Who Decides and Who Benefits?

Fairtrade Social Premium Investments on Kenyan

Flower Farms

Name: Tom Brind

Supervisor: Robert Leurs

Word Count: 12,563

Date: September 2007

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Master of Science degree in Poverty Reduction and Development Management at The University of Birmingham

Contents Acknowledgments ii

Executive Summary iii

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1

Chapter 2 – Background 5

Chapter 3 – Review of the Literature 10

Chapter 4 – A Conceptual Framework and Analytical Tools 18

Chapter 5 – Methodology 21

Chapter 6 – Results: Participation 24

Chapter 7 – Results: Benefits 30

Chapter 8 – Results: Gender and Community Dimensions 35

Chapter 9 – Conclusion 41

References 43

Appendix 1 – Consumer information on Fairtrade product packaging

Appendix 2 – Interview guides for focus groups and one-to-one interviews

Appendix 3 – Participatory frameworks

Appendix 4 – Livelihoods assets: the five ‘capitals’

Appendix 5 – GAM: Community water bore hole project

Appendix 6 – FLO Guidance manual for joint body and social premium use

Appendix 7 – FLO Generic Fairtrade standards for hired labour situations

Acknowledgments

I wish to express my gratitude to all those in the UK and Kenya who contributed to the

study and gave me such valuable support. I would like to say a big thank you to the staff of

the flower farms in the study for their time, co-operation and enthusiasm, including

Samson Lukoba, Lemanken Aramat, Jackson Omari, Caleb Kiptoo, Andy Anindo and

Rose Kiboi. I am also hugely grateful to my interpreter, guide and friend Jackson Mwangi

who contributed so much and made me feel so welcome, and to Angela Mwandia for her

kindness and hospitality. My thanks also go to those at the Fairtrade Foundation and

World Flowers who made my visits to the farms possible, especially Eileen Veitch-Clark,

Chris Davis, Margaret Nderitu and Karen Rono. Finally, I would like to thank my

supervisor, Dr Robert Leurs for his help and encouragement, and my parents and sister Jo

for all their support.

ii

Executive Summary

As global sales of Fair Trade products continue to grow and the Fairtrade ‘mark’ is

increasingly recognised by consumers in developed countries, the demands for academic

evaluations of Fair Trade as a development initiative have also increased.

The payment of a 'social premium' to disadvantaged small-scale producers, on top of a

minimum Fair Trade price, has been described as “the essence of using Fair Trade as a

business-oriented development strategy”. Fairtrade certification of large-scale farms and

plantations has extended the payment of social premiums to include workers that are

regarded as among the most vulnerable in the global supply chain.

The process for deciding how the social premium should be invested, and the impact of

these investments on the lives of workers, represents a particular form of ‘participatory

development’ as well as an important vehicle of the Fair Trade strategy.

This study analyses how decisions are made about social premium investments. It then

assesses the impact of the investments, focusing on the ways in which the livelihoods of

different groups have been improved. It places particular analytical emphasis on the role

played by gender and ‘community’ dimensions.

The study found that on two flower farms in Kenya, the Fairtrade social premium model of

participatory development had led to impressive levels of worker and community

participation and significant improvements to livelihoods.

It found that through a representative system of participatory decision-making, workers’

representatives controlled the use of resources. Proportional representation meant that

workers from different groups, including women, were able to participate in this way and it

had an empowering effect on them as individuals.

Though they did not exercise direct control over decisions, other workers had the

opportunity to participate in joint analysis of problems and solutions. Workers’ influence

was, however, largely limited to direct communication with a representative and they

regarded participation as a means to gain leverage over projects rather than an end in

itself.

iii

The extent to which workers participated was linked to perceptions of personal benefit

from the process and acceptance of the social premium ‘philosophy’. Overall, women’s

participation was felt to be increasing considerably from a low starting point.

‘Leaders’ from the wider community also participated in the decision making process. The

organised groups that they represented, such as schools and tribal groups, enjoyed

considerable benefits from social premium investments, which met some of the most acute

needs in the whole community.

Social premium investments improved livelihoods by increasing access to human and

physical capital. Workers’ livelihoods were most widely improved by education and skills

projects although they also prioritised access to individual physical assets. Workers with

children were perceived to have benefited most from the projects and older workers the

least.

Women’s practical needs, particularly those in the ‘wider’ community, were met by a

variety of social premium projects. In some cases, the impact was life changing.

Nevertheless, neither the participatory process nor social premium projects met any

women’s strategic needs such as increased decision making power at the household

level.

iv

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Introduction and rationale for the study Fair Trade (FT) is at once a social movement, an alternative form of trade, and a

development intervention (Paul 2005). It views the conventional trading system as 'unfair '

because pre-existing disadvantages of particular groups of producers mean that market

costs and benefits are distributed unequally. It views these markets as ‘imperfect’ because

some producers lack the information, skills, networks or resources to fully participate in

them or to develop new ones (Mayoux 2001). The FT movement’s response is diverse, but

its strategic intent is:

• Deliberately to work with marginalised producers and workers in order to help them

move from a position of vulnerability to security and economic self sufficiency

• To empower producers and workers as stakeholders in their own organisations

• Actively to play a wider role in the global arena to achieve greater equity in

international trade (in Krier 2005)

An important component of this FT response is a particular type of relationship between

‘ethical consumers’ that are prepared to pay more for FT products, and the low-income

producers who are perceived to be disadvantaged by the conventional trading system. As

global sales of FT products continue to grow and the Fairtrade ‘mark’ is increasingly

recognised by consumers in developed countries (Krier 2005), the demands for academic

evaluations of FT as a development initiative have also increased (e.g. Robins et al 2002;

Hayes and Moore 2005; Paul 2005).

It has been argued that the popular perception of FT among consumers in developed

countries has largely been limited to the payment of a 'fair’ or minimum price to individual

farmers (Ronchi 2002: 10). Nevertheless, it is a 'communal' aspect of FT, the payment of a

'social premium' to producers on top of the minimum FT price, which has been described

as “the essence of using Fair Trade as a business-oriented development strategy”

(Nicholls 2005).

The importance of this aspect of FT should be viewed within the context of a wider trend in

the development field. The term ‘participatory development’ has been used since the 70s

to describe a large number of methods and approaches, advocated and practised in a

wide variety of contexts, with a variety of aims. The growing consensus regarding the

importance of involving ‘local’ people in development initiatives, masks competing views

about what ‘participation’ means and why it is important (Mohan and Stokke 2000;

Blackburn et al 2000: 11).

The process for deciding how the social premium should be invested, and the impact of

these investments on the lives of producers represents therefore, a particular form of

participatory development as well as an important vehicle of the FT strategy:

“The philosophy underlying the [social] premium...is to empower the workers to think

about, decide democratically and act upon their own social problems and needs, to

become capable of handling their own concerns and taking care of their own interests by

themselves. They are not passive aid recipients, but autonomous actors for their own

development.” (FLO 2004: 2)

The social premium is a feature of the FT 'deal’ that has been extended from small-scale

farmers' co-operatives to include workers on Fairtrade certified farms and plantations,

including some involved in the production of cut flowers. These workers are recognised as

being among the most marginalised and vulnerable in the global supply chain (e.g.

Fairtrade Foundation 2005; Utting-Chomorro 2005).

In Kenya, the cut flower industry has been hailed a development success story both in

terms of raising foreign exchange and providing employment opportunities for the rural

poor (Omosa 2006; Hennock 2002). It is the largest supplier of cut-flowers to Europe, with

a 25% market share and accounts for 8% of Kenya's total export earnings. The industry is

labour intensive, employing an estimated 100,000 Kenyans, approximately two-thirds of

them women (Omosa 2006).

Nevertheless, the industry’s impact on rural development has been questioned by a

coalition of Kenyan and Northern NGOs, who have accused Kenyan farms of worker

exploitation (e.g. Majtenyi 2002). Far from being ‘participants’ in their own development, it

has been argued that many lack the ‘voice’ even to challenge highly exploitative

conditions. These include poor working and living conditions, low pay, exposure to

hazardous chemicals and non-unionisation. Reports also suggest that there is a gender

dimension to the exploitation (e.g. Dolan et al 2003; Tallontire et al 2005).

2

It is against such a backdrop that FT aims to ensure minimum economic, social and

environmental standards and, through the social premium, to facilitate a model of

participatory development in which workers make decisions about their own needs and

make investments to improve their own livelihoods and those of others in their

communities (FLO 2004; 2007a).

Focus of the study This study aims to evaluate how different stakeholders, on two FT flower farms in Kenya,

participate in decisions about FT social premium investments, and how they benefit from

these investments.

To achieve this, the study first provides an analysis of how decisions are made about

social premium investments, particularly focusing on the types of participation and the

Fairtrade (FLO) framework. Secondly, the study assesses the impact of social premium

investments, focusing on the perceptions of different stakeholders about the ways in which

the livelihoods of different groups have been improved by projects funded by the social

premium. Finally the study the draws out the role played by gender and ‘community’

dimensions in terms of participation and benefits.

Objectives

(a) To identify who participates, and how, in the decision-making process for Fairtrade

social premium investments

(b) To assess the ways in which the livelihoods of different stakeholders are improved

by projects funded by the Fairtrade social premium

(c) To evaluate the role that gender and 'community' dimensions play in decision-

making about social premiums and the distribution of benefits from their investment.

Limitations Time constraints posed the main practical limitation for this study. It meant that the study

was restricted to data collection on two flower farms.

3

Outline of the dissertation The following chapter provides important context. It locates the focus of this study within

the wider FT movement. It outlines how the expansion of FT has led to the inclusion of

workers involved in production on large-scale farms and plantations. It explains how the

key aspects of the FT ‘deal’ for southern producers is intended to impact on the lives of

these workers, introducing the concept of the social premium component.

