Fair trade vs. Food miles: One Welshman's View
by Eliza Barclay, Nomad on 03. 4.08
An op-ed piece written by Steve Brooks, the acting head of Oxfam Cymru, for the Western Mail, a Welsh paper, raises an interesting question: should we avoid fair trade goods from the developing world to help cut down on food miles?
Brooks, for one, questions whether producing tropical fruits, vegetables, or flowers locally to cut down on food miles could result in a greater volume of emissions because of the energy requirements to maintain artificial conditions, i.e. greenhouses.
Moreover, he says, while local food advocates' arguments for eating local -- like supporting small farmers and giving back to the local economy -- are worthy points, fair trade products have their own associated benefits, like supporting social and economic development projects like schools, clinics, clean water supply and proper sanitation.
Ultimately Brooks argues that food transportation currently contributes relatively little to carbon dioxide emissions. He points out that if everyone in the United Kingdom switched one 100W light bulb to a low energy equivalent, CO² emissions would be reduced in one year by 4.7 times the amount saved by boycotting fresh fruit and vegetables from sub-Saharan Africa. :: Via icWales
Local is fair-trade.
Another angle. Fairtrade as the perfect name. And I like them - and I consume their products. But I have a few issues with them. They are not as perfect as their name implies. For instance, they do not work with the poorest of the poor, but only those organized in cooperatives. And farmers do not get the Fairtrade price, only a part of it and the rest goes to the cooperative. Don’t forget, farmers pay Fairtrade to be certified. More on my blog. But the quicker they come clean, the quicker we can address their reason for existence – making the world a better place. More on My Beef with Fairtrade at http://angryafrican.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/my-beef-with-fairtrade/
A lot would depend on how the Fair Trade food is shipped. Freighter, then by rail to a regional distribution center is probably a fairly low intensity of transport energy. Overnight air freight to small truck based distribution would be far higher.
So more durable fruits and vegetables, like bananas, or coconuts are more likely to be less damaging, while flowers and strawberries could be worse.
This also suggests things like eating local produce in season, and using low tech preservation methods so that it doesn't have to be imported from around the world in the off season, as well as some level of value added production at the farm site, so that more of the useful foodstuff is transported, rather than bulk or husk, and making the produce more stable for slower and less fragile handling.
Even if you're a tree hugger who already has a small carbon footprint, in my opinion, it's still better to buy local to lower emissions. It's also good for your local economy.
Buying fruit is not a charity. If you want to support "social and economic development projects like schools, clinics, clean water supply and proper sanitation" charity and microloans are far more efficient.
Dear God. Everyone agrees that we must cut 90% of our emissions, and some say we must cut 100% (see Andrew Weaver University of Victoria, member of the IPCC). So we can't import food OR use greenhouses heated with fossil fuels. Both are unacceptable. We must eat local or face runaway climate change. We must not use FF heated greenhouses or face runaway climate change.
Please stop printing inane articles and studies on this topic. The are written by people who are ignorant of the issues and make TH look uninformed.
Btw, just a note - Fairtrade only guarantees a living wage for farmers. Knowing many people that work in development, I have heard of many Fairtrade organizations that are paying their employees (such as accountants, sales people, etc.) wages that are below the poverty line for the country in which the job exists. The lastest one that I heard about was a London-based accounts manager with a salary of about £13,000pa.
Let's be honest, the reason that this occurs is that for Fairtrade to be commercially viable there has to be a savings made somewhere and many of the companies choose to make that by squeezing the salaries of the people employed in the developed work (and calling it a "ethical sacrafice" in the name of "supporting social and economic development").
What about the argument that "locally produced food" requires more carbon than imported food, because livestock are raised indoors in climate controled barns, fruit and vgetables raised in heated greenhouses etc. It has been claimed by the New Zealand Government and others that it is sometimes less carbon intensive to import food from climates where it grows with minimum energy inputs than it is to grow it 'locally' in cold climates.
I haven't seen the science behind it, but I think that the argument could have some merit.
On another point, I don't believe that 'charity' is the answer. Sure it is important, but wouldn't it be better for impoverished communities to earn/trade their way out of poverty than to be perpetually sustained on a drip feed of hand outs from richer countries.
Finally, Fair trade aims to do just that - trade fairly with those who can trade. Fair trade often doesn't work with the poorest of the poor because they aren't in a position to trade - just like most people in the developed world aren't merchants, many people in developing countries aren't primary producers of merchants. That is where charities and community development programs come in. But fair trade helps those who can trade stand on their own two feet, and from that perspective I think it is a good thing.
Ruben and others, I live in New England, so how can I eat locally year-round? At best, farmers' markets are open between May and November only. I try to buy locally when I can, buy organic when I can't. But the whole climate change, carbon footprint, conscientious living can get way too complicated if you worry too much about it.
I completely support Steve Brooks on this issue. Often, in our quest to convert everything into carbon issues like equity and social justice are lost in the equation. The global south has to deal with the majority of climate change impacts, as well as poverty and inequities that are not comparable to anything an organic farmer in the North may face. I think buying fair trade often does more to mitigate climate change than buying a 3$ hot house organic tomato in winter.
Eating locally in New England requires planning. You can't decide to do it at this time of year and have it work very well. Start easing into it in the spring, join a CSA, and maybe you'll have enough local food put by before winter.
You can grow wheat, soy, etc., in New England, although most people don't anymore. This year we're putting in a new garden bed just to grow soybeans and dent corn (for cornmeal). It should be a fun experiment.
Most of the comments above assume that it's normal to eat for example fresh tomatoes during winter and exotic fruits like bananas in North Europe/America. I live in a former East bloc country and remember very well what a luxury bananas and oranges used to be - they were available in the stately owned shop on big holidays exclusively. And yet we were able to survive without them, eating mostly local food. All the people in Bulgaria used to buy in bulk local produce in autumn and store it during winter - in the basement, on the balcony, fresh or jarred. And everything was so delicious!
I can't opine on whether one should or should not buy fair trade food, but I deeply feel there's something intrinsically wrong about modern economy where in order to function normally every country must rely extensively on exports. Isn't there an alternative to make people in the South self sufficient other than producing food for export to the North only?
When people look at eating locally produced foods they forget the other parts :
Remember it is SOLE food.
Sustainably grown - example: no fuel heated greenhouses
Organic - no harmful chemicals
Local - not just locally grown, but food that can be grown locally
Ethical - humane treatment of animals (if you are a meat eater) AND local Fair Trade.
As for eating local in cold climates....I live in Minnesota. You can buy local food year round - but you need to buy the food that is right for the season. If you are looking for fresh strawberries in the winter, you are out of luck. But squash, potato, etc plus the dried beans, canned tomatoes, etc...that is all good.
But really...like anything. Start small and build from there. Find one food item that you will always buy from a SOLE provider and do that. When you have adjusted, add another. Every step counts and every step is to be celebrated.
What about eating seasonally and locally. As boring as kale is all winter...it's a more realistic diet for a sustainable future. Fruit is sustainable "here" in the summer...that's the time for fruit. If you want it year round, move to somewhere it grows year round.
But the other argument about the energy to maintain "false conditions" in green houses doesn't make much sense either. Build it so that it requires no energy other than the sun. Eat the food you grow.
We have to make an effort to build our communities again. Close knit and sustainable. I agree with supporting other places, but that's what eco tourism can be.
There is quite a big propaganda effort in my view to muddy the water over the huge growth in air freighting of food...my take on this is here http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2008/03/food-miles-increasing-planet-being.html