During our research we informed Transfair and asked for their response. Transfair itself hasn‘t responded yet, instead they forwarded our inquiry to the Fair Trade Labeling Organization International (FLO). From there we received the following letter in late december 1998. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, we received your letter sent to Mr. Overath on 23 December 1998. Today, as the Fair Trade Labeling Organization Organization International (FLO), parent organization of all Transfair and Max Havelaar Seal Initiatives, we have the following reply. Otilio Montano is one of 15 partner organizations in Chiapas listed on FLO‘s register of producers.

Currently the group has the status of preliminary registration, i.e. it has been approved for marketing, however only for a limited period of time. In 1999 FLO‘s coffee register will come to a final decision regarding the permanent registration of the group.

In addition to your report, we heard rumors concerning UDEPOM‘s political involvement also from others, particularly from Mexican sources. Doubtless, this information will be taken into consideration by the evaluation report on this group. We are grateful for the information you gathered and we hope that you will understand that it will take some time to scrutinize all the accusations. Furthermore, we ask you to consider that due to the political tensions in Southern Mexico, our collaboration with the groups located in this area has become significantly more complicated. Number one, the groups are highly antagonized due to their diverging political opinions, which over and over again results into mutual accusations. Number two, our work as certificators has been obstructed severely, because the Mexican authorities currently do not grant work permits for our on site inspections in Chiapas.

However, during our last visit to Chiapas we received clear indications that declining state support is almost impossible for any of the coffee groups (be it in from of pre-financing the harvest or by financial support for long-term projects). Even those groups which are opposed to the general policy of the PRI, particularly in Chiapas, are depending on government subsidies. However, in some cases something more evolved than just a business relationship. We know that in certain regions such groups are used by the government as islands of stability to enforce higher interests of the state of Chiapas. In general, FLO reserves its right for a neutral position on such issues. When we refer in our list of criteria to democratic structures within the producer associations and to the absence of political discrimination, we primarily examine whether the internal procedures in those cooperatives are based on those principles. In case of UDEPOM it has to be stated that internally this group is working in compliance with democratic principles in spite of large amounts of external financial support. The member peasants are not exclusively PRI followers.

During random inquiries among them they clearly mentioned government subsidies. Nevertheless none of the questioned peasants claimed to feel bound in his political vote as a result of the UDEPOM membership.

Another topic is the possible involvement of UDEPOM in transactions to finance the contras (obviously the author of the letter means the paramilitaries - the translator). Such connections would be considered as an unequivocal instance of human rights violations and would punished by FLO without hesitation. As mentioned earlier, we take this issue very serious and we are currently working on a detailed evaluation report about this group. We will be pleased to inform you about the results. For now, we are grateful that you have sent your research to us [...]

With best regards

"Statement on the accusations made by the Chiapas Coffee Campaign against the organic coffee cooperation UDEPOM

1. If the accusations made by the Chiapas Coffee Campaign turn out to be true this of course would lead to the immediate suspension of UDEPOM from the FLO coffee register.

2. An experienced Mexican expert, local consultant of FLO, is doing a monitoring check on the group. This is not based on the accusations made but rather is within the bounds of regular FLO monitoring work. UDEPOM is provisionally inscribed in the coffee register. A decision about their final acceptance or perhaps suspension was on the FLO coffee register agenda anyway for early 1999.

3. The following are general comments on the tense situation in Chiapas.

The various groups in Chiapas (including the co-operatives working in the framework of FLO) are at odds with each other because of differing political convictions. Chiapas is a region where at time open civil war rules - therefore n objective external opinion is difficult. Party political neutrality towards our partners is one of our most important requirements.

Our last visit to Chiapas clearly illustrated that virtually all the coffee groups in this region are dependent on financial support from the state. Even groups which are clearly opposed to the general politics of the ruling party PRI receive this support. The conclusion that whoever accepts Government funds violates Human Rights is therefore absurd. In this context TRANSFAIR would like to point out that convincing Governments from countries in the South to take more responsibility for disadvantaged people is not just a challenge for Fair Trade but for the entire international Solidarity Movement and Development policies/projects. This should apply to all Governments - and to all disadvantaged people - in general and not only when it appears as an opportunity for ideological reasons.