Chapter three provides a review of the literature. This is broken down into 3 sections

based on different types of literature. The first provides a review of the academic literature

that focuses on three areas of particular interest to the study: the social premium, gender

and participation and community stakeholders. The second type is information aimed at

‘northern’ consumers on the packaging of Fairtrade products. The third type is

organisational literature from the Fairtrade Labelling Organisations International (FLO).

Overall, the review serves to identify gaps in the literature, to justify the focus of the study,

to inform the study methodology and as a basis for comparing and contrasting the findings.

Chapter four builds on aspects of the literature review to establish a conceptual framework

and to describe some analytical tools used to inform the field study methodology and

analyse the findings. Chapter five outlines the methodological approach used in the study.

Chapters six to eight describe the results of the study in relation to the three objectives laid

out above and chapter nine presents the study’s conclusion.

4

Chapter 2 – Background Fairtrade, Hired Labour and the Social Premium

The purpose of this chapter is to locate the focus of this study – Fairtrade social premium

investments on Kenyan flower farms – within the wider context of the FT system. It first

shows how the expansion of FT has led to the inclusion of workers involved in production

on commercial farms. It then outlines how the key aspects of the FT ‘deal’ for southern

producers are intended to impact on the lives of these workers, emphasising the

importance of the social premium component.

Mainstreaming FT: expansion through labelling

The FT movement is both complex and diverse, with different types of organisations

carrying out a number of different activities at different levels of the supply and marketing

chain (Jones and Bayley 2000: 3; Mayoux 2001: 9). Generally though, FT advocates

support the following principles and practices in trading relationships:

● Creating opportunities for disadvantaged producers

● Transparency and accountability

● Capacity building as a means to develop producers' independence

● Payment of a fair price

● Gender equality

● Safe and healthy working conditions

● Environmental protection

These principles and practices form the heart of the trading relationship between southern

FT producer organisations and so-called ‘Alternative Trade Organisations’ (ATOs). Until

the late 1990s this relationship constituted the core of the FT movement. These producer

organisations, often co-operatives, have typically been created to help their membership of

small-scale farmers who are ‘disadvantaged’ by market inequalities, such as lack of

market access, information and credit, which contribute to low ‘farm gate’ prices and rural

poverty (Nicholls 2005).

The ATOs trade directly with the producer organisations, offering benefits such as market

security, access to finance, capacity building and a ‘fair price’ that might be passed directly

to producers or held in a ‘social’ fund. Neither the local producer groups nor the ATOs are

5

motivated by profit. Normally the ATO is (or is closely associated with) a development or

charitably based NGO, and the trading is an activity within a wider development strategy.1

The producer-controlled cooperatives or associations, are usually trading to support social

and development programmes (Jones and Bayley 2000: 7; Tallontire 2000; Moore 2004).

The logic of this approach might suggest that it is impossible for mainstream companies,

bound to maximise profits for owners and shareholders, to aspire to engage in such FT

practices (Jones and Bayley 2000). However, the FT movement’s vision of providing a

critique of conventional international trade and a practical example of an alternative way of

trading has led to FT moving into the mainstream. In the last decade, it is the expansion of

the FT system to include such profit-oriented business and mainstream distribution

channels that has been responsible for the huge growth in sales of FT products (Krier

2005).

This expansion has been based on a system of Fairtrade2 certification and labelling which

creates consumer confidence on the basis of an independent Fairtrade 'mark' rather than

the development reputation or 'brand' of a specific ATO. The system has had a huge

impact. In 2005 the value of FT products sold in Europe was €660m, of which €597m was

for labelled products (Krier 2005).

Any profit-oriented business can carry the Fairtrade ‘mark’ on their product if it has been

sourced through an approved producer organisation in a manner that meets trading criteria

(Jones and Bayley 2000; FLO 2007c). Since 1997, the Fairtrade Labelling Organisations

International (FLO) has set standards that southern producers need to meet to be

registered as sources for FT products, and set the criteria by which both producer and

buyer must agree to trade.

From farmers' co-operatives to hired workers

While the Fairtrade standards have enabled FT to incorporate mainstream business into

the system on the buyer side, they have also seen its expansion to include more profit-

oriented organisations on the producer side. FLO standards have now been developed to

certify 18 products, the majority of which are still for commodities produced by small-scale

vi 1 An example of this ATO-NGO association is Oxfam Fair Trading and Oxfam International. 2 Fairtrade (one word) is used to describe the certification and labeling system overseen by FLO International. Fair trade (two words) or FT, is used to refer to the movement that promotes international labour, environmental, economic and social standards for the production of labelled and unlabelled goods

6

farmers, in democratic organisations such as co-operatives. However, products from hired

labour situations such as farms and plantations, now represent seven of those covered by

FLO standards (FLO 2007).

In order to participate, large-scale paid-labour farms must show that they too are

disadvantaged by the conventional trading system and that they are prepared to promote

workers’ development. FLO itself has recognised the potential for FT development

priorities to conflict with profit-maximising objectives and an organisational culture which

holds that “management’s business is to produce and to make money, not to do social

work!” (quoted in FLO 2004: 4). Alternatively though, such companies may be ‘enlightened

employers’ with their own positive reasons for treating workers equally and offering better

terms of employment (Hayes and Moore 2005).3

By including such companies through the labelling system, FT seeks to benefit poor farm

workers in developing countries, who are recognised as being among the most vulnerable

people in global supply chains (Fairtrade Foundation 2006; Utting-Chomorro 2005). In

many developing countries hired labour workers are more numerous than small-scale

farmers and, in terms of assets, may be poorer (NRI 1999; Fairtrade Foundation 2005). In

the case of the Kenyan cut flower industry it has been reported that symptoms of this

vulnerability have included low-pay, high levels of casual labour, forced overtime,

overcrowded living conditions and low levels of trade union membership (e.g. Omosa et al

2006; Lawrence 2005).

In a system where both buyer and producer organisation might be profit, rather than

development, oriented, the Fairtrade labelling standards to which they both must adhere

are the foundation of FT as a development intervention. An independent organisation

called FLO-CERT is responsible for ensuring compliance with the standards.4

The FT 'deal' for farmers and workers

The FLO standards reflect the core principles of FT, and in a sense make them a more

uniform and stringent test for buyers and producers. A key example for this study is the

ranging from handcrafts to agricultural commodities. 3 While the relationship between management and workers on the farm is of central interest to this study, it does not make any assumptions about this relationship or its implications for the viability of FT development objectives in hired labour situations. 4 It inspects and certifies approximately 1200 producer organisations in more than 70 countries, encompassing approximately one and a half million farmers and workers (FLO-Cert 2007).

7

prominence of women’s empowerment within and as a condition of Fairtrade certification.

Although they share the same underlying principles, separate generic standards have

been developed by FLO to reflect the different production conditions for small-scale

farmers and hired labour in commercial companies. The FT 'deal' offered to workers,

therefore, is significantly different to that offered to small farmers (FLO 2007a; FLO

2007b).

The 'fair' or minimum price is a central dimension of Fairtrade for small-scale farmers, who

often receive an above market price for their produce through the co-operative (e.g.

FLO2007b). This ‘fair’ price aspect does not apply in the same way to hired labour

however, where it is the company that receives the direct price benefit. Workers are

intended to benefit from these additional revenues generated by Fairtrade through

company commitments to wage and conditions improvements. Similarly, the long-term

contracts that are a key benefit of the Fairtrade relationship to both co-operatives and

hired-labour companies, benefit workers through the company commitments to these

improvements (FLO 2007a; FLO2007c).

The Fairtrade social premium

The payment of a social premium to the co-operative or farm worker organisation, is a

component of both standards and is intended to impact on farmers and workers in the

same way. The social premium is paid in addition to the price paid for the product, and in

the case of cut flowers amounts to an additional 8% of the export price (FLO 2007c). It is

intended to be used for communal projects that improve “the socio-economic situation of

the workers, their families and communities” (FLO 2007a: 25). Where the other aspects of

the FT ‘deal’ can be understood to afford workers fundamental ‘minimum’ benefits such as

a living wage and safe, healthy working conditions, the intention of the social premium can

be seen as the developmental component of the FT ‘deal’ for workers (Nicholls 2005).

Although community or social development has long been a focus of the FT producer-

buyer relationship (e.g. Mayoux undated) the FLO criteria have made this ‘ringfenced’

payment a specific and standard component of the ‘deal’ for producers. The FLO

standards have also provided some conceptual clarity regarding the term 'premium'. The

standards use the term 'Fairtrade Premium' to refer to this additional payment. This differs

from an alternative usage of the term ‘premium’ to refer to the differential between the

Fairtrade minimum price and the conventional world market price (e.g. Ronchi 2002). To

8

avoid confusion, this study uses the term 'social premium' to distinguish it from this

differential.

Conclusion By locating the focus of this study within the complex FT movement, this chapter has

underlined the importance of the social premium for Fairtrade’s development objectives

and of Fairtrade’s expansion to include workers on commercial farms.

9

Chapter 3 – Review of the Literature

This chapter uses three types of literature to accomplish a number of purposes. The first

type is literature related to the study of the impact of FT. This review identifies important

methodological issues and key gaps in the literature, focusing on three areas of particular

interest to the study: the social premium, gender and participation and community

stakeholders. The review serves to justify the focus of this study, to refine the methodology

and provide important context for the findings.

The second type is information on the packaging of Fairtrade products aimed at

consumers in developed countries. As a consumer choice movement, the expansion of

Fairtrade to hired labour is underpinned by growing demand for FT products (e.g. Nicholls

2005). The components of FT that are most emphasised by buyers in order to help

stimulate this demand are an appropriate and necessary focus for evaluation. The review

of this information provides further justification for the focus of this study.

