Participatory commodity networking: An integrated framework for Fairtrade research and support

Participatory action research

Recognizing the situated nature of knowledge, action researchers eschew claims of objectivity in favor of relevance. However, standards are rigorous and validity is ensured by meeting “the test of action” (Brydon-Miller, Greenwood, & Maguire, 2003, p. 25). Action research has proven capable of generating striking innovations as it offers a platform for linking local and expert knowledge (Hoffmann, Probst, & Christinck, 2007). In particular, PAR calls for equal participation in project planning, monitoring, and evaluation (Selener, 1997). Critical applications have employed the lens of white privilege (EAC, 2005) and postcolonial power (Schurr & Segebart, 2012) to address inequalities in research and practice.

Despite these benefits, PAR remains underutilized as it is difficult to implement in arenas where hierarchical and linear protocols inform practice. PCNR straddles these tensions, in part, by using the capability approach to assess knowledge, skills, and experiences. Promoting a more holistic understanding of well-being, this approach is designed to capture basic capabilities, like access to housing, as well as broader dimensions, like the ability to participate in public life (Sen, 2004). However, specific measurements are determined by stakeholders in the field. The capabilities approach enables PCNR participants to develop a set of baseline indicators at project onset. These indicators are reflexively used to: (1) problematize barriers; (2) determine actions; (3) monitor and evaluate performance; and (4) assess outcomes.

Participatory training-of-trainers

Fairtrade International emphasizes empowerment through capacity building as a primary strategy for improving trade relations (WFTO & FTI, 2009). Yet, few studies have examined this topic. This issue is of import as training may silence different ways of knowing (Keahey, 2016). Colonial regimes used education as an instrument for control, and assumptions of Western superiority remain embedded in postcolonial education and development, reproducing the conditions for oppression (Freire, 1997). PCNR responds to this problem within the context of leadership training. While it engages the performance protocols required for accreditation, PCNR places critical thinking, reflexive dialogue, and consensus building at the center of the learning process. These holistic learning activities emphasize knowledge generation over knowledge transfer, enabling participants to explore ideas and challenge hegemonic assumptions about expertise (Mkabela & Luthuli, 1997).

Participatory commodity networking

Commodity chain research examines how global markets impact local production practices (Gereffi, 1994). Within this tradition, value chain scholars study how producers seek to improve their market position by adding value to their products, either by securing certifications or by assuming more sophisticated production roles (Gibbon & Ponte, 2005). Yet, product upgrading may stymie diversification (Smith, 2009) and increase the vulnerability of poor producers (Ponte & Ewert, 2009). Moreover, many studies fail to examine power imbalances or assume a top–down view that ignores local cleavages based on class, race, and gender (Phillips, 2014). In contrast, commodity network analysis uses ethnographic methods and a network orientation to clarify the complex webs of action found in certification practices (Raynolds, 2009). By incorporating multiple theories of power into analysis, researchers may capture details related to: (1) managerial organization; (2) political engagement; and (3) social inequalities. PCNR uses commodity network analysis to identify receptive points of action and guide networking activities that enable farmer leaders to witness and participate in governance.

Fairtrade dimensions

Fairtrade has become a multi-billion dollar certification initiative that encompasses 1.4 million farmers and workers in 74 countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America (Fairtrade International, 2014). In Africa, the number of certified producer organizations doubled between 2006 and 2012 (Fairtrade International, 2013). While most Fairtrade products are sold in the Global North, South African, and Kenyan affiliates have established domestic markets for certified goods in an effort to transcend the colonial pattern of African production for Northern consumption (Keahey, 2015). To support regional expansion, Fairtrade International is decentralizing key functions, with Fairtrade Africa ² assuming governance of African producer services in 2013. In South Africa, these shifts are occurring alongside the entry of other ethically labeled items, creating new markets that integrate global and local networks and values (Hughes, MacEwan, & Bek, 2015).

These shifts demonstrate Fairtrade’s potential, but critiques have emerged. In particular, studies show that certifiers can reinforce inequalities by ignoring local power dimensions (Nelson & Martin, 2015). Rather than exploring solutions to these concerns, the scholarly literature has become entrenched in analytical debates regarding the efficacy of certification (Naylor, 2014). Yet, the decentralization of producer services opens opportunities for producers to become involved in designing responsive support mechanisms; and action research is well suited to this task.

