Content uploaded by Aurélie Carimentrand
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aurélie Carimentrand
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Working paper FREE-Cahier FREE n°5-2010
When Fair Trade increases unfairness:
The case of quinoa from Bolivia
Aurélie Carimentrand and Jérôme Ballet
jballetfr@yahoo.fr
aureliecarimentrand@yahoo.fr
Abstract
Fair Trade movement tackles the question of global justice. It is experiencing growing
success. Fair Trade therefore sorts the beneficiaries, usually by means of certification.
Numerous impact studies have assessed the beneficial effects of Fair Trade on the intended
beneficiaries. Several studies have nevertheless called into question both the impact of
certification and Fair trade. Following these studies this paper shows that Fair Trade in quinoa
(Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) is actually increasing inequalities between Bolivian producers.
Keywords: FairTrade, Inequalities, Quinoa, Bolivia
FREE
Association 1901 à vocation scientifique
SIREN : 483 263 620 / SIRET : 483 263 620 00013
email : freeethique@yahoo.fr web: /http://ethique.neuf.fr/
2
Introduction
Global justice remains a major challenge. For few decades now Fair trade movement
promotes products of developing countries, in a way to improve poor producer revenues
1
.
Fair Trade is experiencing growing success. For the last decade, it has been increasingly
familiar to consumers, and sales have been growing in Europe, North America, and the
Pacific Rim (Fair Trade Federation 2006). In Europe, sales of Fair Trade products have risen
from 260 million Euros in 2000 to 1,699 million Euros in 2007 (Krier 2008, p. 51). In North
America and the Pacific Rim, sales of Fair Trade products in 2007 were estimated to be 947
million Euro (Krier 2008, p. 54). At the international level, the current standard definition of
Fair Trade stems from a consensus among four representative international organizations of
the Fair Trade movement: Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO), International
Fair Trade Association (IFAT, now known as the World Fair Trade Organization - WFTO),
Network of European Worldshops (NEWS!), and European Fair Trade Association (EFTA) (Box 1).
These four organizations are known collectively as “FINE” from their initials.
Box 1 – Presentation of the members of FINE
The Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO): The FLO consists of the twenty national associations
that manage the Max Havelaar/Transfair Fair Trade label in fifteen countries in Europe [Fairtrade Mark
(Ireland), Fairtrade Foundation (Great-Britain), Förningen för Rättvisemärkt (Sweden), Max Havelaar Belgium,
Max Havelaar Fonden (Denmark), Max Havelaar France, Max Havelaar Norge (Norway), Max Havelaar
Stiftung (Switzerland), Reilun Kaupan (Finland), Sitchting Max Havelaar (Netherlands), Transfair Austria,
Transfair Germany, Transfair Italy, Transfair Minka (Luxemburg), Associación para el sello de comercio justo
(Spain)], in Japan (Fairtrade label Japan), in North America (Transfair USA and Transfair Canada), in Oceania
(Transfair Labelling Australia & New Zealand) plus one associate member (Comercio Justo Mexico). A single
logo has been adopted in order to make it easier to recognize this label.
The World Fair Trade Organization (WFTO, ex-IFAT): The WFTO includes more than 300 organizations
specializing in Fair Trade: national Fair Trade federations (such as Artisans du Monde in France), producer
organizations, NGOs that support Fair Trade …
The Network of European Worldshops (NEWS!): NEWS! is a network of fifteen national federations of "World
shops" representing more than 2500 shops in Europe.
The European Fair Trade Association (EFTA): EFTA includes 11 European importers specializing in Fair Trade
in 9 European countries: Solidar’Monde (France), Gepa (Germany), CTM (Italy), Magasins du Monde –
OXFAM and Oxfam Wereldwinkels (Belgium), Fair Trade Organisatie (Netherlands), Intermon Oxfam and
Ideas (Spain), Claro (Switzerland), Traidcraft and Oxfam (Great-Britain), and EZA Fairer Handel (Austria).
Source: Websites of these organizations (www.fairtrade.net; http://www.wfto.com; www.worldshops.org;
http://www.european-fair-trade-association.org) consulted in September 2009).
In 2001, the “FINE consensus” defined Fair Trade as follows:
“Fair Trade is a trading partnership based on dialogue, transparency and respect, which seeks greater
equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading
3
conditions to marginalized producers and workers – especially in the South, and securing their
rights. Fair Trade organizations (backed by consumers) are engaged actively in supporting
producers, raising awareness, and campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of
conventional international trade”.