The third type is organisational literature from the Fairtrade Labelling Organisations

International (FLO). The standards and guidelines relating to the social premium provide a

basis for comparing and contrasting the findings of the field study.

Studies of the impact of Fair Trade The literature highlights that FT has the potential to impact on a variety of stakeholders in

a variety of ways (e.g. Mayoux 2000; Ronchi 2002; Robins et al 2002; MacMillan 2006). A

number of academics and consultants have, however, highlighted the need for more

assessments that focus on the impact of specific aspects of FT on particular groups and

stakeholders (e.g. Robins et al 1999: 49; Utting-Chamorro 2005: 586; Becchetti and

Constantino 2006). Although most studies recognise the multiple dimensions of FT, the

primary research focus has been on the minimum price dimension. Virtually all studies

also focus on FT within the context of small-scale farm production rather than hired labour

situations, with coffee co-operatives being the most prominent (e.g. Ronchi 2002: 9; Bacon

2005; Jones and Bayley 2000: 29; Murray et al 2006; Reynolds et al 2002).

Methodologies

The vast majority of the studies are based on qualitative data based on case studies. In

Paul's review of FT impact assessment methodologies, she advocates the use of

10

participatory and qualitative methods to evaluate the impact of FT as they “correspond

better to the objectives of and means available for such an evaluation, particularly since

the impact of Fair Trade arises from non-quantifiable elements and processes” (2005:

144). Paul also advocates the use of the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods (SRL) framework

as a means of analysing the data. This is an approach that has been used in a number of

case studies (e.g. Blowfield and Gallet 2001; NRI 1999; Nelson et al 2002; Jones and

Bayley 2000). The value of such an approach will be discussed further in Chapter 4 along

with other analytical tools used in this study.

The literature also highlights the methodological difficulties in measuring the benefits of FT

(e.g. Raynolds et al 2002:17; Ronchi 2002: 9). Raynolds suggests this is because:

“it is hard to measure the potentially wide ranging material and non-material benefits

deriving from Fair Trade to the potentially broad base of beneficiaries and even if benefits

are documented it is difficult to causally attribute these to Fair Trade networks, particularly

where only a small proportion of production is oriented toward Fair Trade networks” (2002:

17)

This study attempts to overcome some of these difficulties. Firstly, it focuses on a

particular component of FT (the social premium), an approach also advocated by Paul

(2005: 146). Secondly, although it considers the impact on all workers, this study places

particular analytical emphasis on the experience of women workers and ‘beneficiaries’ in

the wider community. Finally, because both of the case study farms receive considerable

social premium amounts which are usually the sole funding source, any benefits are likely

to be attributable to their investments.5

Social premiums

Most studies or academic articles on FT note the social premium aspect of the pricing

system. Some emphasise its importance (e.g. Nicholls 2005; Murray et al 2006; MacMillan

2006), with Nicholls describing this component as “the essence of using Fairtrade as a

business-oriented development strategy” (2005: 11). Despite this however, there are very

few studies that attempt to assess the impact of social premium investments.

xi 5 In 2006, Farm A sold around 15% of its produce under Fairtrade amounting to a premium income of KSh 22,360,953. Farm B sold around 40% of its produce amounting to a premium income of KSh 5,669,991.

11

However, the 'misuse' of the social premium has been reported in a couple of studies.

They suggest that despite the FLO standards on the use of the social premium, the

leaders of producer organisations have at times taken the decision to use the money to

cover operational costs (Blowfield and Gallet 2001; Murray 2005).

According to Jones and Bayley, the impact of social premium investments are likely to be

reliant on two key issues: “the effectiveness of producer control over the use of the

premium...and the extent to which the interests of relatively poor and marginalised

producers are reflected in decisions about social investment” (2000: 24). This view

supports the approach of this study – to focus on participation in the decision making

process and the distribution of benefits of those investments in terms of livelihoods.

FT, gender and decision making

There has been little systematic research conducted on the impact of FT in tackling gender

inequality even though this is a key objective of the FT movement and commitment to it is

a condition for certification (FLO 2007a). A number of papers do suggest, however, that

women are actually less likely to participate in FT schemes at all, largely because of 'local

realities' that restrict women's access to necessary assets such as land (e.g. Reynolds

2002; Utting-Chomorro 2005). Nevertheless, these papers focus on small-holder coffee

co-operatives, whereas the focus of this study is the hired labour situation of the Kenyan

flower industry, in which women make up the majority of employees (Omosa et al 2006).

Those studies that do assess the impact of FT on gender inequality demonstrate that this

varies between producer organisations. For example, Nelson found that in schemes in

Peru gender issues were ignored and benefits were distributed unevenly along gender

lines, replicating existing inequalities (2002). In contrast, Utting-Chomorro suggests that in

an association of Nicaraguan co-operatives where gender equity is promoted, the

opportunities offered by FT have helped women take greater control of their lives and

increase their participation in decision making at co-operative and household level (2005).

Though there are few studies on the gendered impact of FT, the wider literature on gender

and participatory development offers some important insights. Importantly for this study,

academics have offered gender-based criticisms of the participatory approach (e.g.

Jackson 1995; Kabeer 1996). Kabeer, for example, argues that women's participation

does not necessarily mean their priorities will be identified. She says “the power of social

12

conditioning can shape the 'choices' that women make to the extent that they may be

resigned to, and indeed actively promote, the distribution of resources that discriminate

against them and their daughters” (1996: 18).

The conceptual framework used in this study incorporates the idea of competing and

changing interests within a participatory process. It is also informed by an awareness that

gender often plays a key role in that process and in how development interventions are

experienced.

FT, access and community ‘beneficiaries’

People who live in a 'local' community in which a FT scheme operates, but who don’t

participate directly, are identified as stakeholders in some of the FT literature (e.g. Mayoux

2001; NRI 1999; MacMillan 2006). It is suggested that they might benefit directly from the

investment of social premiums (e.g. Mayoux 2001: 12).

This literature review was unable to identify any studies assessing the impact of FT

generally, or social premium investments specifically, on the members of the 'wider'

community. Some academic studies, do however, emphasise that those community

members that don’t participate in FT schemes may be excluded because they are more

marginalised in terms of assets than those able to participate (e.g. NRI 1999; Utting-

Chomorro 2005; Reynolds et al 2002). For example, access to natural capital, particularly

land, is a prerequisite for participation in small-scale farming schemes, the area where FT

has typically been focused (e.g. NRI 1999).

The extension of FT schemes to hired labour situations has enabled some people without

access to natural resources to participate. Nevertheless the literature suggests that

although access to human capital in terms of formal education is rarely necessary, health

and physical strength, do determine who can participate in particular hired labour

situations too (e.g. Blowfield and Gallet 2001; Pryer et al 2005) The time requirements for

participation can also mitigate against women, and access to social capital, particularly in

terms of tribal links, has been shown to be a further determinant of participation on

plantations (Blowfield and Gallet 2001; NRI 1999: 30).

Although FT’s primary focus is on disadvantaged producers and workers, its wider mission

has been to improve the position of all disadvantaged people in developing countries

13

through trade (Fairtrade Foundation 2005). This means that this study’s interest in the FT

impact on those in the ‘wider’ community, that might be the most marginalised, is entirely

appropriate.

FT information aimed at consumers These gaps in the academic literature regarding studies of social premium impacts and

community benefits are emphasised when contrasted with samples of information aimed at

consumers in developed countries.

The information provided on the products’ packaging or on the shelf just below the

products is likely to be used by the consumer, along with the Fairtrade ‘mark’ itself, to

make a judgement about the possible impact of their purchase. This consumer choice is

the very basis for the expansion of Fairtrade, so the components used to stimulate

demand are an appropriate and necessary focus for evaluation.

Fifteen products were chosen as a random sample from two major UK supermarkets,

Sainsbury’s and Waitrose. Although random, the sample was purposive in that Kenyan

roses were selected as one of the products in order to reflect the case study context.

Of the fifteen sample products:

• Eight mention the term ‘community’, suggesting a beneficial impact at this level;

• Three mention the ‘premium’ as a key aspect of Fairtrade;

• Three mention the term ‘social’;

• Six refer to specific social or community development projects such as water or a

health clinic;

• Eleven refer to at least one of these things.6

Though reliant on a small sample, this review provides added justification for this study’s

focus on the impact of the social premium on the livelihoods of stakeholders, as the

communal development component of the Fairtrade ‘deal’.

xiv 6 See appendix 1 for the complete information on each product.

14

FLO standards and guidelines for social premium use The FLO standards set out the requirements with which producer organisations must

comply in order to be certified 'Fairtrade'. In hired labour situations, the criteria for the

management and use the social premium is based on a concept called the 'Joint Body'

(JB). Through this body, workers and management are intended to decide jointly on the

use of the premium. The standards go into considerable depth in an attempt to ensure that

the decision-making process is democratic, transparent, that it empowers workers and that

the premium is “used for improvement of the socio-economic situation of the workers, their

families and communities” (FLO 2007a).

In addition to the generic standards, FLO produced a “Guidance Manual for Joint Bodies

and Premium Use”. This lays out in more detail the JB procedures, roles and

responsibilities that the standards state must be adhered to (FLO 2007a: 25). The purpose

of the manual though is really to illustrate the underlying philosophy of the social premium

and the JB concept.

By combining the key points from both these documents it is possible to outline how in

theory the social premium aspect of FT is intended to impact on the workers, their families

and communities of the Kenyan flower farms, in terms of process and actual investment.