The rooibos network

In South Africa, white-owned estates produce over 90% of the rooibos destined for sale (Ives, 2014). The remaining tea is cultivated by coloured (mixed-race) farmers who typically operate on small plots of rented land, in isolated areas with poor infrastructure. Whereas, hired-labor estates are embedded within an established chain that supplies domestic and export markets, small farmer organizations operate at the margins of the industry. At research outset, small-scale farmers lacked representation within the South African Rooibos Council, the umbrella industry platform. Whereas, new producer organizations generally sold their tea to the nearest processing firm, established groups secured certifications to access more lucrative export markets. Such moves involved risk: among the five small farmer organizations producing rooibos at research outset, two were newly formed and uncertified; two held Fairtrade and organic certifications; and the fifth and largest cooperative was collapsing due to a recent loss in certifications.

The action research team

PCNR engagement was led by: (1) three U.S.-based fair trade scholars, one of whom was the lead field researcher in South Africa; (2) a South African scholar with expertise in agrarian poverty; and (3) a South African training provider specializing in standards and certifications. During the first phase, the action research team grew to include 13 farmer leaders who were democratically elected by their communities. Representing seven community groupings, these leaders actively informed the development of subsequent project stages, while their communities remained peripherally involved. The composition of our team was reflective of the power dynamics prevalent in post-apartheid South Africa: the lead investigators were all white and operating from a position of class privilege, while all but one of the farmer leaders were coloured. ³ Four leaders had access to computers but most lived in poverty, with some lacking such basic amenities as running water. Apart from a labor organizer and a few Fairtrade actors, all of the experts who engaged with the leaders were white South Africans. Gender dynamics were more balanced: three of the five lead investigators and nearly half of the leaders were women.

Action research scholars note that privileged actors experience difficulties in terms of “staying in the inquiry” when examining power (EAC, 2005, p. 60). The lead field researcher took responsibility for addressing imbalances within the action research team and broadly sought to stay in the inquiry by: (1) living almost entirely in coloured communities; (2) paying the leaders for their work and hosts for room and board; and (3) initiating talks about power in a receptive environment. The lead trainer supported these efforts by spending time in the communities, developing relationships with the leaders, and enabling them to dialogue with industry and organizational stakeholders in private and informal settings.

Community entry

We began by drawing from our previous work in rooibos to map the commodity network. During entry, the lead field researcher conducted unstructured interviews with farmers and higher level representatives to update our knowledge of rooibos arrangements and relations. This enabled us to locate new small farmer organizations and determine receptive entry points within the commodity network. During several community visits, we dialogued with farmers and solicited ideas for engagement. Most producers asked us to work directly in their communities as many hamlets were located at distance from one another over rough terrain. Using the metaphor of a hand, one informant stated that rooibos support largely was directed to the palm where cooperatives were located, rather than to farmers in the more remote fingers. By holding capabilities workshops in multiple community groupings, farmers were able to participate in their own areas, while cooperative staff attended in central locations.

We used participatory rural appraisal techniques (Chambers, 1994) and a general list of capabilities (Nussbaum, 2011) to develop capability workshop activities. In addition to mapping community resources and needs, farmers mapped capabilities. These interactive workshops achieved three objectives. First, participants discussed their needs and determined participatory training-of-trainer (PToT) topics. Second, participants informed the development of baseline indicators. Third, each workshop culminated in elections, enabling farmers to establish a grassroots leadership network as they had requested. ⁵ The lead trainer and field researcher (both female) suggested a policy of electing one male and one female leader in each community grouping to reflect women’s growing involvement in rooibos. The gender clause was well received in most areas and 6 of the 13 elected leaders were women. Not only did male leaders support the entry of women into leadership, female leaders found their involvement to be particularly empowering. As Helen ⁶ stated:

I was scared to go to the first ToT, because I thought I would say something stupid, but then [the trainers] taught me that it is okay to speak because there are no wrong answers. Now I have so much confidence, I can do anything. I can even speak English!

Leadership building

During the second phase, the farmer leaders participated in three multiday training-of-trainer workshops and in additional sessions held during fieldwork and networking. PToT involved industry and organizational actors and covered subjects related to: (1) rooibos production; (2) markets and certifications; (3) management and leadership; and (4) research and analysis. Sessions were conducted in Afrikaans and translators were present when English was spoken. While the lead trainer organized PToT, the lead field researcher was a participant observer and facilitated sessions related to research and analysis. Not only did the workshops incorporate holistic learning activities, the leaders determined the training trajectory and helped develop material, including a farmers’ guide to standards and certifications. These products included booklets and exercises on topics requested by farming communities.

