Het… is… Fairtrade Week! En dus hagelt het goede bedoelingen in de supermarkt. Maar het mengelmoesje aan keurmerken (Max Havelaar, UTZ Certified en Rainforest Alliance) heeft soms rare uitwerkingen. Leontien Aarnoudse onderzocht de eerlijke hagelslag. 1. Een beetje fairtrade, is niet fairtrade
Bron: Zes keer eigenaardig keurmerk | OneWorld.nl
De teelt van Fairtrade-koffie heeft nauwelijks invloed op de inkomenssituatie van de koffieboeren in Oost-Afrika. Men kan dit doortrekken tot bij de cacaoboeren die het zelfde lot ondergaan.
Dat is de conclusie van een studie door de universiteit van Nijmegen, die werd uitgevoerd op vraag van de Nederlandse ontwikkelingsorganisatie Solidaridad. De onderzoekers onderzochten de situatie gedurende vier jaar bij zevenhonderd koffieboeren in Kenia, Oeganda en Ethiopië. Het is de eerste diepgaande studie naar het effect van de certificering voor de boeren op het terrein. De boeren verbouwen de koffie die verkocht wordt met certificatie van een Fairtrade-label zoals Max Havelaar, of van Utz. Dat laatste label garandeert geen minimumprijs, zoals Fairtrade, maar helpt de boeren om hun opbrengst zelf te verhogen. De voornaamste conclusie is dat het effect op het inkomen van de boeren ‘bescheiden en nogal beperkt’ is. Dat komt onder meer doordat de meeste boeren niet alleen koffie verbouwen. In Kenia haalt de gemiddelde boer een derde tot een kwart van zijn inkomen uit de koffieteelt. Bovendien kan de markt maar een beperkte hoeveelheid gecertificeerde koffie aan, terwijl er veel meer wordt verbouwd. ‘Dat betekent dat maar een negende tot een twaalfde van het inkomen afkomstig is van gecertificeerde koffie’, aldus het rapport. De onderzoekers stellen ook vast dat Utz over het algemeen voordeliger is voor de boeren dan een Fairtrade-label. De prijzen die de boeren krijgen zijn hoger, tenminste in Kenia. Bovendien bestaat bij toepassing van de Fairtrade-certificaten het gevaar dat de boeren steeds meet koffie gaan verbouwen en er daardoor te afhankelijk van worden. Het onderzoek toont aan dat de boeren die ook groenten voor de lokale markt verbouwen, in financieel opzicht beter tegen een stootje kunnen.Ook stellen de onderzoekers vast de het effect van certificering na verloop van tijd kleiner wordt, omdat niet gecertificeerde boeren hun prductiemethoden ook gaan verbeteren en zo hogere prijzen krijgen. In Oeganda verdwijnt het effect zelfs helemaal. Wel blijkt dat de Utz-boeren een voorsprong kunnen behouden ten opzichte van Fairtrade-boeren.
KENNIS
Uit het onderzoek blijkt verder dat de certificering weinig effect heeft op hoe de boeren omgaan met risico en investeringen. De positie van vrouwen verandert evenmin sterk. De afhankelijkheid van opkopers neemt niet af. Van de prijs die in de winkel wordt betaald, gaat 6 tot 8 procent naar de boeren. Dat percentage blijft constant. De onderzoekers concluderen dat de opbouw van kennis over landbouwmethoden het waardevolste element is van de certificering. Omdat de certificeringsorganisaties alleen in zee gaan met coörperaties, is het moeilijk om een onderscheid te maken tussen het effect van de coörperatie en van het certificaat. De certificering is er niet in geslaagd om de boeren ervan te overtuigen dat de koffieteelt op lange termijn een winstgevende activiteit kan zijn, concludeert het rapport. ‘Veel koffieboeren hebben liever niet dat hun kinderen de plantage overnemen’. De ontwikkelingsorganisatie Solidaridad gaat de conclusie gebruiken om haar beleid bij te sturen. ‘Certificatie en training alleen zijn niet voldoende. We moeten een bredere strategie toepassen om de koffieteelt voor jongere boeren aantrekkelijk te maken’, zegt Karugu Macheria van Solidaridad Oost-Afrika in een persbericht. ‘Deze belangrijke studie heeft implicaties voor de de wereldwijde koffiesector.’
