Conclusive remarks
In exploring the controversy around fair trade certification of coffee grown on plantations we found that a great way of applying a more theoretical approach and understanding was by the use of human geography professor Andrew Barry's (2006) terminology on technological zones, which are defined as spaces where common standards have been established. He writes of three technological zones; the metrological zone, where common forms of measurement are established; the infrastructural zone, where common connection standards are established; and the zone of qualification, where objects and practices are assessed according to common standards. These zones are not to be seen as three bounded spaces that you could locate on a map, but as tools for understanding where a controversy is apparent, which actors are involved and how they are related, and as an attempt to make scientific measurements comparable.
In the metrological zone, we first and foremost find the development of standards by FLO and Fair Trade USA. In developing these standards FLO and Fair Trade USA refer to conventions held and papers published by international organizations, such as International Labour Organisation and United Nations etc. for justification. On the other hand, the standards are rarely, if ever, bound to any local realities. Thus there is a great distance between where the standards are developed and where they will have an affect on people's lives. It is also within this zone that there exists a debate on an ideological level concerning what should be the core principles in fair trade. Participants in this debate are trying to establish common forms of measurements; common principles. Equal Exchange is active in this debate as well as FLO and Fair Trade USA, and even though representing a critical voice against Fair Trade USA, it's doing so in 'speaking the same language'. By that we mean that Equal Exchange's critique of Fair Trade USA is articulating much of the same matters as the very actor they criticise, i.e. structural aspects such as standards regarding fair trade for farm workers and the values of the movement.
Keeping a sharp distinction between zones for the sake of clarity, we move on to the next relevant zone; the zone of qualification, where practices and objects are assessed according to common standards. This is what the certification industry is and does. We have noted that the critical voices, especially Equal Exchange, assess the practices and objects of the fair trade certification industry, with very localized argumentation. They use the findings of anthropologist Sarah Besky's research on fair trade certified tea plantations in Darjeeling, India, to criticize Fair Trade USA's decision to certify coffee plantations in Latin America and Africa. By applying research from the other side of the world to add a dimension of locality in their stand against fair trade certifications of plantations, their hereby apparently localized argument becomes just as universal and generalizing as the standards.
When we move our attention to where this is all happening, the local reality - Brazil, we see a complete different picture. Here there is an almost non-existing debate on plantations and whether or not these can be certified as fair trade. Instead the debate revolves around market regulations, fluctuating price levels, weather conditions and ways of cultivating coffee most efficiently, and when smallholders or plantation owners are mentioned, the differences between the two are elaborated on, but never in the critical terms raised by American actors like Equal Exchange. Fair trade is also articulated differently, and is for most part talked about as an extra feature of the product that can help increase sales and open doors to new markets, rather than something that has an impact on farmers working conditions.
In general we have explored a controversy that is articulated with certain differences comparing the location in which it is negotiated (amongst FLO, Fair Trade USA, Equal Exchange) and where it is felt (Ipanema Coffees, Brazil). Issues such as plantation size, workers condition and empowerment and environmental considerations are highly debated amongst actors when negotiating standards for fair trade. In the location where these standards are implemented, and thus felt, these matters are less articulated and instead the debate evolves around topics such as weather conditions and the importance of coffee as a commodity for Brazil as a country. Furthermore, our investigation shows that economic concerns, including development and pricing, are topics heavily weighted both among actors in the fair trade movement and in Brazil.
In the metrological zone, we first and foremost find the development of standards by FLO and Fair Trade USA. In developing these standards FLO and Fair Trade USA refer to conventions held and papers published by international organizations, such as International Labour Organisation and United Nations etc. for justification. On the other hand, the standards are rarely, if ever, bound to any local realities. Thus there is a great distance between where the standards are developed and where they will have an affect on people's lives. It is also within this zone that there exists a debate on an ideological level concerning what should be the core principles in fair trade. Participants in this debate are trying to establish common forms of measurements; common principles. Equal Exchange is active in this debate as well as FLO and Fair Trade USA, and even though representing a critical voice against Fair Trade USA, it's doing so in 'speaking the same language'. By that we mean that Equal Exchange's critique of Fair Trade USA is articulating much of the same matters as the very actor they criticise, i.e. structural aspects such as standards regarding fair trade for farm workers and the values of the movement.
Keeping a sharp distinction between zones for the sake of clarity, we move on to the next relevant zone; the zone of qualification, where practices and objects are assessed according to common standards. This is what the certification industry is and does. We have noted that the critical voices, especially Equal Exchange, assess the practices and objects of the fair trade certification industry, with very localized argumentation. They use the findings of anthropologist Sarah Besky's research on fair trade certified tea plantations in Darjeeling, India, to criticize Fair Trade USA's decision to certify coffee plantations in Latin America and Africa. By applying research from the other side of the world to add a dimension of locality in their stand against fair trade certifications of plantations, their hereby apparently localized argument becomes just as universal and generalizing as the standards.
When we move our attention to where this is all happening, the local reality - Brazil, we see a complete different picture. Here there is an almost non-existing debate on plantations and whether or not these can be certified as fair trade. Instead the debate revolves around market regulations, fluctuating price levels, weather conditions and ways of cultivating coffee most efficiently, and when smallholders or plantation owners are mentioned, the differences between the two are elaborated on, but never in the critical terms raised by American actors like Equal Exchange. Fair trade is also articulated differently, and is for most part talked about as an extra feature of the product that can help increase sales and open doors to new markets, rather than something that has an impact on farmers working conditions.
In general we have explored a controversy that is articulated with certain differences comparing the location in which it is negotiated (amongst FLO, Fair Trade USA, Equal Exchange) and where it is felt (Ipanema Coffees, Brazil). Issues such as plantation size, workers condition and empowerment and environmental considerations are highly debated amongst actors when negotiating standards for fair trade. In the location where these standards are implemented, and thus felt, these matters are less articulated and instead the debate evolves around topics such as weather conditions and the importance of coffee as a commodity for Brazil as a country. Furthermore, our investigation shows that economic concerns, including development and pricing, are topics heavily weighted both among actors in the fair trade movement and in Brazil.