Along with the conceptual frameworks discussed in the following chapter this theoretical

outline provides context and aids analysis of this study's findings.

Process of decision-making

“The philosophy underlying the premium and the Joint Body concept is to empower the

workers to think about, decide democratically and act upon their social problems and

needs, to become capable of handling their own concerns and taking care of their own

interests by themselves. They are not passive aid recipients, but autonomous actors for

their own development” (FLO 2004: 2)

The following key points help form the basis for the evaluation of the participatory process

on the flower farms. They have different implications for the distinct actors in the process

(i.e. management representatives on the JB; worker representatives on the JB; all other

workers), and these inform the study’s interviews that seek an understanding of the

15

participatory process from their different perspectives.7

1. The JB is a concept intended to give workers control over decision making. The

farm’s management is, however, represented on the JB. Their role is to actively

support the workers representatives by providing encouragement, know-how and

experience. The workers’ representatives should take the lead, and all decisions

require the consent of the majority of workers’ representatives.

2. All groups of workers should have a say in how to spend the premiums. Particular

emphasis is placed on women’s participation in decision making. Workers’

participation occurs in two main ways. Firstly, through electing or being nominated

to the JB. The composition of the JB is supposed to reflect the workforce, including

a proportional gender representation. Secondly, by articulating views and interests

in a continuous (participatory) consultation process with the JB.

3. For these processes to function, emphasis is placed on the capacity building of

workers both inside and outside the JB. For most workers this should entail an

understanding of the JB and social premium ‘philosophy’ and that the JB is

responsible to them and their interests. They should receive help to analyse their

problems and needs, and to articulate their ideas and priorities. Emphasis is also

placed on building the capacity of representatives through more in-depth training

both to empower them and to ensure they can carry out their functions. As well as

core skills such as communication, project and financial management, there is a

focus on participatory skills such as participatory planning and needs assessment.

4. The JB should facilitate an ongoing participatory process to identify projects for

premium use. They should use a variety of tools to ensure all workers and their

community can express their needs and propose actions and solutions. These

include meetings, interviews, referendums, surveys and suggestion boxes which

should take place during working hours. All requests and suggestions are

documented by the JB and their decisions explained to the workers. Explanations

should help workers to understand the philosophy underlying the use of the social

premium (as discussed in the next section). At each stage of the project

management process the JB should go back to the workers and consult them on

xvi 7 This is addressed further in chapter five and appendix 2.

16

upcoming decisions. This process should result in a yearly ‘work plan’ for social

premium projects, that takes into account the needs of all workers as far as

possible. Importantly, participation should increase over time as workers’ capacity is

increased and the benefits of the process are emphasised (FLO 2004; FLO 2007a).

Social premium projects and expenditure

The main point made in the FLO standards about project selection, is that it is ultimately

the responsibility of the JB, after going through the participatory process. It does, however,

also stipulate that the FLO guidelines should be adhered to. These provide much more

detail about how projects should be selected and constitute the essence of the social

premium ‘philosophy’. Projects should:

● Have communal rather than individual benefit

● Have a wide impact, not just on workers but also their families and the larger

community – workers should express social responsibility through solidarity with the

wider community

● Help address existing inequalities by considering marginalised or discriminated

groups

● Provide benefits with an enduring impact – the money should be used for long-term,

sustainable projects not consumption

● Satisfy basic needs, prioritising the most urgent needs of the community

● Not be used for purposes which are the responsibility of the company (legally or

under Fairtrade standards), the government or other institution except in special

cases.

The guidelines also emphasise the need for a thorough needs assessment as the first step

for identifying projects and suggests a number of tools that could be used to do this.

Conclusion This review of a wide range of literature serves to justify the focus and methodological

approach of this study and contribute to the framework in which the findings of the field

study are analysed.

17

Chapter 4 – A Conceptual Framework and Analytical Tools Following on from the review of the literature, this chapter presents a conceptual

framework based on three principles related to poverty and development. It then outlines

some analytical tools that are linked to this conceptual framework and are used to inform

the field study methodology and analyse the findings.

A conceptual framework

The first concept on which this study is based is that of ‘participatory development’. This is

an approach to development which holds that ‘local’ people’s knowledge counts, and is as

appropriate a basis for development action as that knowledge brought in by ‘outside’

professionals (Chambers 1983). It is, however, recognised that the concept has been

interpreted and used in a variety of ways to achieve a variety of objectives. The distinction

has been made between participation ‘as a means to an end’ and participation ‘as an end

in itself’. The former is argued to improve efficiency and effectiveness of projects and to

increase leverage for participants, the latter to lead to ‘empowerment’ of participants

(Marsden 1991; White 1996). It is therefore vital to identify what type of participation is

taking place and to recognise that participation is a dynamic process that can change over

time.

The second concept is that poverty is multidimensional and can be defined in terms of

concepts such as capabilities, assets, vulnerability and entitlements as well as inadequate

income (e.g. Sen 1999). An approach to understanding poverty from a ‘people-centred’

perspective is to look at the range of activities and assets that an individual or household is

able to make use of. This approach holds that a household’s ‘livelihood’ is determined by

access to assets including tangible material resources that they own, communal resources

and intangible assets such as community networks. Development interventions can

therefore serve to increase access to one or more asset, thus helping households to

increase well-being and/or avoid further impoverishment (e.g. Ellis 1998; DFID 2001).

The third concept is that poverty and development are experienced differently by women

and men.8 The study and analysis of the findings are informed by an awareness of two

xviii 8 This is informed by a wider understanding that social difference, including age, class, disability, ethnicity and caste as well as gender, are relevant to an individual’s circumstances and life opportunity, and the extent to which they benefit from generally-applied development interventions (e.g. Anderson 1999). The key axis of difference that is highlighted by the fair trade 'movement' is gender. This has also been a key issue

18

conceptual models. The first highlights the idea that women have practical interests or

needs, based on the roles that they play in society such as in child care. This ‘Women in

Development’ (WID) model focuses on overcoming inequalities in the development

process by increasing women’s access to resources to meet these needs. A more recent

conceptual model, ‘Gender and Development’ (GAD), emphasises women’s strategic

interests, those related to changing structures or practices of gender inequality. An

example of this is women’s subordinate decision making status at household or community

level (Razavi and Miller 1995; Pearson 2000).

Participatory frameworks

There have been various attempts to unpack the term ‘participation’ to look in greater

detail at how and when people participate in development processes. This study uses

components from two different analytical tools. The first is a typology that distinguishes

between seven different kinds of participation, which range from passive participation to

interactive participation and self-mobilisation (Pretty et al 1995). The second framework

facilitates an understanding of the ‘dynamic’ nature of participation. This suggests that

participation is a process that changes over time, and that the interests of participants are

diverse and are influenced by power structures and the development process itself (White

1996).9 These components combined with the participatory model outlined in the FLO

literature, provide an analytical context in which to situate the study’s findings. They also

inform the questions posed in the focus groups and interviews.

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework is used to organise the data on how participants

perceive themselves and others to have benefited from the social premium investments.

The framework as a whole has five interrelated components: the vulnerability context;

livelihoods assets; policy, institutions and processes; livelihoods strategies; and livelihoods

outcomes (see diagram 1 below).

For the purpose of this study, however, emphasis is restricted to the ‘livelihoods assets’

component of the framework. This provides a way of analysing the impact of different

investments, by looking at how an individual or household’s access to different assets has

for the Kenyan flower industry as a whole (e.g. Dolan et al 2003). For these reasons, evaluating the role of gender in the decision-making process and distribution of benefits from social premium investments is an objective of this study. 9 More detail on each type is provided in appendix 3.

19

been increased. The livelihood assets available to poor households are categorised as

human capital, natural capital, financial capital, social capital and physical capital. 10

Diagram 1

Gender Analysis Matrix

The study employs a Gender Analysis Matrix (GAM) tool in order to provide the

methodology with a gender focus and achieve the third objective of the study. The GAM

helps determine the different impact investments have had on women and men, by

providing a community-based technique for identifying and analysing gender differences. It

also encourages participants to evaluate the impact of an investment project from the

perspective of the community as a whole.

xx 10 These are described in more detail in appendix 4.

20

Chapter 5 – Methodology

Sample selection and criteria for study areas The field work for this study was based on visits to two of the of the five Fairtrade flower

farms in Kenya. The field visits were limited to these two farms mainly because of time

constraints. The study areas were not selected with the aim of comparing and contrasting

the two farms but to evaluate the social premium participation process and investment

projects overall in order to meet the objectives of the study.

Focus groups and interviews were conducted with four separate groups: Management

representatives on the JB, workers’ representatives on the JB, non-JB workers and

community members. Participants were separated along these lines in order to understand

how they are involved differently in the decision making process, the first objective of the

study. Participants’ responses were also disaggregated by gender in order to meet the

third objective of the study.

Three focus group sessions were held on farm A and two on farm B. Overall, two were

held with JB workers’ representatives, three with other workers, and three with people from

the surrounding communities. The data from these focus groups was supplemented by

eleven one-to-one interviews with workers, community members and JB management

representatives.

The investigator’s influence over who participates in the focus groups was limited given the

nature of the working environment. The main consequence of this was that the workers

participating in any given focus group came from the same section or department. As the

departments tend to be either predominantly male or predominantly female, so too did the

focus groups. Individual focus groups all had some mixed gender representation, and

overall the gender ratio of participants in worker focus groups was about 3:2 in favour of

women.

As the focus groups and interviews were held during the working day, permission had to

be granted to workers by management. The investigator was concerned that this might

mean participants could be selected on the basis that they give a positive perspective of

the farm management and/or the FT processes and impacts. In practice this was not felt to

have been the case.