Certifications, training, and efforts geared at organising farmers are key approaches for mitigating the risks for supplier. But they are not the only issues, and they do not provide the ultimate supplier solution. For example, without having access to the adequate inputs (plant material, fertilizer, and pesticides) farmers will not be able to apply what they have learned. Adequate inputs have to be available and accessible at affordable prices. Only the combination of training and access to inputs will lead to inproved yields and in turn increased farmer income. Clearly this also entails costs. At the moment the industry is shoulderong a large part of these costs, but in the long run farmers will by themselves have to secure bank loans for purchasing inputs. Financing is another key theme taht is important for safeguarding the supply of produce.
These are different financing options that can be explored, of which some are already in place, for example, the company Wienco makes it possible to purchase inputs ‘inputs on credit’ in Ghana. It is worthwile to look at already existing successful initiatives and exploring other suitable (financial) institutions that can provide loans. This effort would face a number of barriers. Because cocoa producing countries (especially in West Africa) are considered as high-risk and low yield areas, financial institutions are generally not interested in investing in agriculture and providing loans to farmers. Generally speaking agriculture is risky business; farmers depend on a lot of factors for having a succesful harvest: the timing of preparing plots of land, sowing, applying inputs and harvesting are crucial, as are climate and weather. But the problem is not only related to the creditworthiness of farmers, it also has to do with the existing lack of trust that farmers have in local banks. A recent book of Royal Tropical Institute on Value Chain Finance gives a number of practical examples on how farmers that are embedded in a value chain can get access to finance.
Even if the cocoa farmer’s access to financing could be improved, there are no guarantees that the farmers will actually invest this additional income in their own farms and communities. Will they spent their money on fertilizer, irrigation systems, or will they pay of their other debts, buy a television set or spend money on entertainment? Can investments in their local community be stimulated? How can this be done? What partnerships are needed? What are the drawbacks of such initiatives?
Another issue that requires some reflection is the issue of inclusion vs. exclusion. Although the aim is to certify, train, and as many farmers as possible, it is inevitable that in the end some farmers will receive training as well as financed planting materials and fertlizers, whereas other will not. It is essential to examine the principle that will guide this decision making: Which should be preferred, the least developed areas or places where a number on conditions are met (e.g., adequate transport and training infrastructure)? Ideally, vibrant local entrepreneurs would be involved, but can they be located? What are the future expectations that such decisions evoke?
The issue of inclusion and exclusion is also relevant for looking at extent to which ‘sustainability’ is a shared agenda. Max Havelaar and TCC respond to this concern by involving farmers in multistakeholders agreements, which help them organise and also strengthen their joint voice.
![00651_hd[1]](https://whydowelovechocolate.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/00651_hd1.jpg)
Final observations: Supplier failure is one of the main drivers for industry to invest in sustainable sourcing of cocoa. Due to increase risks that cocoa farmers in the future might not be able to produce the required quantity and quality of cocoa, it becomes increasingly important to make on-farm investments. To assure that increased quantities of cocoa are available on the market, cocoa farming has to be lucrative for farmers. The main themes in this context are certification schemes, training farmers, and organising farmers. The questions posed by Dutch actors in the cocoa chain vary from vary from how the costs of training schemes can be lowered to how successful initiatives can be scaled up.
![00652_hd[1]](https://whydowelovechocolate.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/00652_hd1.jpg)
next time: Remarkable sustainability initiatives.
Certification is a way to improve the farmers state of affairs, by providing them with additional (or at least stable) income and other privileges, conditional on their compliance with certain requirements. Such requirements are outlined in documents called standards or codes of conduct, which are used by auditing committees to randomly check farms. The certified product, which eventually finds its way to the shelves of supermarkets, informs the consumers with information, certificates also provide marketing opportunities for companies involved in branding of cocoa products.
At the moment there are four labels for sustainable cocoa and chocolate (not mentioning DIRECT CACAO here*) These are EKO, for organic cocoa; Max Havelaar, for Fairtrade cocoa; Rainforest Alliance, for nature conservation; and UTZ Certified, for farmers support. Each of these certifiers focuses on different aspects of sustainability and its own unique standards and approaches to rewarding farmers.