This definition puts marginalized producers center stage as beneficiaries. Fair Trade
therefore sorts the beneficiaries, usually by means of certification, which is not understood
here as the granting of a single, clearly defined analytical object, but as a series of systems
and various practices that contribute to a mechanism of regulation and governance including
a multitude of players (Mutersbaugh et al. 2005).
Numerous impact studies have assessed the beneficial effects of Fair Trade on the intended
beneficiaries: artisans, agricultural producers, and employees. These studies have been
conducted on behalf of Fair Trade organizations (Hopkins 2000; Southgate 2000; Dietz et al.
2000; Mestre et al. 2002, AlterEco 2002), NGOs involved in Fair Trade projects (Chauveau and
Eberhart 2002), and foundations (Aranda and Morales 2002; Lyon 2002; Martinez 2002;
Mendez 2002; Pérez-Grovas and Cervantes 2002 for instance), or by independent researchers
(Diaz Pedregal 2006; Milford 2004; Ronchi 2000 amongst others).
However, some recent studies have seriously called into question the impact of certification
in general (rather than specifically that of Fair Trade certification) on small producers, and
have also revealed various ambiguities associated with Fair Trade. The first group of studies
noted that certification does not necessarily assist the most marginalized producers, and can
in fact actually exclude them due to the high costs associated with certification (Klooster
2005; Taylor 2005; Gonzalez and Nigh 2005 amongst others). Mutersbaugh (2002) points out
that in the case of the organic certification of coffee in Mexico, the producers have to follow a
myriad of restrictive rules. As a result, the monitoring system associated with certification
has interfered with local governance, leading to tension between the different producing
villages.
In the second group, Renard (2005) and Mutersbaugh (2005) have shown, on the basis of
studies of Mexican coffee, that Fair Trade labels do not all correspond to the same quality,
and that in particular the arrival of large agrofoods corporations in the Fair Trade niche
market can affect the balance between different producers, and this is not always to the
advantage of the smallest producers. Getz and Shreck (2006) have also shown that the
development of the Fair Trade certification of bananas in the Azua Valley in the Dominican
4
Republic had accentuated socioeconomic inequalities between producers in the regions
concerned.
This article follows on from these earlier studies. We intend to show that Fair Trade in
quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) is actually increasing inequalities between Bolivian
producers.
The article is structured as follows. In the first section we describe the context in which
international trade in quinoa has developed. In the second section, we highlight the effect of
socioeconomic differentiation associated with the mechanization of the cultivation of quinoa,
and the development of trade in this crop in Bolivia. In the third section, on the basis of an
analysis of the national association of quinoa producers in Bolivia (ANAPQUI) engaged in
the Fair Trade sector, we discuss the effects of the development of Free Trade networks on
producers.
1. The context in which the international quinoa trade has developed
Quinoa is a typical example of an exotic product that became familiar to European
consumers via distribution networks specializing in Fair Trade and organic agriculture
before making its appearance on the shelves of large and medium-sized sales outlets.
It is produced essentially in South America, in the high plateaus or altiplano of Bolivia, Peru
and to a lesser extent, of Equator. These three countries produced 17,747 metric tonnes of
quinoa in 1970, but this had reached 58,443 tonnes in 2005 (FAOSTAT 2005), with 56% of the
world production in 2005 coming from Peru and 43% from Bolivia. At present, the bulk of
Free Trade quinoa comes from Bolivia and it is nearly all certified as “organic produce”. The
Fair Trade quinoa exported to Europe, and notably to France, is associated with various
brands, and labels: Max Havelaar, Solidar’Monde, Bio-équitable, Main dans la Main, Alter Eco
2
…
Like many other products, in the 1970s, quinoa fell from favor amongst local consumers,
who preferred products imported from the countries of the North instead, because these
carried an image of modernity (Repo-Carrasco 1992). From the 1980s, and to a greater extent,
in the 1990s, the image of quinoa changed slowly in response to the increased demand from
the countries of the North, via the demand of consumers concerned about social and
environmental questions, but also about their own health (Cáceres 2005). In the 1980s, very
5
little quinoa was exported from Bolivia. During the 1980s, the volume of exports increased,
rising from 344 metric tonnes in 1990 to 1423 tonnes in 2000. Since the early 2000s, there has
been a real boom: exports reached 7641 metric tonnes in 2006 with a value of nearly nine
million dollars US: France is one of the main quinoa-importing countries.
