EQUITABLE

Let us point out the definition of the equitable trade succintement: commercial partnership founded on the dialogue, the transparency and the respect, whose objective is to arrive to a greater equity in the world trade. It contributes to the durable development by offering better commercial conditions and by guaranteeing the rights of the producers and the marginalized workers, particularly in the South of planet. Holding of the equitable trade make promotion of the democracy, the transparency and the respect of the human rights, around objectives defined by the producers, of which prices of production determined not only by the economic costs, but by also taking into account the human, social and environmental production costs.
According to its defenders, the product equitable commercial should not necessarily be more expensive than a conventional product. Only the distribution of the costs and the benefit changes. The overcost paid to the producers would be compensated by lower cost paid with the intermediaries. Actually, one generally notes a price a little higher, depending mainly on distributed volumes. One asks the consumer to make an ethical choice while agreeing to pay this overcost. The consumer is thus invited to assume the responsibility for a better balance of the North-South relationships and, in certain cases, for an action in favour of the environment, as it can be the case for biological agriculture. This alternative form of trade profits thus with more than 1,5 craftsman and producer million, who makes live more than 5 million people, in more than 50 countries throughout the world. Is the concept splendid but reality is it as beautiful as this definition would like to make us believe it?
The “equitable trade” and FLO, would contribute to mask a problem: the reduction on behalf of food agriculture to the profit of the cultures of export, which makes depend on the purchases of the North of the populations which could develop their food sovereignty independently of the spending patterns of the countries known as “rich”. From there the importance to consume local products. It is in particular the point of view of Network in France, which defends an approach die equitable commercial and does not recognize itself in the definition of FINE of the “Equitable Trade”.
The point of view of the economic liberalism is that the free trade is by equitable definition: if it did not force there and that the salesman sells, it is that there is interest. In the same way for the purchaser. The trade however ceases being equitable as from the moment when controls or barriers (customs duties, quotas, etc) are installed, because those always cause an increase in price of sale to the consumers and/or a fall of the purchases to the producers. Others like Adam Smith Institute or Cato Institute stresses that by increasing the prices of the “equitable” products, the equitable trade encourages new producers to enter on the market. Consequently, that increases the production and will cause a drop in the course of the nonequitable products, with the detriment of the small farmers who do not produce “equitable” and of the environment. For these criticisms, by having the same effect as a subsidy on products with the low course, the equitable trade does nothing but exacerbate the problem by increasing the production and by encouraging the continuation of nonviable activities to the detriment of really useful productions.
We go to try Ci below to highlight criticisms most important and the most obvious drifts of the equitable trade.