Dutch cocoa processors and cocoa chocolate manufacturers utilize these different schemes. Currently the focus is very much on UTZ Certified, which launched its Cocoa Program in 2007, with a focus on certification, training and farmer organisation. Through UTZ Certified, mulitnational corporations aim to realize their sustainable sourcing objectives. Many complicated elements surround certification. One burning issue, repeatedly mentioned in interviews and at multi-stakeholder meetings, is harmonisation of standards.
Harmonisation of standards Each label has its own specific attention points, its own standards, its own system of rewards, its own traceability systems, and so on. The fact that there are several certificates, which all opetare differently, can cause confusion in the actual meaning behind a specific, label and the differences between the various labels. Moreover, it is unclear whether these labels can actually realise the claims they make. It is nessary to have such variety of labels for certifying more or less the same product and process?
The push to combine the efforts of EKO, Max Havelaar, Rainforest Alliance, and UTZ in issuing certificates to farmer organisations originates from different actors: the Tropical Commodity Coalation, the Dutch Initiative for Sustainable Trade, and from industry players, such as Cargill. The certifiers gave indicated that they are interested to collaborate in the pre-competitive stage of certification (the producer side), where there are lot of similarities (e.g., how auditing takes place, or yheir involvement in capacity development for farmers). By joining forces the certifiers can, at the same time, invrease the efficiency of the certification process and improve their credibility. Joining forces in the marketing of the produce is more complicated, as certifiers sill seek to protect their commercial interests. Within this context, the fair trade organisation Max Havelaar shared this concern regarding competition among certification schemes:
Because every certifier wants to safeguard its own supply, there is a danger that ther will be a new competition between the certifiers about who will actually get the certified cocoa.
This quote illustrates the prevalent fear that UTZ CERTIFEID will eventually attract the farmers and their produce, because they enjoy the support of industry. This is not an unrealistic fear as the supply of certified cocoa is lagging far behind demend. Another issue of concern is whether farmers will be able to select the certification scheme for which they want to produce their cocoa.
Questions regarding harmonisation It is sad that the different labels for sustainable cocoa have an 80% overlap in their social and environmental criteria. Several questions often arise in discussions on the harmonisation of standards, for example: How can the different certification schemes be integrated? How can the four certifiers operate collectively, in order to certify as many farmers as possible? What are barriers or disadvantages involved in harmonisation? Does harmonisation of standards lead to weak compromises? Are there no alternative form of certification available that could make the process faster and cheaper? Should they be actively sought out?
…In order to cope with some of the challenges that the use of certification schemes generate, the different actors involved in the cocoa sector also build upon experiences with certification in other sectors. UTZ CERTIFIED builds upon its experience in coffee, where it is among the biggest certification programs in the world. Other learned from the research conducted on sustainable biomass. For example, Fair Food has used a document prepared by Cramer (2007) for testing a framework on sustainable biomass to explore alternative (cheaper) ways of certifying cocoa. In this document three different certification systems were compared: the track and trace system, the mass balance system, and negotiable certificates. Currently, the Fairtrade Labelling Organizations are considering the mass balance system as an alternative way of certifying Fairtrade products. This system prescribes to stop the practice of segregated processing of Fairtrade cocoa and conventional cocoa. UTZ CERTIFIED allows both mass and segregation for certified cocoa.
Limits of certification Because certification is not sufficient for guaranteeing sufficient supply, it is combined with investments in farmer training, this called certification+
The concept of Certification+, introduced by Solidaridad and Mars, states that the premium provided by Certification is not meant to guarantee a living wage for farmers. By improving productivity and quality, farmers should be able to earn more for their cocoa and invest in improving their liveihood, especially in West Africa wher cocoa production is concentrated. Therefore, these parties claim to go beyond certification by improving productivity through providing better plant material and fertilizer, training, and financing. In addition, Solidaridad is improving support to farmers in producing countries by lobbying and by working to strengthen civil society.
NEXT TIME: Farmer training
Chapter 2 Knowledge in sustainable value chains.
Finca La Amistad Costa Rica
Already in antiquity, the philosopher Socrates questioned what knowledge is and how one should pursue it. Socrates devoted much of his efforts to defining words and concepts: his method was to pose questions. Like a three year-old child would repeat ‘why’ (e.g., Why is the sky blue?), Socrates repeated question after question until no further question could be asked. He claimed that there are two very different sorts of knowledge. One is the ordinary ‘trivial’ knowledge, which concern very specific (and ordinary) information, for example, the things we all know because we do them unconsciously. He claimed that having such knowledge does not give the holder any significant expertise or wisdom. The higher level knowledge could be described as definitional knowledge. In other words, if you can define a phenomenon it means that you understands ti, and this knowledge is superior to everyday ‘trivial’ knowledge.