21

Semi-structured interviews and focus groups The semi-structured interviews and focus groups were based on the conceptual framework

outlined in the previous chapter and made use of those corresponding analytical tools to

partially structure the process. These informed the different sections of the focus groups,

particularly those with non-JB workers, where each section was designed to generate

findings to meet a different objective of the study.11

Nevertheless, within each section none of the tools were applied rigidly but were used to

elicit the opinions and perceptions of the participants. As King has noted in reference to

the Gender Analysis Matrix, the tool should be used simply and flexibly in order to facilitate

analysis and not act as a comprehensive database of structured information (2001). The

whole process of data collection was informed by the interpretive approach to social

science research which is concerned with gaining an understanding of the way different

people see the world and experience their lives (Neuman 1994).

The questions that were used to guide the semi-structured interviews were tested in a pilot

and modified after feedback. This is mainly to ensure that the translated questions were

well understood by participants, and that the interpreter understood and was able to

convey key concepts.

The first section of the focus groups with farm workers focused on the participants’

recollections and perceptions of the decision making process for projects identified in the

JBs’ annual plans and reports. The questions used to guide this section of the

interviews/focus groups were informed by a combination of key aspects of the FLO

guidelines and of the conceptual participation frameworks.12

The second section of the focus groups concentrated on the benefits participants perceive

to have come from particular social premium projects. Participants were encouraged to

think about the specific ways they have benefited, which particular needs or interests the

projects have met and which other groups they perceive to have benefited or not

benefited.

xxii 11 The question guide used in the different interviews and focus groups are recorded in appendix 2. 12 See appendix 6 for the full FLO guidelines document.

22

The third section of the focus group with workers was intended to be based loosely on the

Gender Analysis Matrix (GAM). However, because of fieldwork restrictions, the GAM was

only used to analyse the impact of projects in the ‘wider’ community.13 The GAM was

ineffective in the workers’ focus groups because the necessary conceptual understanding

was restricted by time and workers were unable to focus on a single project. ‘Community’

focus group participants had a deeper knowledge of a single project and more time to

analyse it. Nevertheless, although the GAM wasn’t used, workers still provided valuable

information on how different projects had impacted on people differently at household and

community level.14

xxiii 13 See appendix 5 for an application of the GAM. 14 Participants were encouraged to discuss their definition of "community" in the context of the project.

23

Chapter 6 – Results: Participation

This chapter details the findings from the interviews related to participation. These results

address the first objective of the dissertation

(a) To identify who participates, and how, in the decision-making process for Fairtrade

social premium investments

The structure divides the chapter into sections that relate to key points from the FLO

literature and the participatory frameworks outlined in Chapter 4.

Worker representation Worker representation is the core of the social premium participatory model. The FLO

standards state that workers’ representatives on the JB have the final decision making

responsibility. On the farms in this study, the 20 or so workers on the JB represented

specific work sections or departments such as production or packing. The most basic way

in which the majority of workers are intended to influence the decision-making process is,

therefore, by voting for a candidate that will best represent their interests.

All the interviewed workers reported having voted in the elections for representatives to the

JB. They also cited direct contact with their section representative as the most effective

channel by which they could influence decision-making.

The vast majority of interviewees in all categories felt that workers’ representatives indeed

had the final decision-making power on the JB. Although one particular group of workers

claimed that management representatives had “the upper hand over some of the

decisions”, the other groups of workers, and workers’ representatives refuted this

suggestion. They agreed that the management role was primarily one of support.

The way workers’ representatives participate in the social premium process displays

characteristics of ‘self-mobilisation’, the ‘highest’ type in Pretty’s typology. Although they

have contact with external institutions for resources and advice, crucially, they retain

control over how the resources are used. Clearly such a ‘high’ type of participation cannot

apply to the majority of workers where farms employ up to 6000 staff.

24

The nature and regularity of elections influences how many workers, and which ones, are

able to participate in this way. The study found that each of these involves a trade-off.

Firstly, the FLO requires that the JB proportionally reflects the workforce, but one

management representative argued that this meant the nature of elections “will never be

truly democratic”.

Nevertheless, proportionality seemed to be important for the representation of marginal

interests. Two JB workers, one with a hearing impairment, the other elected as a seasonal

worker, each felt a particular responsibility to represent the interests of these groups. The

most prominent issue was gender representation, which is addressed in more detail in

Chapter 8.

A trade-off regarding the frequency of elections was also reported. Although only a small

proportion of workers are able to participate as a representative, the more frequent the

elections, the greater the opportunity. However, management reported that they had

reduced the frequency of election for a minority of JB positions from two to four years.

Experience had shown that they needed to prioritise skills retention and continuity so that

the JB could function effectively.

Training and capacity building The FLO documents regard the building of workers’ capacity as a pre-requisite for their

participation in the decision-making process. In line with FLO guidance, the study found

both farms prioritised the training of JB members to carry out their responsibilities.

Workers’ representatives identified a variety of formal training they had received to build

their core skills including project identification, project planning, project management and

leadership. The JB workers were enthusiastic about the personal and organisational

impact of the training with one urging a colleague, “now you can go and lead an NGO!”.

Management representatives identified JB capacity building as one of their main

responsibilities in the social premium process. However, they highlighted the time and

financial costs of JB training, asserting that the extent of capacity building should be

dictated by functionality and efficiency considerations alone, not benefits to individual

members.

25

The JBs’ capacity to identify viable projects with the use of the FLO selection criteria is

crucial to their decision-making function, and their thorough understanding of the

‘philosophy’ was evident from the focus groups.

The study found that their ability to pass on this understanding to workers was crucial to

workers’ participation. Where workers understood and accepted the validity of the FLO

selection criteria or ‘philosophy’, they were more likely to be satisfied with the decision-

making process and play a role within it. Conversely, misunderstanding, disagreements

and poor communication around how projects were selected by the JB seemed to be the

main source of frustration and discontent among workers about the social premium. This

was manifest in statements made by workers about the levels and types of participation

and the extent and distribution of benefits from social premium investments.

Reports from the JB and workers’ focus groups suggested that the ‘philosophy’ had indeed

been the focus of worker capacity building. Nevertheless, JB representatives accepted

despite their “campaign” it had been a slow and difficult process.

Direct capacity building of individual workers to help them participate was regarded as a

“tall order” given time and financial restrictions. This leaves the onus on the JB members

to facilitate wider, more in-depth participation among workers through their own

participatory skills. JB workers’ responses, however, suggested there had been little

emphasis on training in participatory methods such as participatory needs assessment.

This may be understandable, given budgetary and time pressures and the need to

prioritise core skills. Nevertheless, as noted in the following sections, the introduction of

new participatory methods had a great impact on workers’ feelings of involvement.

Analysing needs and proposing projects The most direct way in which workers can influence decision-making about social premium

investments is to identify their needs and to propose projects that are in line with the FLO

selection criteria. The JB is supposed to encourage and help workers to analyse their

problems and to articulate their ideas (FLO 2004: 4).

The study found that direct verbal communication between workers and their section

representative was the foundation of the participatory process. This communication

happened through formal and informal methods to different degrees.

26

The existing formal meeting structure seems to be used quite effectively with most workers

citing these as their main contact with their representatives. However, reports about the

frequency of such meetings varied. Most workers reported section meetings taking place

monthly with social premium issues a fixed agenda point. One group, however, claimed

these had only happened twice a year in their department. One management

representative said that representatives were also encouraged to attend the small weekly

meetings between supervisors and their teams of around 25 workers. This suggests there

is scope for greater use of these formal communication channels.

Informal communication between representatives and workers was reported to take place

during work hours and at lunchtime. This informal system seemed to function better in

smaller sections of the farms. However, in larger sections, the representatives reported

using ‘delegates’ to help them communicate with workers.15

Three workers’ focus groups agreed that their JB representatives actively encouraged

them to form groups in order to analyse their problems. Most workers reported that their

sections were keen to discuss issues relating to their interests. However, one group said

that organising interest groups was time consuming and that family duties meant after-

work discussions were not possible.

A minority of workers could only identify one method by which to express a need once it

had been identified. This was to pass a written or verbal proposal directly to a

representative at a meeting or in a one-to-one situation. Some representatives suggested

that reliance on this method might deter some “shy” people from making proposals. Some

JB members felt that more suggestion boxes should be made available and publicised as

a tool to encourage more workers to express their needs. Although both farms did have

suggestion boxes, some workers weren’t aware of them and others invariably said they

had not used them or they were less effective than direct contact with a representative.16

The only other tool by which workers said they could influence decision-making was a

method where workers had a final vote on a ‘menu’ of viable projects. The enthusiasm with

which this was discussed by the workers in a sense underlined the overall reliance on

xxvii 15 Delegates are former JB workers’ representatives that oversee the work of the JBs. 16 One farm had suggestion boxes dedicated to Fairtrade, the other had general suggestion boxes.

27

direct communication with a representative.

It was clear that the functioning of the proposal system therefore relied heavily on the

enthusiasm and activity of the individual representative and their rapport with individual

workers. Nevertheless, despite this, the vast majority of workers reported having been

involved in discussing and/or making specific proposals for projects at some stage.

Participation: changes over time The dynamic nature of any participatory process is highlighted in the literature review.

Though the literature suggests that participation tends to decline over time, the FLO

guidance anticipates the participation of workers will increase as they recognise the

benefits and as their capacity is increased.

There are no monitoring systems on the farms by which to measure changes in

participation, but the perceptions of the workers, formed a mixed picture. Though the

majority felt that participation had increased over time, a significant number felt that it had

decreased. Workers’ statements about their own participation and their perceptions of

others’ are of interest, partly because they might give an insight into actual changes (i.e.

everybody says participation has increased so it probably has), but also because they

point to factors that might influence levels of participation.

