Left behind: A farmer's fate in the age of sustainable development

Globalization is eroding the livelihoods of small farmers, a significant and vulnerable class, particularly in the developing world. The cost-price squeeze stemming from trade liberalization places farmers in a race to the bottom that leads to displacement, poverty, and environmental degradation. Scholars and activists have proposed that alternative trade initiatives offer a unique opportunity to reverse this trend by harnessing the power of the markets to reward producers of goods with embedded superior cultural, environmental, and social values. Alternative trade via certification schemes have become a de facto prescription for any location where there is a need to conciliate economic interest with conservation imperatives. Partnerships among commodity production farmers, elite manufacturers and wealthy northern consumers/activists do not necessarily have win-win outcomes. Paradoxically, the partnerships of farmers with external agencies have unexpected results. These partnerships develop into dependent relationships that become unsustainable in the absence of further transfers of capital. The institutions born of these partnerships are fragile. When these fledging institutions fail, farmers are left in the same situation that they were before the partnership, with only minor improvements to show after spending considerable amounts of social and financial capital. I hypothesize that these failures are born out of a belief in a universal understanding of sustainability. A discursive emphasis on consensus, equity and mutual benefit hides the fact that what for consumers it is a matter of choice, for producers is a matter of survival. The growth in consumers’ demand for certified products creates a race for farmers to meet these standards. My findings suggest that this race generates economically perverse effects. First, producers enter into a certification treadmill. Second, the local need for economic sustainability is ignored. Third, commodity based alternative trade schemes increase the exposure of communities to global shocks. I conclude by calling for a careful reassessment of sustainable development projects that promote certification schemes. The designers and implementers of these programs must include farmers’ agenda in the planning of these programs.

Small farmer market knowledge and specialty coffee commodity chains in Western Highlands Guatemala

For producers motivated by their new status as self-employed, landowning, capitalist coffee growers, specialty coffee presents an opportunity to proactively change the way they participate in the international market. Now responsible for determining their own path, many producers have jumped at the chance to enhance the value of their product and participate in the new "fair trade" market. But recent trends in the international coffee price have led many producers to wonder why their efforts to produce a certified Fair Trade and organic product are not generating the price advantage they had anticipated. My study incorporates data collected in eighteen months of fieldwork, including more than 45 interviews with coffee producers and fair trade roasters, 90 surveys of coffee growers, and ongoing participant observation to understand how fair trade certification, as both a market system and development program, meets the expectations of the coffee growers. By comparing three coffee cooperatives that have engaged the Fair Trade system to disparate ends, the results of this investigation are three case studies that demonstrate how global processes of certification, commodity trade, market interaction, and development aid effect social and cultural change within communities. This study frames several lessons learned in terms of (1) socioeconomic impacts of fair trade, (2) characteristics associated with positive development encounters, and (3) potential for commodity producers to capture value further along their global value chain. Commodity chain comparisons indicate the Fair Trade certified cooperative receives the highest per-pound price, though these findings are complicated by costs associate with certification and producers' perceptions of an "unjust" system. Fair trade-supported projects are demonstrated as more "successful" in the eyes of recipients, though their attention to detail can just as easily result in "failure". Finally, survey results reveal just how limited is the market knowledge of producers in each cooperative, though fair trade does, in fact, provide a rare opportunity for producers to learn about consumer demand for coffee quality. Though bittersweet, the fair trade experiences described here present a learning opportunity for a wide range of audiences, from the certified to the certifiers to the concerned public and conscientious consumer.