This reversal of the production trend was accompanied by major organizational changes in
the structure of the networks over time. Cáceres et al. (2007) identify three periods in the
organizational structure of the networks. The first period, the 1970s
and 1980s, was marked
by the creation of producer organizations (CECAOT and ANAPQUI), and their reinforcement
by the setting up of quinoa-processing activities in the wake of Fair Trade led by charitable
organizations and alternative Fair Trade movements. The second period, in the early 1990s,
corresponds to the establishment of organic production standards for exports to the
countries of the North (Cáceres and Carimentrand 2004a, b; Laguna et al. 2006). The third
period, from the middle of the 1990s, corresponds to the first fruits of the expansion of the
quinoa network and was associated with the construction of organic and Fair Trade supply
lines to the countries of the North, essentially led by private businesses in the countries of the
North
3
. This was characterized by the creation of new quinoa processing plants, and by the
introduction of systems for the contractualization of agriculture. Some of these networks are
intended mainly to supply outlets specializing in Fair Trade and organic products, but most
have also been constructed in the wake of major distribution chains, such as Carrefour
(Cacéres et al. 2007). In 2005, 20% of the quinoa production was exported, and virtually all
the quinoa exported was certified as organic (CEPROBOL, 2005).
This last period reflects the changing conventions confronting Fair Trade in response to
pressure from multinationals and labeling strategies during the transition from a civil
convention to a commercial convention (Renard 2003, 2005). The arrival of private companies
in the quinoa segment has consolidated the model of a contract between the producers and
agro-industrial companies, introducing an international division of labor in which the
erstwhile producers are restricted to the role of growers. This means that they are subject to
selection based on quality requirements. It also means that most of the added-value is
transferred to the agro-industrial companies (Cacéres and Carimentrand 2004a).
6
2. A development leading to socio-economic differentiation
The exports of Fair Trade quinoa from Bolivia consist of the salinas varieties of quinoa, which
are grown in the southern altiplano
4
, and in particular the white quinoa real (or royal
quinoa). The salinas (or saltpan) quinoas are grown in eight administrative provinces: the
provinces of Ladislao Cabrera, Eduardo Avaroa and Sebastián Pagador in the department of
Oruro and those of Daniel Campos, Nor Lípez, Sur Lípez, Enrique Baldivieso and Antonio
Quijarro in the department of Potosí. Each province is divided into municipalities that
include several communities. For example, the province of Daniel Campos includes two
municipalities: LLica and Tahua, which in turn include 49 communities (Alianza, Belen,
Palaya…). There are an estimated 15,000 quinoa producers in the altiplano of southern
Bolivia (Collao 2003).
From the end of the 1970s, some producers decided to specialize in the mechanized
cultivation of quinoa, whereas others continued with a balanced mix of arable and livestock
production (the latter consisting mainly of lamas and sheep). This period also corresponds to
the first attempts to organize producers into associations, with the creation of the umbrella
organization of cooperatives known as Opéración Tierra (CECAOT) in 1975, and of the
national association of quinoa producers (ANAPQUI) in 1983, as well as the first attempts to
carry out the industrialized desaponification
5
of quinoa.
Whereas traditionally quinoa is cultivated on the mountain slopes, the mechanized growing
of quinoa has developed on the plains, and this resulted in a process of socioeconomic
differentiation between the various quinoa producing communities of the altiplano of
southern Bolivia, and even within these communities (Laguna 2000; Félix 2004; Vancauteren
2005). However, traditional manual cultivation systems and mechanized systems continue to
coexist in the altiplano of southern Bolivia, with sharp disparities between the different
provinces and different communities. Mechanized systems dominated the province of
Ladislao Cabrera, whereas traditional systems are more common in that of Daniel Campos.
In this latter province, however, there are some communities pioneering the mechanized
cultivation of quinoa (for example Palaya, Alianza and Belen) (Félix 2004).
The mechanization of quinoa growing, combined with the renewed economic value of this
crop has allowed some types of producers to boost their incomes considerably, leading to a
process of unequal development amongst the different producers. The arrival of tractors has
7
indeed allowed producers to increase the areas under cultivation in a context in which the
manual production of quinoa does not allow a farmer to produce more than one hectare per
farmer (Félix 2004, p.29)
6
. This intensification of quinoa production has also made it a more
profitable crop. As a result, the area of quinoa grown per producer is very variable, ranging
from under five hectares to over fifty hectares.
