Skip to main content

The Threat to Fairtrade

The combination of companies abandoning 'fairtrade' commitments and the UK government's determination to scrap the DFID pose a significant threat to ethical trade. 

Support for co-operatives and Fairtrade risks being diluted and diverted with Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s "reckless" proposal to scrap DFID (Department for International Development), Labour has warned. Abandoning DFID isn't a new idea.  The Tories have been targetting it for some time.  Their arguments against it are that it spends far too much money,  but there is another,  more sinister reason.  It gets in the way of trade based on poverty wages.  There lies the rub of it.   They don't really want ethics to block trade deals. 





In 1997, the then Labour government set up a dedicated Department for International Development, and over the next decade, the UK development budget tripled.  Support was targeted at the poorest, with work to promote good governance, encourage growth and economic development, and to enable countries to deliver essential public services, such as health, education and water. 

With a dedicated department, the UK government was better able to respond to disasters and to tackle conflicts that stood in the way of development.  Now, this is threatened by Johnson's government.  Far from maintaining and promoting trade standards through the world, Johnson appears ready to ditch them in making panic trade deals across the work in the wake of Brexit. 

"We need a dedicated Cabinet Minister working to tackle poverty and inequality and ensure fairness for farmers across the globe."

The promotion of Fairtrade both around the world, and at home here in the UK goes to the heart of the co-operative movement’s values. 

The concern is that Nestle's decision to abandon Fairtrade certification for their KitKat could leave thousands of farmers in the developing world worse off.  Co-operative MPs in the UK parliament have made a case for the Government to abandon its plans to scrap the Department for International Development.

"From its establishment by the Labour and Co-operative Government in 1997, DFID has sought to promote policies such as Fairtrade and co-operative development around the world."  

Without DFID, he fears we could see the diversion of aid from supporting crucial schemes, like Fairtrade, that help the world’s poorest farmers.


Fairtrade is about better prices, decent working conditions, local sustainability, and fair terms of trade for farmers and workers in the developing world.

By requiring companies to pay sustainable prices (which must never fall lower than the market price), Fairtrade addresses the injustices of conventional trade, which traditionally discriminates against the poorest, weakest producers. It enables them to improve their position and have more control over their lives.

With Fairtrade, we have the power to change the world through our purchases as consumers. Through our shopping choices, we can get farmers a better deal.   Let's press the government to stop its reckless approach to trade and development. 



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As