Socrates’ contribution noted, Plato is usually credited as the founder of modern science and scientific thought. Plato asserted that a statement must meet three criteria to be considered knowledge: it must be justified (supported by evidence), true (in agreement with facts and reality), and believed. If one makes a claim, and another person questions it, then one would look for justification to convince the other person that his claim is true. Belief is knowledge if the belief is true and if the believer has a justification for believing it is true. Plato’s definition of knowledge necessitates that statements are justified by facts, which can be falsefied or validated. Today we refer to this systematic approach to knowledge simply as “science’. This approach also put scientific knowledge in another league from our common day-to-day knowledge and restricted the acces to this scientific league to only a fews select players: the scientists! As Sir Francis Bacon put it a century earlier, ‘knnowledge is power and those who know, rule the world’.
This brings us to the question how to pursue knowledge today. How is scientific knowledge related to what we knows from experience? How can we learn from practical knowledge? And if different kind of knowledge do co-exist, how can it be organised so it can be transferred from one type into the other? To put it in context of the topic of this publication, a cocoa grower could argue the following, ‘If I grow cocoa and obtain a good harvest, but cannot explain how I did it, then still you cannot say that I do not know how to grow cocoa.’
Finca La Amistad
Agricultural knowledge systems
Previously it was believed that knowledge could only be generated by undertaking a scientific research processes, in particular in regard to agriculture. Farmers were practising agriculture in the same way as during previous generations, and researchers believed that improvements could only be achieved through a transfer of knowledge from science to thes farmers. In order to modernise agriculture, science had to test and validate innovations, which were transferred through a system of extension provision to the communities of farmers. The farmers only needed to apply this developed knowledge in order to obtain higher yields and better economic returns. If the farmers continued to live in poverty, they were either not suitable for the job or not yet linked into the extension system, the preferred responce being to simply expand the extension system.
This dominant model created and developed a worldwide system of agriculture research and extension services taht is today well established. In Europe and the USA, this model produced high input agriculture, which was based on the latest scientific knowledge. Besides industrial inputs, this type of agriculture was also very capital intensive, resulting in self-reinforcing economies of scale on farms and the pursuit of continuous innovation. The farmer’ crop yields began to approache the levels projected in scientific models and obtained in research stations under ideal conditions. However, also the negative side effects of this system became increasingly apparent. The cost of the environmental damage -tolerated during the post-war decades of the twentieth century- wre increasingly being transferred from society to the farmers. A new paradigm -‘the poluter pays’- was increasingly cut into the profitability of high-input agriculture.
The reputation of Western agriculture declined, and responce the demands to reduce the huge public subsidies that supported the agricultural sector were being appeased. In the Netherlands -a country known for its sophisticated agricultural research and extension system- public services to farmers were rapidly being downsized. The system was ‘privatised’, implying that now farmers and agribusiness had to take care of their own extension services and that researchnhad to be sponsored by the agricultural sector.
Finca La Amistad Costa Rica
Meanwhile, the linear model between science and extension was being challenged by social scientist. They questioned the superiority of scientific knowledge, citing evidence that innovations can also emerge without science through human ingenuity and interaction. Does a community of Ghanian cocoa farmers not have the knowledge base for farming? Is indigenous and practice-based knowledge inferior to scientific knowledge? And, why is it that in spite of sophisticated scientific knowledge systems diversity in farms and farming practices persists? Are farmers just stubborn people or is there something else at play, which has equal value to scientific knowledge? A distinction can be made between different schools of thought. During the 1970s, Farming System research that referred to a farm as being more than the sum of its parts was developed. This approach considers the internal relationships between system components to define the level of its outputs: an insight that provided the space to acknowledge the farmers’ knowledge in effective handling of these interactions. Others focused more on the persistent diversity that exists in farling, whereby the dominant determining factor was the farmers’ knowledge and farm management skills. In this school of thought, different farm models can co-exist based on equally valuable rationale of human behaviour. In the Farming System school of though, science needs to study the rationale of these systems, but should continue developing knowledge based on an understanding what kind of knowledge required. The diversity school of though profoundly questions the role of scientific knowledge and emphasis the importance of social constructions and power relations. In this view, development does not come about through the application of scientific knowledge, but rather through social processes of empowerment and emancipation. Recently, approaches have emerged that do not try to define knowledge or engage in related rhetorical debates; rather they concentrate on design of effective modalities that can enhance the communication and knowledge exchanges between science, practitioners, and other stakeholders. Multi-stakeholders approaches and ‘innovation platforms’ are among these ways of creating and sharing knowledge and are yet to prove their value in terms of tangible results.