The development of the mechanized cultivation of quinoa has made a considerable
contribution to the socioeconomic upheaval in the altiplano of southern Bolivia.
Socioeconomic differences of this sort, resulting from the introduction of tractors, are not
specific to this region. They have also been observed in many other areas of the world. In
most cases, ownership of agricultural equipment confers an important advantage, which
promotes control of the land, as shown for example by Belloncle (1985) in the case of Mali. In
the situation we are concerned with, some specific aspects of the system of land-ownership
and of the local topography have also played a considerable part in this process.
In the altiplano of southern Bolivia, a new form of unofficial land ownership has emerged
with the informal appropriation of common land suitable for mechanization. In the
traditional agrarian system of the Aymaras, a member of the local community can
appropriate land for himself by clearing it. Before tractors arrived, this involved land located
on the slopes that had to be cleared by hand (Félix 2004). Applying this rule to areas of the
plain that are cleared mechanically has had a considerably impact on the distribution of land
ownership within these communities, and a drastic reduction in the common land
traditionally used as pastures for lamas, and its appropriation by individuals for the
mechanized cultivation of quinoa.
The colonization of the land of the plains has led to injustices and conflicts between families
and communities (Félix 2004), because this process has mainly been to the advantage of the
richest families, who had capital assets they could sell (notably in the form of livestock) in
order to invest in the agricultural machinery required to clear land suitable for mechanized
agriculture.
In view of the topographical restrictions of mechanization, ”mountain” communities have
been excluded from this mechanized cultivation of quinoa, and still engage in considerable
pastoral activity, whereas the “plain” communities and “mixed” communities have
participated fully in this process of modernizing agriculture.
8
Producers who have invested the profits made from the mechanized cultivation of quinoa in
the plains in the development of urban activities, and producers who provide agricultural
services (rental of tractors and other agricultural machinery) have been the ones who have
profited most from the mechanization of quinoa growing.
3. Inequalities exacerbated by Fair Trade: the case of ANAPQUI
There are several supply chains for Fair Trade quinoa. The main ones are the European
importers who specialize in Fair Trade (i.e. the members of EFTA: GEPA in Germany,
Solidar’Monde in France…), the Bio-équitable network developed by the Euro-nat company,
that of Main dans la Main developed by Rapünzel and, since 2005, the Max Havelaar labeling
network.
The Bolivian quinoa producers association (ANAPQUI) is the main supplier of Fair Trade
quinoa to Europe. This is the biggest association of quinoa producers certified by the Flo-
Cert
7
certifying organization, which awards the Max Havelaar label and is the main trading
partner of the members of EFTA for the importation of quinoa for sale in World Shops. Over
the period 2001-2006, between 31% and 39% of ANAPQUI’s quinoa exports destined for Fair
Trade outlets. Over this period, the volume of ANAPQUI’s quinoa exports destined for the
Fair Trade sector rose from 170 to 585 metric tonnes. This increased 3.5 fold over this period
despite a fall in 2005. The marked increase in 2005 and 2006 was linked in particular to
ANAPQUI’s joining the Max Havelaar label network.
Our analysis of the impact of Fair Trade on inequalities in the ANAPQUI producers
association is based on a series of documents and audit reports about this association, in
particular the report from the Alter Eco company (2007), on any official statistics available,
on a set of data gathered in the field in 2004 during a one-month research mission to Bolivia,
as well as on information gathered during interviews with resource individuals, notably
with ANAPQUI managers, and the monitoring manger of Solidar’Monde.
ANAPQUI is an umbrella Organization that includes eight regional organizations of quinoa
producers. This organization is involved in the collection, industrial processing, and
marketing of quinoa, notably for export. In 2005, ANAPQUI included more than five
hundred organic quinoa producers
8
in the altiplano of southern Bolivia. Their mean
production was 4 metric tonnes, and the mean surface area cultivated was 6.5 hectares.
Moreover, 70% of the quinoa produced by ANAPQUI members was produced by
9
mechanical cultivation in the plains, and 30% by traditional cultivation methods on the
slopes (Alter Eco, 2007, p.9).