The study found that those workers that perceived participation levels to have fallen over

time also tended either to say that they had not benefited personally from any projects or

that they had a grievance with the project selection criteria.

The general benefits of social premium investments seemed to have been well-publicised

among workers. However, on a farm of 6000 workers all expecting to benefit personally,

expectation management seemed to be particularly necessary but less well addressed.

One worker who said participation was falling, also said of one education project

“There are hardly any places on the courses, I apply but there are only 2 places for [my]

department and we are 200”

Capacity building also seemed important to levels of participation. One workers’ focus

group that cited an increase in participation suggested it was because workers “now

28

understand how they can participate”. Perhaps as important though, was workers capacity

to understand and accept the selection criteria by which the JB would ultimately accept or

reject proposals. Frustration caused by disagreements was likely to have a negative

impact on participation.

Finally, the introduction of new channels of participation seemed to add impetus to

participation levels. The ‘menu’ method, discussed in the previous section, was reported to

have increased participation both as a new participatory activity in itself, and because it

had increased enthusiasm overall so that other channels were being used more.

Interests and expectations of participation Having identified the different ways in which the JB and the workers participate, this

section considers the motivations of different stakeholders. The literature review showed

that those involved in participatory development projects – from external actors to local

‘beneficiaries – have different interests and expectations of participation.

Although the literature suggests that external agents such as NGOs might encourage

participation for the purposes of legitimation or efficiency, the FLO guidelines make it

explicit that their interest is in the “empowerment of the workers in order to enable them to

become actors and owners of their development process.” (FLO 2004: 6)

Some JB members said that in standing for election, their participation had in part been

motivated by the expectation of gaining new skills. Members also reported feelings of

empowerment because of their intense involvement in the process. One said:

“I was a man who could not stand up and speak, but my department insisted that I had to

represent them…From there I grew much courage to lead and make decisions”

Workers articulated their own interests in participation very differently. Although one

woman worker did say she felt “empowered” by the process itself, the vast majority of

workers talked about participation as a way of influencing projects so that the outcomes

would most benefit them and their families. Thus, participation was regarded as a means

through which to gain some leverage, rather than as an end in itself.

29

Chapter 7 – Results: Benefits

This chapter discusses the findings from the interviews related to the ways people have

benefited from social premium projects. These results address the second objective of the

dissertation

(b) To assess the ways in which the livelihoods of different stakeholders

are improved by projects funded by the Fairtrade social premium

The chapter is divided into two sections. The first uses the ‘livelihoods assets’ component

of the sustainable livelihoods framework to analyse the ways in which investments have

improved livelihoods. The second section focuses on the perceptions of workers and the

JB about which groups have benefited most and which groups least.

Improving livelihoods: the five capitals

Human capital

This study found that over both study areas, projects that aim to extend access to human

capital have been prioritised for funding by the JB and been widely beneficial to workers

and their families. On one farm, management reported that education projects were

formally identified as the priority area through a large scale study of workers needs carried

out by the JB.

The projects fall into four categories. The first are those that increase access to secondary

education. On one farm, this has been done on a cost-sharing basis by providing bursaries

to parents to help them pay towards school fees. On the other, the assistance takes the

form of an education credit. Both methods were reported to have been crucial to enable

access, given the workers’ household incomes. One mother said

“Unless my younger child can benefit from the same scheme, he won’t be able to go to

secondary school”

Benefits of secondary education were referred to both as a means to increasing the future

livelihood options of the child and the family as a whole, but also as a good in itself, for

“the betterment of my child”.

30

The second category are projects that improve school facilities.17 Funds have been made

available to improve both on-farm and community education facilities. Facilities for on-farm

workers’ dependents included the construction of an ‘Early Childhood Development’ centre

for pre-school children and the improvement of the conditions in the company crèche. On

one farm, schools have been a focal point for the JBs interaction with their ‘wider’

community. Some benefits to schools and other organised groups are discussed further in

the following chapter.

The third group of projects are those that aim to extend workers’ access to further

education or skills. These included on-farm courses in computer skills, tailoring and

knitting or bursaries towards the cost of off-farm courses such as driving. Workers reported

these could help them start income generating schemes to supplement their farm salary or

improve their employment prospects on and outside the farms. Men particularly seemed to

value the driving courses because of the demand on the farms. One said

“I have many more hopes because I can drive lorries. I have more options and I am skilled,

I have more pride in my work than the pickers”

One project aimed to increase human capital in terms of health. The project to provide

medical outreach services to both workers and the ‘wider’ community was considered to

meet the most basic needs. JB members cited a range of services including childhood

vaccinations, voluntary counselling and testing (VCT) for HIV/AIDS, and health education

on family planning, hygiene standards and other preventative measures.

They said that cost, distance and ignorance were the barriers to better health that the

outreach services would overcome. JB members cited fewer childhood diseases and

improved sanitation as major potential benefits. Community leaders in particular,

emphasised the impact that better health would have at the household level in terms of

labour availability.

Physical capital

In the focus groups and interviews, workers consistently cited individual physical assets as

xxxi 17 These might be considered physical capital projects because school buildings are infrastructure. However, the objective of the projects are to extend access to education and therefore human capital.

31

a major priority. A management representative cited a community shop project as the most

popular among workers. This functioned as a kind of credit scheme that used economies

of scale to enable workers to pay for assets such as solar panels, bicycles, roofing

materials, TVs and sewing machines over a period of time.

Although many workers said they had benefited from the scheme, the issue of ‘cost-

sharing’ was consistently raised. Many felt that the cost of the items should be subsidised

by the premium. Management argued that in such a case workers would sell the assets

and keep the monetary difference and that such a scheme would not be sustainable.

This was a prime example of tension between workers and representatives that related to

the social premium ‘philosophy’. In the JB focus groups, members repeatedly cited the

FLO criterion that projects be communal and that they be sustainable and not about

consumption. These aspects of the philosophy did not seem to be accepted by a

significant minority of workers.

Workers reported a number of ways in which they and their households benefited from the

assets. These included the time saved by the use of a bicycle, the income generated

through sewing services and the improved living conditions from durable roofing.

An important research finding was that a significant proportion of social premium funding

had been used for infrastructure projects to extend community access to water. The study

found that while workers prioritised privately owned physical assets, the ‘wider’ community

projects increased access to communal physical assets. The latter were found to have had

the greatest impact on the livelihoods of the beneficiaries and will be discussed further in

the following chapter.

Natural capital

None of the focus groups reported any projects that had increased natural resource

stocks.18

Financial capital

Some of the key projects, such as the community shop and education credit scheme,

xxxii 18 Although water itself can be regarded as a natural asset, the social premium projects involved infrastructure (physical capital) developments to improve the supply.

32

effectively worked to extend access to financial capital. They acted as consumption

smoothing mechanisms to allow workers to invest in physical or human capital assets.

Social capital

None of the focus groups reported any projects that had increased access to social capital.

Livelihoods impact: the main beneficiaries This section focuses on the findings about which groups are perceived to have benefited

most from the investments and which groups least. Importantly, there was never any

suggestion from workers that JB members might benefit disproportionately from projects

by virtue of their position.

Perhaps unsurprisingly workers with immediate dependents were widely regarded as

having benefited most from investments overall, because both farms had prioritised

projects to enable parents to meet secondary education costs.

Consequently, workers without school age children were regarded as having benefited

less. Of these, older workers, particularly those nearing retirement age, were perceived to

have received fewest benefits. This was largely because they were regarded as having

less use for the further education projects. The perception that investment decisions

favoured communal rather than individual assets, was felt by workers to discriminate

against the needs of older workers who were soon likely to return to their familial regions.

Although most workers said the distribution of benefits between the farm and ‘wider’

community were “balanced”, a significant minority felt the ‘wider’ community had benefited

more than the workers. Their perception was that while workers paid in order to benefit

from projects (even where bursaries were received), members of the ‘wider’ community did

not.

One worker that had worked for both Fairtrade and non-fairtrade farms in the area also

said that community investments had had a disproportionately positive impact. He

suggested that they had caused non-fairtrade farms to fund community projects in order to

maintain a positive reputation. Unfortunately this study was not able to verify his claim.

It was suggested by management representatives that larger groups with similar interests

33

were more likely to benefit than smaller groups, even if the needs of the latter were more

acute. It was accepted by both workers’ and management representatives that in practice

weight of numbers was an important factor in the selection of projects.

34

Chapter 8 – Results: Gender and Community Dimensions

This chapter discusses the findings from the interviews related to gender and the ‘wider’

community. These results address the third objective of the dissertation

(c) To evaluate the role that gender and community dimensions play in

decision making about social premiums and the distribution of benefits

from their investment

The chapter is divided into two sections based on the first two objectives of the study –

participation and benefits. Issues of gender and community are addressed together under

each of these sections because there is important overlap.

Participation

Relationship with the ‘wider’ community

The study found that all workers and JB representatives regarded the term ‘community’ to

mean something larger than just the farm on which they worked, even if they also lived on-

farm. The JBs actively promoted the need for community participation among workers.

They had introduced a fixed budget line for community projects and often cited community

benefits as a key project selection criterion from the FLO guidelines. One JB

representative said

“We know that Fairtrade do not give premiums only to the workers themselves but they

give to help the surrounding communities…as well”

Workers, however, tended to cite the fact that many of them lived outside the farms as the

main reason the community should be involved. The impression was that the JB members

and their interpretation of the FLO guidelines, rather than the general body of workers,

provided the main impetus for community participation.

Participatory methods: organised community groups

Nevertheless, some workers that lived outside the farms acted as an important liaison

between the JBs and the ‘wider’ community. However, community participation relied to an

even greater extent on community ‘leaders’ articulating the needs of existing community

35

organisations such as a schools, tribal groups and community management committees.

