acknowledgments and Conclusion
The effort to bring the vision of wphr.org to fruition is and has been fraught with numerous challenges, both technical and practical. Most of the technical issues are out of the scope of this paper, but a great deal of effort has gone into its development. In particular, I would like to thank the numerous developers involved with the Apache Project, the MySQL project whose software provides the back-end database for wphr.org, the WordPress project and accompanying plugins which have been so invaluable for integrating the mobile-enabled features of the site.
Another major and ongoing problem will be that of abuse and spam. Due to its anonymous features, wphr.org will likely be the constant target of attempts to post such undesirable content as Viagra ads and pleas from “Nigerian Princes” for help with their “banking issues.8 “ This is why it is intended that the site eventually adopt the craigslist model mentioned earlier.
On the practical level, the biggest challenge we face at this time is general apathy on the part of the general public in the western world. To address this challenge, wphr.org will strive to generate interest in the plight of the less fortunate by working to engage visitors in the human stories of those affected, seeking to tap into the interest garnered by the broader media, possibly in a similar fashion that so-called “reality shows” have done, but with an ever vigilant loyalty to the principle that the suffering of the oppressed and impoverished is very real, and should never be exploited. Ω
Please note: I was not able to include my footnotes. I will post my project as a .pdf file soon. Meanwhile, you can email MarkWells(at)wphr.org and I will send you a copy if you’d like.
Mark
Hi, Congratulations to the site owner for this marvelous work you’ve done. It has lots of useful and interesting data.
Thank you! You often write very interesting articles. You improved my mood.
Coffeemakers…
[...]Listed below are links from authority internet sites that have been utilized as a source to this post [...]…
Great Post!…
[...] I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog
[...]…