In the current context of growing socioeconomic differentials between the quinoa producers
of the altiplano of southern Bolivia, we show in this section that Fair Trade does not seem to
be an effective instrument for reducing social inequalities between quinoa producers. In fact,
it actually seems to exaggerate these inequalities. This is a paradoxical situation given the
objectives of assisting marginalized producers proclaimed by the Fair Trade movement, and
it looks to us as if it is due to three concomitant factors: on the one hand, the most
disadvantaged producers quite simply do not belong to the producers organizations that
benefit from Fair Trade; on the other hand, the targeting of ”small producers” defended by
the Fair Trade organizations that import quinoa, such as Solidar’Monde or Alter Eco, does not
correspond to the objectives of the organizations of producers with which they work; finally,
the FLO standards of Fair Trade for quinoa (FLO, 2004) do not make any social distinctions
between producers.
3.1 The exclusion of some of the small producers
For the agricultural year 2004-2005, 54% of the quinoa producers who belong to ANAPQUI
cultivated less than five hectares of quinoa, 18% between five and twenty hectares and 28%
more than twenty hectares. As a consequence, the volume of quinoa delivered by the
producers to their regional organization ranged from a few hundredweight to 200
hundredweight
9
, and more than one quarter of ANAPQUI producers can be classified as
“big” producers of quinoa. The quinoa produced is bought by the regional organizations of
ANAPQUI all year round at the price set by the directors of the national association. If we
take the price paid to producers in 2005, 250 bolivianos
10
(i.e. about 31 dollars US)
11
, incomes
varied from less than 12,500 bolivianos (i.e. about 1553 dollars US) to over 50,000 bolivianos
(i.e. about 6211 dollars US), which clearly reveals the differences in incomes related to the
sale of quinoa.
If we divide the members of ANAPQUI into their regional organizations, it can be seen that
most of the big producers belong to the APROQUIRY regional organization, located in the
Ladislao Cabrera province, which is not surprising as large mechanized farms predominate
in this province.
10
According to Vancauteren (2005), the proportion of small producers has decreased
considerably within the organizations of quinoa producers. Their withdrawal is apparently
mainly linked to their disappointment about how these organizations work. ANAPQUI and
its regional organizations do not seem to have escaped from the tendency to deviate from
collective interests towards particular interests, and the control exerted by a few groups of
influential individuals on these groups. As a result, the association lost all credibility and
legitimacy amongst some small producers whose interests it no longer defended
However, Fair Trade inevitably involves organizations of producers, at least in the FLO-Max
Havelaar system, and within integrated supply chains such as Artisans du Monde. Small
producers are therefore inevitably excluded from the scope of the organizations benefiting
from Fair Trade, which is a commonplace criticism of the inability of Fair Trade to target the
poor. As a result, small producers have to market their quinoa as best they can on the local
market, Challapata, or through private traders who exploit their isolation and weak
negotiating capacity to impose their own rules
12
.
Getz and Shreck (2006) have pointed out that the exclusion of some banana producers in the
Dominican Republic was linked to restrictions of the access to certified organizations,
notably due to the excess of offer over demand for Fair Trade bananas. In the case of quinoa,
the exclusion tends to result from the self -exclusion of small producers due to the
mechanisms of the “privileges” that the bigger producers, who also have a preponderant
weight in the organizations, assign to themselves.
3.2 A mismatch between the principles of Fair Trade and the objectives of the producers
As Getz and Shreck (2006) point out in the case of banana producers in the Dominican
Republic, most of the producers working for Fair Trade in fact know nothing about Fair
Trade. The same thing is true of the quinoa sector. However, we also observe the reverse
phenomenon, i.e. the fact that the Fair Trade organizations know little or nothing about the
concrete circumstances of small producers. This has led them to establish general rules that
are out of step with the problems of the most disadvantaged producers. Thus, as highlighted
by Maldidier (2006), Fair Trade does not take into account the power relationships that are
woven into these organizations, and which are linked to the socioeconomic stratification. For
example, there is no policy within ANAPQUI to give preference to purchasing from the
poorest producers in the association, nor any policy of redistribution in favor of these
11
producers. To cite Maldidier (Ibid., p.9): “the same price is paid for quinoa to all producers
and there is no explicit rule intended to regulate the amount of quinoa purchased from each
of the groups or each of the members. The producer who farms manually on the hillsides,
and who produces small quantities has, in theory, the same right to sell it as the producer
who produces far bigger volumes in a mechanized and extensive fashion in the plains”. But
in fact, this right depends informally on the power relationships within the organizations. In
this context, the price differential for quinoa linked to Fair Trade mainly works to the benefit
of the “big” producers of quinoa.