The relationship between the JB members and these representatives seemed to be strong

and effective, in some cases building on relationships between farm management and

community groups that pre-dated Fairtrade. These representatives participated most

directly through meetings with JB members but also received memos and wrote formal

proposals. The tangible benefits for these groups are discussed in the benefits section

below.

Community members and JB representatives recognised, however, that the needs of the

most marginalised in the community were most difficult to identify largely because some of

these groups could not organise as easily. A focus group gave the example of people

living with HIV/AIDS. It was felt that the direct, individual contact required to enable their

participation, given social stigma and lack of advocacy services, was unrealistic given the

JBs’ time restraints.

Some JB members also suggested that in some pre-existing community groups levels of

participation might be unequal. One remarked:

“When we go to meetings with the Masai we never see a woman because they cannot

speak in front of the men, but you know that actually [the proposal] is a collection of what

men and women need”

Masai men and women were adamant that the whole of their community was involved in

identifying needs for project proposals. Nevertheless, JB members seemed to be aware

that social norms and power relations in the ‘wider’ community were likely to be replicated

in the groups’ participation in the social premium process.

Women representatives

Proportional gender representation on the JB is crucial to the role the social premium can

play in tackling gender inequality. Despite suggestions that the requirement is incompatible

with democratic elections, women have been actively encouraged to stand for election and

particular departments instructed to elect a woman. Management recalled that the first JB

elections had returned a committee constituted almost entirely of men. Currently, women

make up about 40% of the JBs, which seemed to be slightly lower than the proportion of

36

the workforce.19

Increasing the number of women representatives has reportedly had various effects on the

participatory process. Some women workers said they’d be more likely to talk to a woman

representative and some JB members said they felt a responsibility to represent women’s

interests. They also cited their position as “role models” that might change attitudes and

norms.

Increasing participation of women workers

Chapter six discussed the mixed reports about general changes in worker participation

over time. Interestingly, there was an overriding impression from the JB focus groups that

the participation of women workers had increased. They attributed this change to JBs’

campaigns to encourage women, and to women representatives acting as role models.

In the focus groups, workers themselves tended to compare women’s participation to

men’s rather than identify changes over time. The most common responses used terms

such as “balanced”, “equal” and “fair”. This suggests, however, that women’s participation

had increased from a low starting point in relation to men. A management representative

on one farm said that at first, cultural norms had meant women had been very reluctant to

be representatives or to make proposals, “some have been happy for their husbands to

make proposals”.

Although no specific methods were identified for enabling women workers to participate,

JB representatives had recognised that time requirements can mitigate against women’s

participation. JB meetings that were held after work at 4.00pm meant that women

members sometimes withdrew because of their domestic responsibilities. Meeting times

were changed to 2.00pm and women’s participation increased.

This tackled a key barrier to women’s participation identified in the Fair Trade literature

and illustrated the crucial practical importance of the FLO guidelines. These state that

management must allocate sufficient work time for the JB to function properly (FLO 2004:

10).

xxxvii 19 Management on one farm were preparing to challenge an FLO-Cert ‘corrective action’ that stated that women constituted 60% of the workforce and should be reflected by the JB.

37

Participation: a means to an end

The study found that both men and women workers regarded participation as a way of

gaining benefits from projects rather than an empowering process in itself. None of the

women workers interviewed reported any changes in their positions or relationships in the

household or at work because of the social premium process.

In contrast, both men and women representatives expressed feelings of empowerment

because of their direct decision-making responsibility. Nevertheless, none of the women

representatives suggested they had experienced any change in their relationships or

decision-making power at the household level.

Benefits

Meeting basic community needs

In terms of livelihoods, the community projects focused on extending access to physical

and human capital. Of these, the infrastructure projects that extended access to water

were reported to have had the greatest and most widespread impact on beneficiaries’

livelihoods, with one water source reportedly used by around 20,000 people.

The problem of water access in the area surrounding one of the farms was identified by

many, including workers, as being the most urgent need to be met by the social premium.

The lives of those in the two main beneficiary communities had reportedly been

transformed by bore hole and water piping and storage projects. Members of the Masai

community had reportedly lost their lives attempting to access water sources in deep

ravines and sand holes.

Beneficiary groups also cited improvements to their livelihoods from the water projects that

included increased income and nutrition from farming and increased livestock capacity,

fewer waterborne diseases and improved commercial opportunities within a growing

settlement.

A community focus group suggested that of the human capital projects, the child

vaccination service met the most acute need. The head teacher of a community school

near one of the outreach points reported that up to one sixth of the pupils had not received

their childhood vaccinations at birth. In total, he estimated that up to 7,000 people in the

38

‘wider’ community might benefit from the different services.

Despite the JBs success in prioritising two of the most urgent community needs, it was

suggested that other acute needs had not been met because of the pressure faced by the

JB to prioritise on-farm projects and because of the slow speed at which the JB was able

to appraise proposals.

Meeting women’s practical needs and interests

Overall, the impression given from the on-farm focus groups was that the benefits from

projects had been evenly distributed between women and men workers. The majority of

women workers said they had benefited from social premium investments. The findings do

not support criticisms of the participatory approach that women can be resigned to, or

actively promote, the distribution of resources that discriminate against them (Kabeer

1996: 18).

Nevertheless, the overriding impression was that gender inequality was being interpreted

and tackled from a WID perspective with a focus on increasing women’s access to

resources in order to meet their practical needs. One JB member said “we told [women]

they should participate, because we don’t want men benefiting more from the projects than

women.”

This approach was evident in the case of the community projects where women were

reported to have benefited disproportionately to men. Interviews and the GAM impact

assessment showed that because of their domestic and reproductive roles, women’s

practical needs had been met most by the projects to increase access to water and

medical services. In the case of water projects, women reported that their lives had been

transformed and that they were “much happier now”.

There were examples where by meeting this practical need and reducing their time

burden, women had been able to take up productive, paid labour roles, on the flower

farms. From a GAD perspective, such changes in the gender division of labour could be

viewed as working in women’s strategic interests if the changes were reciprocated by

changes in men’s roles, such as taking on more domestic responsibility. However, no such

changes were reported by the focus groups.

39

From a GAD perspective, the social premium participatory process has the potential to

help tackle unequal power relations between men and women and help meet women’s

strategic needs. No women reported however, that the process had increased decision

making power of either women workers or women representatives at the household or

community levels.

40

Chapter 9 – Conclusion

This study found that on the two FT flower farms in Kenya, the Fairtrade social premium

model of ‘participatory development’ had led to impressive levels of worker and community

participation and significant improvements to livelihoods.

Participation

By the very nature of a representative system of participatory decision-making,

representatives participate differently to those they represent. This study found that

workers’ representatives were perceived to have control over how resources were used.

This is a characteristic of ‘self-mobilisation”, identified in the literature as the ‘highest’ type

of participation. The study found that the system of proportional representation meant that

workers from different groups were able to participate in this way and that it had an

empowering effect on them as individuals

The participation of other workers naturally varied. Clearly, given the size of the worker

population, individual workers did not exercise direct control over decisions. Nevertheless,

workers had the opportunity to participate in the decision making process in ways that can

be characterised as ‘interactive participation’, where they were involved in joint analysis of

problems and solutions. However, workers’ influence was heavily reliant on their direct

communication with a representative which could mitigate against some people’s

involvement. Furthermore, workers invariably regarded their own participation as a means

to gain leverage over projects rather than an empowering end in itself.

In general, the extent to which workers participated, and the way this changed over time

were linked to both perceptions of personal benefit from the process and acceptance of

the social premium ‘philosophy’. To increase participation further, the JBs should continue

to focus on helping the workers understand this philosophy and also attempt to increase

the number of channels through which the workers can participate.

Benefits

The study found that social premium investments focused on improving livelihoods by

increasing stakeholders’ access to human and physical capital. Workers’ livelihoods were

most widely improved by education and skills projects although they also prioritised access

to individual physical assets. The latter however, were regarded by the JBs as less

41

compatible with the social premium philosophy than human capital projects were. This

point was emphasised by the JBs support for projects in the ‘wider’ community that

increased access to communal physical capital.

Workers with children were perceived to have benefited most from the projects and older

workers the least. This was regarded as a consequence of the prioritisation of human over

physical capital projects. Members of the ‘wider’ community were generally felt to have

enjoyed considerable benefits from social premium projects.

Gender and community

The study found that proportional gender representation was prioritised on both study

farms. This meant that women representatives held ultimate decision making power along

with their male colleagues on the JBs. Overall, women’s participation was felt to be

increasing considerably from a low starting point. Given social norms of gender inequality,

women’s representation and explicit encouragement to participate must continue to be

prioritised by the JBs.

Women’s practical needs, particularly those of women in the ‘wider’ community, were met

by a variety of social premium projects. In some cases, the impact was life changing.

Nevertheless, neither the participatory process nor any of the social premium projects

were reported to have met any of women’s strategic needs such as increased decision

making power at the household or community level.

Some members of the ‘wider’ community had a strong influence over the decision making

process through their positions as community ‘leaders’. This led to organised community

groups, such as schools and tribal groups, enjoying considerable benefits from social

premium investments. These projects met some of the most acute needs in the whole

community.

