Fair trade for coffee may be good, but…

Michael Giberson

Fair trade for coffee is good, but many readily available alternatives may be better. “Better” as in, better for the producer and better for consumers. I was browsing the website of a local specialty coffee roaster, and noticed the “Ethics” labels on the products: “Premium price” and “Farm Gate”, but not “Fair Trade.” Curious, I thought.

Looking around the website, the “About” page had a clue:

There were some things we were certain about.  … The coffee had to be ethically sourced.  Fair Trade isn’t always so fair, and we strive to make sure that the farmers who grew our coffee were paid at least, but usually more, than the Fair Trade minimums.

The roaster’s blog revealed more: “News: Fairtrade is accused of doing less for coffee farmers than Starbucks.”

The post links to a Gaurdian (U.K) news story discussing a report by the London-based Institute of Economics Affairs. The key problems identified, highlighted in the roaster’s blog post, are: high overhead keeps some of the poorest coffee farmers from Fair Trade certification; Fair Trade is not about quality of products, just price and production conditions; Fair Trade certification works with organizations, like co-ops, but not individual farmers, and Fair Trade premiums paid to the organization may not reach farmers. The IEA report offers more details.

IEA is a free-market leaning think tank, and Fair Trade proponents frequently frame their efforts as morally superior to ordinary market outcomes. One might expect IEA to slam Fair Trade rhetoric. A Financial Times columnist finds that the report “is more nuanced than that.”

[Author Sushil Mohan] accepts that a Fairtrade buyer is, like any other consumer, simply making a choice. “Fairtrade rests as much on market forces as conventional trading does,” he writes. “Fairtrade works not because it subsidises goods no one wants, but because some free market consumers are willing to support it.”

Yet overall, Mohan concludes, Fair Trade seems to be more about catering to the attitudes of western consumers than about improving the lives of coffee producers. Perhaps it yields some good for some producers, but the benefits are surely tiny in comparison to the good that good ol’ free trade is doing for coffee producers. Given that reality, the report suggests there is no reason for school systems or others to succumb to Fair Trade lobbying.

Earlier fair trade coffee commentary at Knowledge Problem:

ERCOT rolling blackout news: Powerful market forces already at work

Michael Giberson

A regulatory filing by Energy Futures Holdings Corp., the parent company of Luminant, a major power generator in the Texas market, provides a small peak behind the curtain of confidentiality that has limited the public’s view of what all went wrong on February 2. A small peak, but a significant story:

In an 8-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, EFH reported that it lost about $30 million on February 2 because of weather-related outages at several of its power plants. The outages kept the company from delivering power it had contracted to sell, so the company was responsible for purchasing power at the real-time market price to cover for its shortfall. Real-time prices spiked to the market’s $3,000 cap during the emergency.

Add that supply-side news to last Friday’s announcement that under-prepared power retailer Abacus Resources Energy has been forced from the market. As one of the participants in yesterday’s Texas senate hearings said, there are already powerful economic incentives at work to help the market avoid a repeat of the Groundhog Day blackouts.

More news reports:

And this commentary by Ken Herman in the Austin American-Statesman: “If they could give us warm, fuzzy feelings, we wouldn’t be here“:

On public display Tuesday in the Texas Senate chamber was a reminder of the main reason humans form governments. It is, scholars tell us, primarily for the pleasure of convening committee hearings at which we can watch well-heeled witnesses squirm….