TRANSFAIR would also like to point out that some of our partner co-operatives in Chiapas were themselves victims of the repressionist politics in the Mexican states. Due to attacks by paramilitaries (with weapons) some co-operatives representatives were murdered. Since then there has been a broad/wide ranging Solidarity Movement by TRANSFAIR member organisations and business partners against such incidents. Even Amnesty Internatinal stepped in calling for urgend action. To date no one protested to TRANSFAIR, or rather FLO against the provisional acceptance of UDEPOM to the coffee register.

email: o.nielsen@fairtrade.net"

It's not new news, in the sense that, we know that some of the coops on the Register are buffeted by the politics of their communities, and are subject to pressures, manipulation and internal "politics". It's not unlike the situation we face in Canadian NGOs and community organizations from time to time.

I've checked it out with friends in Chiapas and have been told by someone whose judgement I trust that, by and large, the article is factual. I think that the German group that is making these demands however is taking a rather overly "politically correct" view. It is quite possible that the "takeover" of this one coop of the 41 on the Register in Mexico took place after it was accepted on the Register. And even if the situation as described was in effect at the time of Registration, it is sometimes impossible to find out the details of these internal political struggles and problems from outside. What is one to make of the "fact" that a maoist group takes leadership of a community organization and then becomes part of a right wing state apparatus that represses "the people". Not an easy situation to analyze and follow from afar and, while FLO has some responsibility to be on top of these things, I'd like to know more before accusing FLO of being irresponsible. Chiapas is a VERY divided society at this time and getting worse. The government has sown the seeds of conflict very effectively and the pressures of poverty, land shortages and the inundation of the region with guns has created a situation whereby even the complete withdrawal of the troops which support the anti-zapatista and anti-popular communities wouldn't end the violence and intimidation.

This article thrusts fair trade into the middle of a very complex political conjuncture but does so in a way that doesn't really help to find solutions. Publicly exposing the problem and then demanding the expulsion of UDEPOM from the FLO Register is a sure way of tarring all the other coops in Mexico and fair trade overall with the same brush. It doesn't appear that they made this denunciation privately, giving FLO the chance to investigate and act before the accusations were put out all over the world via the Internet. The FLO Coordinator in Bonn, in an email message this morning, tells me that they are investigating and will get back to us shortly with some indication of how FLO plans to respond.

Don't forget that this is about one coop out of 41 on the Register in Mexico and that UDEPOM's total production of 920 metric tons (not all of which is likely sold in fair trade markets) must be compared to the 3253 metric tons of fair trade coffee sold from Mexico in 1997. One bad apple in a barrel doesn't make the whole barrel bad. And that's not even a good analogy since Mexico isn't a barrel and the problems with one or two coops can't that easily be transferred to others.

In addition to this particular accusation, there are other coffee growing coops in Mexico which have taken money from various Departments and Institutions of the Mexican Government for Investment, training and marketing projects which have benefited their members but which have subjected them to accusations of "being in bed with the repressive Government of Mexico." It is not easy to draw a line between taking advantage of the programs of a corporatist State for which all citizens pay taxes, and being co-opted by the repressive elements of parts of that State apparatus. And if turning down offers of loans, technical assistance, etc. means you are identified with the Zapatistas and thereafter repressed, tortured, etc. (which is one element of what happened with Majomut in Acteal), should we advise community groups and coops to do this if we don't have the means of either providing equivalent assistance or protecting them in the event of repression?

And to make things even more complex, there are European aid agencies and NGOs that promote their particular partners in Central America by favoring them with credit and technical assistance within fair trade markets because they share their particular politics, be they social democrat, christian democrat, humanist, protestant, catholic, etc., etc., etc. I became aware of this early on in my investigations of the fair trade label as a mechanism to help small farmers from Canada. I've seen the manifestations of these differences and problems at a number of FLO meetings now over the past four years and even wrote an "unauthorized history" of fair trade to summarize them. (It's available on our WWW site.) I still believe that, on balance, the fair trade system and FLO, are a positive force for positive change, otherwise I wouldn't be part of it. But the key word is, ON BALANCE. No system is perfect and we run into real dangers if we romanticize the world and aren't honest among ourselves and with the public about the warts and blemishes as well as the successes and victories.

So.... These are my comments.

I don't have an answer, just more questions."

"The NATRULAND-association is advising our trade partners in questions concerning ecological coffee production and it warrants that the guidelines for ecological farming are recognized and followed continuously. Neither by GEPA or by the producers NATURLAND-association has been charged with or has received an authorized competence for social or political aspects. In this regard we cannot understand the critique directed to TRANSFAIR and NATURLAND concerning human rights violations of the indigenous population of Chiapas. In addition we strictly reject generalized and undifferentiated allegations that buying fair-traded coffee is supporting the repression of parts of the population. In reality it is exactly the opposite: The project partners of GEPA are successful examples for achieving social and cultural integration by fair trade" (no signature).