The objectives of these producers are not those of Fair Trade, and the most powerful
producers are cashing in and getting rich at the expense of the smallest producers. The
mechanisms of Fair Trade therefore “underwrite” the strategies of the biggest producers,
thus contributing de facto to the self-exclusion of the small producers.
3.3 Inappropriate standards
As we have just seen, there is a mismatch between the principles of Fair Trade and the
practices of organizations of producers. The FLO Fair Trade standards for quinoa, defined in
2004 (FLO 2004), do not specifically take into account the inequalities between producers.
These standards do not stipulate any measures for correcting the growing socioeconomic gap
between the quinoa producers of the altiplano of southern Bolivia. The social criteria of the
specifications only concern how the cooperative or group of producers operates. It must be
democratic and transparent. We should recall here that the FLO Fair Trade standards for
organizations of producers
13
stipulate that “small producers” must supply more than 50% of
the total production intended for Fair Trade (FLO 2003). However, the definition of “small
producers” used by the FLO does not specify an income ceiling: ”the term “small producers”
means that they are not structurally dependent on salaried labor and work their farm mainly
using their own labor and that of their family”. The seasonal labor that the “big” quinoa
producers call upon does not therefore mean that they lose the status of “small producers”
for Fair Trade purposes, as defined by the FLO.
12
4. Conclusion: what are the prospects?
In a context marked by the pressure exerted by the international demand and by competition
from other Fair Trade networks, the question of the diversity of the social and agro-
ecological contexts of the different zones of quinoa production has been ignored in favor of
other priorities, notably the guarantee of a larger volume of quinoa that can qualify for
labeling, and the time required to launch this new network. Setting up new Fair Trade
networks is important for national bodies such as Max Havelaar. In 2001, the UK Fairtrade
Foundation expressed the view that a way had to be found to develop new networks within
six months, in order to be able to compete with other companies and even supply
supermarkets with products that can be assimilated to Fair Trade (Levret 2003).
The resulting race to recruit new networks has resulted in the introduction of standards that
are inappropriate to the specific social, economic, and environmental contexts of the
production system. The increase in inequalities as a result of Fair Trade is partly attributable
to the application of decontextualized standards. According to Vancauteren (2005) the Max
Havelaar France association, responsible for creating the Max Havelaar label for quinoa, masks
the complexity of the social organization of quinoa production.
However, in view of this situation, and of the environmental problems linked to the
mechanized cultivation of quinoa, notably soil erosion (Ballet and Carimentrand 2008), the
Solidar’Monde organization would like to market a “mountain grown” quinoa
14
, which could
be one way to reverse the current trend. To do this, Solidar’Monde is trying to persuade
ANAPQUI to differentiate between crops from the mountains and those from the plain,
which would be a first step towards recognizing the specific value of this type of quinoa, and
therefore of this type of farming.
Notes
1. However, we should note that the development of Fair Trade has not been linear. It has consisted of
several stages. For a historical description, see amongst others Adams (1989), Barratt-Brown (1993),
Moore (2004), Ballet & Carimentrand (2007), Raynolds et al. (2007).
2. For a full description of these brands, see Ballet and Carimentrand (2007).
3. Note that after this period it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between Fair Trade
and organic quinoa. The quinoa supply chain is in fact constructed around the twin poles of Fair
Trade and organic agriculture. Virtually all the quinoa exported to Europe now carries both these
labels.
4. The high plateaus of the central Andes.
5. Pearl quinoa (which is ready for consumption) is obtained after a process which involves cleaning,
“desaponifying” and sorting the quinoa grains. The desaponification of quinoa consists of
13
eliminating the saponins, which are bitter and toxic substances found in the pericarp of the quinoa
grain.
6. Félix (2004, p. 57) considers that manual cultivation of quinoa corresponds on average to a
workload of 67 man days (m.d) per hectare, whereas mechanical cultivation only requires 27 m.d.
7. In December 2007, three organisations of Bolivian producers were certified by FLO-Cert:
ANAPQUI, CECAOT and APQUISA. Source: FLO-Cert. website www.flo-cert.net/flo-
cert/operators.php?id=10 (consulted on 11 December 2007).