PAR fieldwork was conducted over the course of two months at project midterm. The farmer leaders prepared by: (1) taking a census of their communities; (2) completing research training; and (3) helping develop interview questions. During fieldwork, the leaders generated a stratified random sample ⁷ to incorporate female and male respondents, various age cohorts, and places of residence. Each leader first acted as a respondent then worked as a translator during interviews conducted in their area. After witnessing interviews facilitated by the lead field researcher, most leaders chose to conduct subsequent interviews. Private interviews were then held with each leader to explore sociopolitical dimensions, setting the stage for data analysis.

Leadership building activities enabled the leaders to connect abstract knowledge with concrete experiences. By engaging in philosophical discussions about research, training, and networking while conducting these processes, the action research team explored different ways of knowing and doing; and reflexively incorporated insights into next-stage actions. As the leaders gained expertise, they expressed a desire for greater responsibility and control. After completing farmer interviews, Anton told the lead field researcher:

You have to include us in the data analysis. We are leaders of our communities. We should be able to decide what gets written about us…please teach us more about research ethics so we can decide how to share the information together.

Information exchange

Networking occurred throughout the project, but we deepened these activities during the third phase to stimulate multilateral exchanges. During entry, we used commodity network analysis to problematize networking activities that began during the second phase. At this point, networking primarily involved: (1) dialoguing with experts at training sessions; (2) touring two processing firms; (3) attending industry events organized by the South African Rooibos Council; and (4) participating in Fairtrade South Africa’s annual general meeting. The Fairtrade conference provided insight into certification governance, whereas Rooibos Council forums enabled farmer leaders to learn about industry governance.

During the third phase, we hosted a policy seminar at a university where farmer leaders met with industry, organizational, and academic actors to share action research findings. The leaders prepared for the seminar by conducting a participatory data analysis session to determine key findings. Via a theories-of-power activity, the lead field researcher worked with the leaders to differentiate between issues related to managerial practices, political processes, and social inequalities. ⁸ At the policy seminar, the leaders conducted presentations and led breakout sessions with higher level actors to problematize solutions to identified issues. The Rooibos Council session discussed how to create a platform for small-scale farmers to communicate their interests within the industry; the Fairtrade session examined how to strengthen relations with small-scale farmers, including strategies for improving support; and an environmental session discussed strategies to link farmers to a biodiversity campaign. The seminar was structured to challenge traditional power relations. As the leaders assumed positions of authority, higher level actors recognized them as credible sources of knowledge empowering us all. When discussing the outcomes of the seminar, Dirk said:

People from the industry came to listen to us speak. They are interested in learning what farmers need. I’m going to go home and tell my community that the industry wants our rooibos.

Producers’ experiences with Fairtrade

This project was carried out during a period of disarray caused by the recent decertification of a large rooibos cooperative. Having gained organic certification in 1999 and Fairtrade certification in 2005, this group had established a packaging venture with a smaller cooperative and a local contract packager (Raynolds & Ngcwangu, 2010). Despite its initial promise, the Fair Packers venture collapsed in 2009 for a variety of reasons. First, Fair Packers was expected to meet market requirements without developmental assistance, but its staff was comprised of farming family members who lacked technical capacity. Second, the larger cooperative went into considerable debt, promising future tea sales to meet its share of the start-up costs. Third, Fair Packers failed to garner sufficient profit due to the unexpected entry of rooibos estates into Fairtrade markets.

While the small cooperative partner survived the dissolution of the Fair Packers agreement with substantial external assistance, the larger cooperative unraveled and lost its certifications in 2009. Members responded to the crisis by electing a new board, causing communities to splinter into factions. A group of farmers left the cooperative and pooled resources to establish a new organization under the leadership of former management. In 2010, this new cooperative secured Fairtrade and organic certifications, regaining access to global buyers. Meanwhile the larger group found it difficult to sell decertified tea and incoming management lacked the skills to seek recertification. Unable to pay its members for their tea, the cooperative underwent legal action and was liquidated in 2011. This tumultuous backdrop significantly shaped the action research process. In particular, the emerging leadership network worked to resolve tensions by sharing reliable information and by calling for farmers to “stand together” during tense discussions.