42

References Anderson, B (1999) ‘Understanding difference and building solidarity: a challenge to development initiatives’. In D. Eade (ed) Development and Social Diversity. Oxford: Oxfam UK Bacon, C. (2005) 'Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Can fair trade, organic, and speciality coffees reduce small-scale farmer vulnerability in northern Nicaragua?' World Development, 33(3): 497-511 Becchetti, L. and Constantino, M. (2006) The effects of Fair Trade on marginalised producers: an impact analysis on Kenyan farmers. Society for the Study of Economic Inequality. Working paper 41. Accessed internet 26/3/07 at www.ecineq.org/milano/WP/ECINEQ2006-41.pdf Blackburn, J. et al (2000) Mainstreaming participation in development. OED Working Paper. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Blowfield, M. and Gallet, S (2001) Volta River Estates Fairtrade Bananas case study. Ethical Trade and Sustainable Rural Livelihoods – Case Studies, NRI & NERT. Accessed internet 23/3/07 at www.nri.org/NERT/csvrel.pdf Chambers, R. (1983) Rural development: putting the last first. London: Longman Scientific and Technical. DfID (2001) Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. Department for International Development. Accessed internet 22/5/07 at www.livelihoods.org/info/guidance_sheets_rtfs/sect8glo.rtf Dolan, C. et al (2003) Gender, Rights & Participation in the Kenya Cut Flower Industry. NRI Report No. 2768. National Resource Institute. Accessed internet 11/5/07 at www.nri.org/NRET/kenyareportfinal2.pdf Fairtrade Foundation (2005) Fairtrade supports Kenyan flower workers – a response to the Guardian article of 5th March 2005. Accessed internet 11/5/07 at www.fairtrade.org.uk Fairtrade Foundation (2006) ‘Fairtrade Roses: Questions and Answers’. London: The Fairtrade Foundation. Accessed internet 10/5/07 at www.fairtrade.org.uk/downloads/pdf/Fairtrade_roses_q_and_a.pdf FINE (2001) www.eftafairtrade.org/definition.asp FLO (2004) Guidance Manual for Joint Bodies and Premium Use. Working document, November 2004, London: Fairtrade Labeling Organisation International. Accessed internet 1/4/07 at www.fairtrade.net/uploads/media/Joint_Body-Guidelines_EN.pdf FLO (2007a) Generic Fairtrade Standards for Hired Labour. Bonn: Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International. Accessed internet 29/3/07 at www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/Generic_Fairtrade_Standard_Hired_Labour_Dec_2005_EN_01.pdf FLO (2007b) Generic Fairtrade Standards for Smallholder Farmers' Organisations. Bonn:

43

Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International. Accessed internet 29/3/07 at www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/Generic_Fairtrade_Standard_SF_March_2007_EN.pdf FLO (2007c) Fairtrade Standards for Flowers and Plants for Hired Labour. Bonn: Fairtade Labelling Organizations International. Accessed internet 11/4/07 at www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/Flowers_and_Plants_HL_March_2007_EN.pdf FLO-Cert (2007) Who we are. Accessed internet 2/5/07 at www.flo-cert.net/artikel_38_27 Granville, B. and Telford, S. (2006) The Private Sector, Poverty Reduction and International Development: Panel on Fair Trade Overview. DSA Annual Conference, University of Reading. 11 November 2006. th

Hayes, M. and Moore, G (2005) The economics of Fair Trade: A guide in plain English. Accessed internet 23/3/07 at www.fairtraderesearch.net Hennock, M. (2002) ‘Kenya’s flower farms flourish’, BBC News Online. Accessed internet 24/5/07 at news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1820515.stm Jones, S. and Bayley, B. (2000). Fair Trade: Overview, Impact, Challenges: Study to Inform DFID's Support to Fair Trade. Oxford: Oxford Policy Management. Accessed internet 26/3/07 at www.agtradepolicy.org/output/resource/Fair2.pdf Kabeer, N. (1996) ‘Agency, Well-being and Inequality: Reflections on the Gender Dimensions of Poverty’ IDS Bulletin, 27(1): 11-21 King, C. (2001) Gender and rural community development III: tools and frameworks for gender analysis. Australian Pacific Extension Network International Conference, 3-5 October 2001 University of Southern Queensland, Australia. Accessed internet 15/5/07 at www.regional.org.au/au/apen/2001/p/KingC1.htm Krier, J. (2005) Fair Trade in Europe 2005: Facts and Figures on Fair Trade in 25 European Countries. Brussels: Fair Trade Advocacy Office. Accessed internet 18/5/07 at www.bananalink.org.uk/images/fairtradeineurope2005.pdf Lawrence, F. (2005) ‘Why I won’t be giving my mother Fairtrade flowers’, The Guardian, March 5th 2005. Accessed internet 11/5/07 at www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1431006,00.html MacMillan, G. (2006) The Fair Trade Initiative: Sustainable Commercial Opportunity or Development Trap? Cafedirect paper contributed to the Executive Forum on National Export Strategies. Accessed internet 25/4/07 at www.intracen.org/execforum/ef2006/Global-Debate/Resource-Person-papers/Mukherjee_Paper.pdf Majtenyi, C. (2002) ‘Cut flower industry accused of human rights abuse’, News from Africa online edition, June 2002. Accessed internet 21/5/07 at www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafrica/articles/art_882.html Malins, A. and Blowfield, M. (2000) Fruits of the Nile Fairtrade processing case study.

44

Ethical Trade and Sustainable Rural Livelihoods – Case Studies, NRI & NERT. Accessed internet 23/3/07 at www.nri.org/NRET/fruitnil.pdf Mayoux, L. (2001) Impact Assessment of Fair Trade and Ethical Enterprise Development. London: DfID Enterprise Development Impact Assessment Information Service. Mayoux, L. (undated) Case Study of the Kuapa Kokoo Union. DFID impact assessment study. Twin/Kuapa Kokoo. Mohan, G. and Stokke, K. (2000) ‘Participatory development and empowerment: the dangers of localism’, Third World Quarterly, 21(2): 247-68 Moore, G. (2004) 'The Fair Trade Movement: Parameters, Issues and Future Research', Journal of Business Ethics, 53: 73 Murray, D. et al (2006) 'The future of Fair Trade coffee: dilemmas facing Latin America's small-scale producers', Development in Practice, 16(2): 179 Nelson, V. and Galvez, M. (2000) Social Impact of Ethical and Conventional Cocoa Trading on Forest-Dependent People in Ecuador. Greenwich: University of Greenwich. Accessed internet 4/4/07 at www.nri.org/NRET/SocialImpact.pdf Neuman, W.L. (1994) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Nicholls, A. (2005) Thriving in a Hostile Environment: Fairtrade's Role as a Positive Market Mechanism for Disadvantaged Producers. Accessed internet 2/4/07 at www.fairtrade.org.uk/downloads/pdf/alex_nichols.pdf NRI (1999) Ethical Trade and Sustainable Rural Livelihoods. Full report of the Natural Resources and Ethical Trade Programme. London: National Resources Institute. Accessed internet 22/3/07 at www.nri.org/NRET/slandethical.pdf Omosa, M. et al (2006a) Assessing the Social Impact of Codes of Practice in the Kenyan Cut Flower Industry. Briefing Paper No.2. Natural Resource Institute. Omosa, M. et al (2006b) The Social Impact of Codes of Practice in the Cut Flower Industry in Kenya. Natural Resource Institute/Department for International Development. Accessed internet 12/5/07 at www.nri.org/NRET/final_kenya_main_report.pdf Overholt, C. (1995) (eds.) Gender Roles in Development Projects: A Case Book. Conneticut: Kumarian Press Parker, R. (1993) Another Point of View: A manual on gender analysis training for grassroots workers. Training Manual, UNIFEM. New York: United Nations Development Fund for Women. Paul, E. (2005) Evaluating Fair Trade as a development project: methodological considerations, Development in Practice, 15(2): 134 Pearson, R. (2000) ‘Rethinking gender matters in development’. In T. Allen and A. Thomas (eds.) Poverty and Development into the 21st Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press

45

Pretty, J. et al (1995) A Trainers' Guide for Participatory Learning and Action: IIED Participatory Methodology Series. London: Sustainable Agriculture Programme. Pryer, J. et al (2005) 'Work-disabling Illness as a Shock for Livelihoods and Poverty in Dhaka Slums, Bangladesh', International Planning Studies,10(1): 69-80 Razavi, S. and Miller, C. (1995) From WID to GAD: Conceptual Shifts in the Women and Development Discourse. Reynolds, L. et al (2002) Poverty Alleviation Through Participation in Fair Trade Coffee Networks: Existing Research and Critical Issues. Background paper, Community and Resource Development Programme. New York: The Ford Foundation. Accessed internet 23/3/07 at www.colostate.edu/Depts/Sociology/FairTradeResearchGroup/doc/rayback.pdf Robins, N., Roberts, S. and Abbot, J. (2002) Who Benefits? A social assessment of environmentally-driven trade. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Ronchi, L. (2002a) The impact of fair trade on producers and their organisations: A case study with Coocafe in Costa Rica. Poverty Research Unit Working Paper No. 11. University of Sussex. Accessed internet 30/3/07 at www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/PRU/wps/wp11.pdf Ronchi, L. (2002b) Monitoring the Impact of Fairtrade Initiatives: A case study of Kuapa Kokoo and the Day Chocolate Company. London: Twin. Accessed internet 31/11/07 at www.twin.org.uk/downloads/Twin%20M&E%20Kuapa%20and%20Day%20A_5%20version.pdf Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press Tallontire, A. (2000) Partnerships in fair trade: reflections from a case study of Cafedirect, Development in Practice, 10(2): 166 Tallontire, A., Dolan, C., Smith, S. and Barrientos, S. (2005) Reaching the marginalised? Gender value chains and ethical trade in African horticulture, Development in Practice, 15(3&4): 559 Utting-Chamorro, K. (2005) Does fair trade make a difference? The case of small coffee producers in Nicaragua, Development in Practice, 15(3&4): 584 White, S. (1996) Depoliticising development: the uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice, 6(1): 6-15

46