Finca La Amistad Costa Rica
Knowledge for sustainable value chains
As the previous sections demonstrated, there is a considerable research effort (with multiple approaches) which aims to provide stakeholders with knowledge that can be applied to stimulate development. But how do value chain stakeholders -notably the privat sector- secure an adequate knowledge base and access to new knowledge?…Pursuing sustainability in value chains presents several dilemmas regarding knowledge generation and knowledge sharing. First of all, a diverse set of actors -public, civil, and privat- must come to a joint agreement about their joint intentions and ambitions. These parties are not accustomend to working with each other and act from the position of their own languauge, corprate culture, and other particulartities. One actor may have had a negative ewperience with another actor, or there may be a considerable conflict of interests. This implies that the terms for realising knowledge exchanges need to be negotiated and moderated prior to any effort to jointly build knowledge. This touches on anther dilemma that could impede the smoothness of the knowledge exchange process. The privat sector pursues competitive advantages in order to better position itself in the market. As demonstrated above, knowledge is a strategic ingredient of the company’s profile; therefore, sharing knowledge broadly across the value chain could be considered unnatural behavior for a company. Before effective exchanges can be expected, the pursuit of chain wide sustainability must firts deal with this conflict.
A third dilemma concerns the kind of knowledge needed for pursuing sustainability value chains. What do actors pursue when they have sustainability in mind? Is a ‘Socrates dialogue’ required for defining what is understood by sustainability? For example, one value chain actor could stress the need for technological development (e.g., disease-tolerant cocoa hybrids) while another actor could insist on studying fair-pricing mechanisms and consumer behaviour. How is it defined, or – the even more difficult question- who defines the agenda for knowledge generation? When particular actors have a dominant position in a value chain, setting the agenda for knnowledge generation becomes a political process, which may undermine the collective goal to improve the sustainability across the value chain.
Finca La Amistad Costa Rica
Finally, there is a fourth dilemma: How can this useful knowledge be shared with larghe numbers of farmers, companies and their employees, and in the end consumers? Sharing knowledge on chain wide sustainability isseus requires a sound communication strategy. Reaching thousands of cocoa farmers (who may be illiterate) and informing even more Western consumers (who are overexposed to product information) is a monumental challenge that has no simple answer. Such a challenge requires a process of identifying good practice at each step of the value chain. What are effective approaches for involving larghe numbers of farmers in improving quantity and quality of production? For example, can we apply the Farmers’ Field School approach to improve the susainability of the production process, and at the same time involve all types of farmers (small and largeh, male and female)? What can be learned from other initiatives (e.g., UTZ CERTIFIED, the Rainforest Alliance, and Max Havelaar)?
Clearly the primiminary conclusion is that the pursuit of sustainability in cocoa value chains requires a well designed knowledge management straregy. Central to this strategy is value-chain-wide learning from own practice and relevant experiences in other chains or sustainability initiatives. Joint learning requires the involvement of all parties and their commitment to share knowledge. This may seem as unnatural at firts, but there is ample eveidence that is mutually profitable in the end: it enhances the generic profile of the value chain and its consumer products. After all, philosophic thought has emphasised for millennia that a ‘good reputation is worth more than money’ (Publilius Syrus,100 B.C.).
By clarifying their position as knoledge holders on sustainable cocoa chain development, the Dutch can play a more signifivant and recognisable role in the international discussions on this important matter. In addiction, such an analysis supports the design of a knowledge management strategy that adequately addresses the global character of the cocoa sector and the diversity of chain actors and chain supporters.
Source: Chocolate Forever Dutch knowledge on sustainable cocoa.
Chapter 2 Knowledge in sustainable value chains by Bart de Steenhuijsen Piters.(Director Development Policy and Practice, Royal Tropical Institute.
Pictures thanks to Juan Pablo Butchert, Nahua, Finca La Amistad.