8. In 2005, ANAPQUI included 532 producers of organic quinoa, and 332 producers in the process of
converting to organic production, and produced an estimated 2170 metric tonnes of organic quinoa
and an estimated 1043 tonnes of quinoa “in transition”(Source: ANAPQUI).
9. These are the traditional units used locally (rather than metric units).
10. The boliviano is the Bolivian currency.
11. The exchange rate used here is: 1 US$ = 8.05 bolivianos for the year 2005. This exchange rate was
calculated from the exchange rates published monthly on the Central Bank of Bolivia’s website
(www.bcb.gov.bo)
12. However, we should note one indirect beneficial effect of Fair Trade: the local price has generally
increased for everyone (Carimentrand 2008).
13. These are generic standards. They are applicable not only to organisations of quinoa producers, but
also to all the organisations of producers of labelled products.
14. Personal conversation with the person in charge of improving the Solidar’Monde guarantee, June
2007.
References
Adams, R., 1989. Who profits?. Oxford: Lion Publishing.
Alter Eco, 2002. Etude d’impact du commerce équitable au Sri Lanka. Alter Eco, Paris.
Alter Eco, 2007. Alter Eco internal audit report: ANAPQUI, june 2007. Alter Eco, Paris.
Aranda, J., Morales, C., 2002. Evaluación de los beneficios actuales y el potencial para el
combate a la pobreza, de la participación en redes de comercio justo de café en la
coordinadora estatal de productores de café Oaxaca. Colorado State University,
DESAL/Ford Foundation, USA.
Ballet, J., Carimentrand, A., 2007. Le Commerce équitable. Paris: Ellipses.
Ballet, J., Carimentrand, A., 2008. La responsabilité des firmes vis-à-vis du développement :
le cas de la filière quinoa du Fair Trade en Bolivie. Mondes en développement, 36 (4), pp. 13-26.
Barratt-Brown, M., 1993. Fair Trade: Reforms and Realities in the International Trading System.
London: Zed Books Ltd.
Belloncle, G., 1985. Participation paysanne et aménagements hydro-agricoles. Les leçons de cinq
expériences africaines. Paris: Karthala.
Carimentrand, A., 2008. Les enjeux de la certification biologique et équitable du quinoa
(Chenopodium Quinoa Willd.) du consommateur au producteur. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis,
Versailles – Saint Quentin en Yvelines University, France.
Chauveau, C., Eberhart, C., 2002. Etude du commerce équitable dans la filière café en Bolivie.
CICDA, France.
14
Collao Pérez, R., 2003. La cadena productiva de la quinua en Bolivia. UPC SBPC, La Paz,
Bolivia.
Diaz Pedregal, V., 2006. Commerce équitable et organisations de producteurs. Le cas des
caféiculteurs andins au Pérou, en Equateur et en Bolivie. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Diaz Pedregal, V., 2007. Le commerce équitable dans la France contemporaine. Idéologies et
pratiques. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Dietz, M., Piepel, K., Van Biesbrock, J., 2000. Development Impact of Fair Trade:
Contributions for Discussions. Misereor-Bread for the World-Friederich Ebert Foundation.
Eberhart, N., 2007. Dispositif de mesure d’impact du commerce équitable sur les
organisations et familles paysannes et leurs territoires. Proposition méthodologique. AVSF,
Lyon et Nogent sur Marne, France.
Fair Trade Federation, 2006. Fair Trade Trends in North America and the Pacific Rim. Fair
Trade Federation, Washington.
Félix, D., 2004. Diagnostic agraire de la Province Daniel Campos, Bolivie. Le développement
de la filière quinoa et ses conséquences sur l’équilibre du système agraire des Aymaras de la
marca LLica-Tahua ». Unpublished Master Thesis, Montpellier Supagro, France.
FLO, 2003. Standards génériques du commerce équitable pour les organisations de petits
producteurs, version 01.03. www.fairtrade.net (consulted on january 2006).
FLO, 2004. Fairtrade standards for quinoa for small farmer’s organizations.
www.fairtrade.net (consulted on january 2006).
Getz, C., Shreck, A., 2006. What organic and fair trade labels do not tell us: towards a place-
based understanding of certification. International Journal of Consumer Studies 30 (5), pp. 490-
501.
Gonzales, A., Nigh, R., 2005. Certification and smallholder participation in the global market
(Mexico). Journal of Rural Studies 21, pp. 449-460.
Hopkins, R., 2000. Impact Assessment Study of Oxfam Fair Trade. Oxfam UK, London.