Gaps in support

Fueling producer uncertainty, we found that most farmers possessed little understanding of certifications. Capabilities workshop participants had basic knowledge of organic standards, but few could provide information regarding Fairtrade certification and markets. These findings were substantiated during interviews when we asked farmers to share their knowledge about certifications and buyers. In communities that had participated in certified markets, most respondents could articulate at least one organic standard, but only a third were able to state one Fairtrade standard. Apart from those in managerial positions, virtually no respondents could name any Fairtrade buyers. Farmers expected cooperative staff to manage marketing, but most wanted to learn about certifications and all desired access to reliable market information.

Fairtrade provides certification advisory services to producer organizations, but otherwise relies upon existing networks to deliver training and support. In South Africa, governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and private firms provide services to producers. However, the availability and quality of services was variable. Farmers stated that programs generally were designed without their input and often progressed with minimal engagement. Few projects were coordinated. We found that those residing near cooperative headquarters had somewhat greater access to services and experienced slightly lower levels of poverty than those living in remote outstations. However, cooperative staff also lacked access to the training needed to maintain certifications. We addressed these issues by responding to producer requests for us to build leadership capacity directly within the communities rather than through existing cooperative structures. This led to positive outcomes but also stymied the ability of the leaders to maintain their platform once the project came to an end.

Participation and empowerment

PCNR helped advance Fairtrade’s empowerment agenda by supporting the expansion of farmer leadership within the rooibos network. However, our work did not entirely transcend a top–down model as we were unable to involve stakeholders in all aspects of our work. We navigated tensions related to participation and scalability by straddling community and organizational approaches to action research (Selener, 1997). First, we responded to farmer requests for training by working to build expertise within participating communities. Second, we responded to farmer requests for political representation by working to bring leaders into higher level organizations. In the words of one farmer at a capabilities workshop, “we have a problem with the South African Rooibos Council…we are not heard. They must come to [our village] and listen themselves to our proposal.” Given the geographic distances between farming communities, we could not bring the Council to the farmers, but we could bring leaders into the Council by prioritizing the quality rather than quantity of participation (Neef & Neubert, 2011).

Some of the farmer leaders initially were nervous about participating in the project. ⁹ Whereas, training helped build capacity and confidence, research and networking extended knowledge and ties. As the leaders connected to different groups, they expressed an interest in pursuing broader collaborations. For example, at project inception, most small farmers were disgruntled with white estate farmers due to the entry of estates into Fairtrade rooibos markets; but by project end, the farmer leaders wanted to collaborate with this group. After listening to estate farmers speak at a Rooibos Council event, Frank said, “I now know they have even bigger problems than us, but they are the same problems so we should be working together to find solutions.”

Finally, the farmer leaders drove information exchanges during the third phase and found these activities to be empowering. Reflecting on her role in the policy seminar, Helen wrote, “people actually listened to what I had to say and now my confidence is higher than ever.” Third-stage activities also helped to legitimatize the leaders within the industry, with one of the leaders joining the Rooibos Council board at project end. Finally, project activities helped to resolve local conflicts related to Fairtrade decertification as the leaders worked to share information and improve understanding. Over time, farmers began to view the leaders as a source of support. At the end of a community workshop facilitated by two leaders, one farmer stated:

It is amazing to see how these leaders have grown from the first time that you were here. Please do not stop now. They need to continue with this type of training as it is only benefiting them and the community.

Power and identity

Addressing internal power dynamics was uncomfortable yet rewarding. For example, PToT sessions occurred in a small town where racial segregation remained a way of life. During the first session, we scheduled dinner at a restaurant and invited industry actors to join us, but upon seating ourselves we became racially segregated. The lead author moved to a table of farmer leaders and asked if she could join. This interruption caused discomfort as it made visible underlying power dynamics. It reflected the white privilege of the lead author, who possessed the power to interrupt, as well as the privilege of the foreigner who could more readily transcend cultural norms. Now seated across from one another, Bernadine and the lead author spent an uncomfortable meal together. Yet, each persisted in communicating across barriers of race, culture, and language. Later, both admitted to feeling exhausted but exhilarated. This mutual willingness to stay open to discomfort helped to shift project relations before traditional patterns had become concretized. As our engagement progressed, other members of the action research team had similar experiences that helped transform how we perceived ourselves and what we wanted to achieve. In Anna’s words, “when we came to the first ToT, we didn’t really know each other at all. Now, we are like a family. We like each other and we help each other and we are good friends.”