Fair Trade: de laatste tien jaar groeide de markt voor eerlijke producten razendsnel: met gemiddelde groeicijfers van ruim 20% per jaar.. Fair Trade is vandaag dan ook alomtegenwoordig: tal van voedingswaren, kledij, verzorgingsproducten,… zelfs goud is tegenwoordig met eerlijke handel-keurmerk te krijgen. Waar gaat dat naartoe? En heeft dat wel zin?
Consumenten kunnen kiezen voor producten die een betrouwbaar keurmerk hebben
dat erop wijst dat de handel eerlijk is verlopen.
Wij, Belgen, smelten voor chocolade. We eten er gemiddeld zes kilogram per persoon, per jaar. Daarmee behoren we tot de grootste chocoladeconsumenten ter wereld. En 98% van de huishoudens koopt regelmatig deze lekkernij. Dit betekent heel wat inkomens voor de zuiderse cacaoboeren. Of niet?
Mistoestanden Volgens Stichting Max Havelaar hangen 40 miljoen mensen af van cacao om in hun levensonderhoud te voorzien. Negentig procent van de productie ervan komt van kleinschalige boeren die moeten rondkomen met minder dan 2 US dollar per dag: dat is 1.56 euro, of 46,80 euro inkomsten per maand. Armoede, dus. Dat op zich veroorzaakt al heel wat problemen. Maar helaas blijkt dit ook af en toe tot sociale mistoestanden te leiden. Zo worden met name in West-Afrika regelmatig kindslaven gebruikt om soms meer dan zestien uur achter elkaar te werken op cacaoplantages. Ze worden meegelokt uit dorpen met beloftes van school en een beter leven, om vervolgens als huisslaafje te dienen of mee te werken op plantages. Eenmaal in die val getrapt, hebben ze geen andere keuze meer. Opnieuw Stichting Max Havelaar schat dat de uitbuiting op cacaoplantages in totaal 250.000 kinderen te beurt valt.
Eerlijke handel Wij kunnen, als consument, de levensomstandigheden van talloze boeren en arbeiders verbeteren: door te kiezen voor producten die een een betrouwbaar keurmerk hebben dat erop wijst dat de handel eerlijk is verlopen. Of, in het Engels: ‘fair trade’. Rob Renaerts is zaakvoerder van CODUCO, een dienstverlener in de sector van duurzame consumptie. “Producten die een fair trade-label willen dragen, moeten aan drie groepen criteria voldoen”, legt hij uit. “Ten eerste deze die betrekking hebben op het milieu. Ten tweede deze die aandacht hebben voor de arbeidsomstandigheden, zoals het waarborgen van een degelijk loon, het uitsluiten van kinder- of gedwongen arbeid, het dragen van beschermde kledij waar nodig, geen verplichting tot 16 uur per dag te werken,… Ten derde hanteren ze daar bovenop economische criteria, zoals Max Havalaar die een fairtrade-premie aan de boeren geeft en in afwachting van de oogst de kosten prefinanciert. Niet elk label gaat daarin even ver.
Veel meer dan koffie Wat gebeurt met de cacaotelers, is een goed voorbeeld waarom verandering nodig is. Helaas beperken mistoestanden en onrecht zich niet tot die sector. Maar gelukkig zijn het intussen niet langer enkel cacao, koffie of bananen die met een fair trade-label zijn te krijgen. Het aanbod wordt jaar na jaar groten: er zijn thee, honing, diverse fruitsoorten,… Het gaat zelfs niet enkel meer om voeding. Neem de cosmeticaproducten. Steeds vaker worden ze gemaakt met natuurlijke ingrediënten uit het Zuiden: bvb palmolie, aloë vera, groene thee, kruiden en bloemen,…het aandeel van dergelijke natuurlijke cosmeticaproducten wereldwijd is tussen 2007 en 2011 gestegen met 35%. Analisten verwachten dat dit nog zal toenemen. Wanneer we willen dat schoonheid en ethiek hand in hand gaan, is kiezen voor dergelijke producten met fair tradelabel een goede keuze.
Naar schatting 14 miljoen mensen in de ontwikkelingslanden afhankelijk zijn van de productie van cacao voor hun levensonderhoud. Cijfers volgens Fairtrade International FLO.