Klooster, D., 2005. Environmental certification of forests: the evolution of environmental
governance in a commodity network. Journal of Rural Studies 21, pp. 403-417.
Krier, J.-M., 2008. Fair Trade 2007: new facts and figures from an ongoing success story.
DAWS, Netherlands.
Laguna, P., 2000. El impacto del desarrollo del mercado de la quinua en los sistemas
productivos y modos de vida del Altiplano Sur boliviano. Proceedings of the 16th Congress
of the international association of production systems, Santiago, Chili.
15
Levret, C., 2003. Etude sur la mise en place de nouvelles filières commerce équitable,
proposition d’un système d’organisation au sein de FLO International et de ses membres.
Série Master of Science, 63. CIHEAM-IAMM, France.
Lyon, S., 2002. Evaluation of the Actual and Potential Benefits for the Alleviation of Poverty
through the Participation in Fair Trade Coffee Networks: Guatemala Case Study. Colorado
State University, DESAL/Ford Foundation, USA.
MAE, 2004. Programmes d’appui aux actions non gouvernementales en Bolivie. Evaluation
(1993-2004) des POD (petites opérations de développement) et des cofinancements ». Paris,
Direction générale de la coopération internationale et du développement, Ministère des
Affaires Etrangères.
Maldidier, C., 2006. Quelle construction sociale de la qualité “équitable” d’un produit? Vers
des systèmes de garanties plus fiables et plus équitables. Proceedings of the 2
nd
international
symposium on Fair Trade, Montréal (Québec, Canada) 19-21 June 2006.
Martinez, M.E., 2002. Evaluation of the Actual and Potential Benefits for the Alleviation of
Poverty through the Participation in Fair Trade Coffee Networks: The Case of the Tzobolotic
Coffee Coop Chiapas, Mexico. Colorado State University, DESAL/Ford Foundation, USA.
Mendez, E., 2002. Fair Trade Networks in Two Coffee Cooperatives of Western El Salvador:
An Analysis of Insertion through a Second Level Organization. Colorado State University,
DESAL/Ford Foundation, USA.
Mestre, C., Heeren, N., Castro, I., Rasamoelina, E., 2002. Evaluation de l’impact sur les
producteurs du Sud de l’action Fair Trade mise en oeuvre par Artisans du Monde depuis 25
ans. Artisans du Monde, France.
Milford, A., 2004. Coffee, Co-operatives and Competition: The Impact of Fair Trade. Chr.
Michelsen Institute, Norway.
Moore, G., 2004. The Fair Trade Movement: Parameters, Issues and Future Research. Journal
of Business Ethics 53(1-2), pp. 73-86.
Mutersbaugh, T. 2002. The number is the beast: a political economy of organic-coffee
certification and producer unionism. Environment and Planning A 34, pp. 1165-1184.
Mutersbaugh, T., Klooster, D., Renard, M.-C., Taylor, P., 2005. Certifying rural spaces:
Quality-Certified Products and Rural Governance. Journal of Rural Studies 21, pp. 381-388.
Pérez-Grovas, V., Cervantes, E., 2002. Evaluación de los beneficios actuales y el potencial
para el combate a la pobreza, de la participación en redes de comercio justo de café en la
Union Majomut. Colorado State University, DESAL/Ford Foundation, USA.
Raynolds, L.T., Murray, D., Wilkinson, J., 2007. Fair Trade. The Challenges of Transforming
Globalization. Abingdon: Routledge.
Renard, M.-C., 2005. Quality Certification, Regulation and Power in Fair Trade. Journal of
Rural Studies 21, pp. 419-431.
16
Repo-Carrasco, R., 1992. Cultivos Andinos y la Alimentación Infantil. Serie Investigaciones n°1.
Comisión de Coordinación de Tecnologia Andina (CCTA), Lima (Perú).
Ronchi, L., 2000. Fair Trade in Costa Rica: An Impact Report. University of Sussex, UK.
Southgate, A., 2000. Analysis and Conclusions of the Participatory Impact Assessment
Process of Apeca. Oxfam GB, UK.
Taylor, P., 2005. A fair trade approach to community forest certification?: A framework for
discussion. Journal of Rural Studies 21, pp. 433-447.
Vancauteren, D., 2005. AVSF: Encore un effort pour accompagner l’entrée de la paysannerie
dans le system capitaliste. End of contract report, AVSF, Nogent sur Marne, France.