Similarly to other action researchers who have studied power, we found that it was impossible to achieve “the ‘right’ perceptions about whiteness, race, and dominating systems of power” (EAC, 2005, p. 60). Of the various dynamics that we explored, the topic of race was the most difficult to navigate; and it was not only the white facilitators who felt discomfort. The farmer leaders were united and vocal about the negative impacts of class inequality, both in private and in public. However, they were ambivalent and divided when talking about race and avoided this topic entirely in more public settings. Not only did the leaders fail to arrive at consensus on questions pertaining to race, they were divided about the “right” language to use for their racial identity. We employ “coloured” because the majority voted in favor of it. However, those who were more vocal about racial inequalities disliked this official term and either preferred “black” to express solidarity with other South Africans of color or the colloquial phrase “bruin mense.” ¹⁰

Finally, ensuring an enabling environment was essential to internal relations, but significantly more challenging to realize in large venues outside of our control. When reviewing the first PToT session, Arthur wrote, “everyone is involved and the atmosphere created is one that encourages participation.” Bernadine offered a similar sentiment by stating, “the way the workshops were conducted just gave me courage to tackle problems.” In contrast, large networking events tended to reinforce barriers. At industry events, white experts and estate farmers dominated discussions with facilitators making no effort to ensure broader participation. Apart from a few breakout sessions where the leaders were encouraged to participate, the Fairtrade conference largely was dominated by white experts who spoke in English. As the following section discusses, PCNR established a foundation for extending participation within the rooibos network, pointing to the potential of our approach. Yet, we lacked the time and resources to deepen our engagement, illustrating the challenges facing such work.

Lessons learned

Our engagement taught us several lessons, particularly in terms of research and networking. First, we failed to involve the farmer leaders in third-stage interviews with network representatives. Our decision to maintain a farmer-first focus by interviewing industry and organizational actors during the final project stage was sound. However, funding shortages and scheduling conflicts prevented us from including the leaders in this final round of data collection. While they were involved in designing the interviews, they should have led this process; thus their involvement should be budgeted for in future applications. Second, we were unable to address technological barriers to communication. Most leaders lacked computer access and some lived without phones, making it challenging to exchange information and build ties. Inequalities in terms of key resources served to reinforce the imbalances that our work sought to ameliorate.

Participatory methods require an ongoing process that is guided by sustained dialogue (Nemeroff, 2008). PCNR met the initial test of action. However, we were unable to secure funding for a multiyear project that was designed to deepen and extend engagement. Since this time, we have struggled to navigate competing academic and professional obligations and the farmer leaders have experienced changes in terms of institutional arrangements, including the closure of South Africa’s largest rooibos cooperative. As we worked within the communities rather than through the cooperatives, many leaders lacked the institutional resources needed to maintain their roles after our departure. If scholars, professionals, and farmers are to effectively collaborate over time, access to long-term funding is paramount. There also is a need to reconcile the slow pace of scholarly work with the rapidly moving terrain of commodity networks.

While these challenges illustrate the limitations of our approach, they do not invalidate its potential. When we began our work, participating communities had no voice in the broader rooibos network. During preliminary forays into network events, the leaders spoke among themselves and were largely ignored by higher level actors. By project end, key representatives had come to recognize the leaders as professionals with knowledge to share, pointing to a critical shift in relations. Finally, the skills that we developed during this project have delivered ongoing benefits. Some of the leaders have continued to support their communities by navigating avenues for assistance. Others have managed to secure formal employment in a nation where unemployment rates are high and growing (Ebrahim, Leibbrandt, & Woolard, 2015). A number of industry actors remain involved with small-scale farmers, and one who was closely involved in our project has expressed an ongoing commitment to collaborative inquiry. We also have become more adept at ensuring spaces for reflexive dialogue and multidirectional learning.

While our experiences clarify the challenges involved in extending participation to multilateral networks, PCNR offers tangible solutions to the challenges facing social justice in trade. As Fairtrade markets continue to grow, there is mounting concern regarding the quality of engagement with marginal groups (Raynolds & Bennett, 2015). Our research substantiates these concerns. Yet, despite the turmoil surrounding Fairtrade in rooibos, we found that most farmers continued to want access to certified markets. Indeed, Fairtrade’s minimum pricing guarantees and social premiums were viewed as critical to small farmers who could not secure viable pricing from conventional markets. The decentralization of producer services to Fairtrade’s regional affiliates offers a critical opportunity to address gaps in support and action research is well suited to this task. That said, it is important to note that Fairtrade is not the only entry point. As a variety of ethically labeled items expand their entry into domestic as well as global markets (Hughes et al., 2015), PCNR may provide farmers with an opportunity to evaluate and choose livelihood strategies that best fit their needs.