De cijfers Het Belgische Agentschap voor Ontwikkelingssamenwerking (BTC) pakte in 2012 uit met resultaten van een onderzoek naar de positie van ‘eerlijke handel’ in België. Daaruit bleek dat Oxfam en Max Havelaar dé referentie blijven op gebied van eerlijke handel: 56% van de Belgen noemt spontaan minstens één van beide wanneer fair trade ter sprake komt. Ook blijken intussen heel wat mensen te herkennen wat tot die categorie behoort: 94% weet dat Oxfam-Wereldwinkels ermee bezig is, 85% kent het merk ‘Oxfam Fairtrade’ als dusdanig, 63% is vertrouwd met het Max Havelaar label en 51% met Fair Trade Original. Ze scoren ook goed op vlak van vertrouwen: twee op drie Belgen geeft hen een score van 8 of meer op 10. Rob Renaerts vermeldt ook nog een ander, voorlopig minder bekend fairtrade-label dat niet tevoorschijn kwam bij dit onderzoek: Ecocert Equitable. Voorts zegt het BTC dat 62% van de Belgen dat het afgelopen jaar minsten één fair trade-product hebben gekocht: 61% van hen kocht koffie, 48% fruit en 47% chocolade. En, het laatste maar niet het minste: de tevredenheid over fairtrade producten ligt erg hoog. Bijna alle Belgen (96%) die deze producten kopen, zijn tevreden (57%) of zeer tevreden (39%).
en getuigenissen Fulgence N’Guessan is Voorzitter van de raad van Bestuur van de coöperative Kavokiva, waar boeren koffie- en cacaoplantages runnen. Hij bevindt zich in Ivoorkust. Hij getuigt dat “Fair Trade een unieke oplossing biedt om onze levensomstandigheden te verbeteren, en de strijd tegen kinderarbeid aan te gaan.” Eveneens van Ivoorkust is N’Guessan, voorzitter van cacaoproducent UIREVI. Volgens hem biedt “Fairtrade-certificering vele voordelen: zo functioneren onze coöperaties beter en professioneler, waardoor we beter gewapend zijn voor de markt. En doordat we een Fairtrade-certificaat bezitten, onderhandelen wij met grote industriële bedrijven en kunnen we beroep doen op prefinanciering: voor 50 à 60% van wat wij nodig hebben aan commercieel krediet. Vervolgens, als de prijzen omhoog gaan, gaan ook de prijzen voor onze boeren omhoog. De economische leefbaarheid en rentabiliteit nemen dus toe. Fairtrade-certificering heeft echt impact!”
De die zichzelf aanklaagde
De Nederlandse programmamaker Teun Van de Keuken klaagde zichzelf bij de rechtbank aan voor… het eten van chocolade. Dat berichtten de krant De Standaard op zes april 2007. Van de Keuken wilde met zijn beschuldiging de wantoestanden in de cacao-industrie aan de kaak stellen. In 2004 had hij al geprobeerd zich medeverantwoordelijk te stellen voor de slavernij die daar bestaat, maar de zaak werd afgewezen. Daarop ging de Nederlander in hoger beroep, en verzamelde verklaringen van vier ex-slaven uit Burkina Faso om zijn beschuldigingen kracht bij te zetten. In februari 2007 werd één van hen gehoord door het hof. Hij vertelde onder meer over mishandeling die hem op de cacaoplantages moest ondergaan. Later verzochten 2.136 andere chocoladeconsumenten, samen met de vier ex-slaven en Van de Keuken zelf, het hof om alsnog over te gaan tot vervolging. Ze vonden dat Van de Keuken en andere chocolade-eters de slavernij steunden door chocolade te eten die is gemaakt van dergelijke cacao. Wat de 2.136 consumenten betreft, oordeelde de rechter dat ze niet rechtstreeks belanghebbend zijn in de zaak. Ook de aanklacht van de vier gewezen slaven werd afgewezen. De rechtbank ontkende de ernstige misdaden in de cacao-industrie niet, maar strafvervolging was volgens hof “niet de juiste wijze om genoemde misstanden aan te pakken”. Uiteindelijk ging Van de Keuken, tot zijn ontgoocheling, vrijuit. Hij had gehoopt met de zaak een rechterlijke uitspraak te krijgen die inhoudt dat het strafbaar is zo’n oneerlijk tot stand gekomen chocolade te kopen.
bron: BioGezond infoblad over Gezond Leven
WHY DO WE LOVE CHOCOLATE? 