OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International e.V.

FI

Our mission is to connect disadvantaged producers and consumers, promote fairer trading conditions and empower producers to combat poverty, strengthen their position and take more control over their lives.

Lobbying Activity

Response to EU Civil Society Strategy

3 Sept 2025

Fairtrade International and our member organisations welcome the European Commissions initiative to develop a comprehensive EU Strategy for Civil Society. As the global representative organisation of Fairtrade certified producer organisations, involving more than 2 mln farmers and agricultural workers, Fairtrade drives sustainable development through fairer terms of trade whereby economic development aligns with the realisation of social human rights, environmental responsibility and economic justice. We strongly support the objective of ensuring that civil society organisations (CSOs), including membership-based organisations such as ours, enable the voice of marginalised groups, such a smallholder farmers and workers, to be strengthened and heard in an open, secure and enabling environment. It is important that the Strategy recognises the plurality of civil society actors, including sectoral and professional organisations that represent the interests of key economic and social communities, such as smallholder farmers and workers producing core goods sourced and consumed in the EU market. These rightsholders should be fully integrated into EU dialogue and consultation mechanisms, not only on sectoral matters but also in broader civic and democratic initiatives. For this reason, Fairtrade support efforts to strengthen structured and transparent dialogue between institutions and civil society actors. We encourage the Commission to ensure that this dialogue is inclusive, accessible and recurring/institutionalised. We value the opportunity for producer organisations to be consulted in EU trade agreements with countries in the global south. Currently we are able to participate in the Domestic Advisory Groups for the agreement with Andean countries, Kenya and the CARIFORUM Consultative Committee which provide a good space for civil society to raise issues concerning members of the Fair Trade movement. In addition, it would be important for the EU to support CSO representation in regards to involvement in trade agreement negotiation at EU and national level to ensure trade agreements also benefit farmers and producers. EU-level platforms, such as the proposed Civil Society Platform, could be valuable tools for exchanging best practices and building trust between institutions and civil society actors particularly if integrated into the Global Gateway and Team Europe Initiatives decision making bodies. Within these structures the challenges of smallholder farmers, and wider rural civil society, should be granted greater attention. Particularly in regards to EU concerns with economic and climate migration from the global south. Producers higher costs of production due to climate change, trade barriers and the global inflation and cost of living crisis require greater political visibility and spaces for dialogue to identify producer-relevant accompanying measures. This is especially relevant for EU policy development (and policy cohesion) on CSDDD, EUDR and EUOR, which have a direct impact on producers cost of production, EU market access and hence income generation/livelihoods. The Strategy should thus include tailored measures to ensure equal opportunities for participation, representation and support to producer organisations across continents and supply chains. We appreciate the Commissions recognition of the increasing pressures on civil society, and call for producer organisations (including cooperatives and trade unions representing the rights of workers in agricultural supply chains) to not be left behind from the definition of CSOs. In conclusion, Fairtrade and its member organizations strongly support the development of a coherent and ambitious EU Strategy for Civil Society, and as an EC Financial Framework Partnership Agreement (FFPA) agency, we are committed to continue actively contributing to its implementation.
Read full response

Response to Export and import of hazardous chemicals

11 Aug 2025

Fairtrade International welcomes the draft delegated act amending Regulation (EU) No 649/2012 on hazardous chemical exports and imports but stresses that export notifications alone do not adequately protect health and the environment. Exporting chemicals known to be harmfulespecially to countries in the Global South with limited regulatory capacityviolates the human right to a safe, healthy, and sustainable environment. This right was reinforced by the International Court of Justice on 23 July 2025 as a binding norm of international law. Hazardous pesticide exports to the Global South often result in health risks, environmental damage, and fatalities. The EU must ban the production and export of such chemicals, aligning its rules with its own health and environmental standards and international human rights obligations. Under its policy coherence for development, the EU should prohibit the manufacture and export of pesticides banned within its borders due to links to cancer, reproductive harm, developmental issues, and pollution. Export notifications and consent requests are inadequate safeguards. Smallholder farmers in third countries may be compelled to use banned pesticides due to low crop prices, often driven by EU market practices that prioritize cost over sustainability. Thus, banning hazardous exports must be accompanied by fair purchasing practices and support for agroecological and organic farming. In its Farm Vision 2040, the Commission committed to addressing hazardous chemical exports. We urge the introduction of a policy instrument to prohibit such exports and support measures to help farmers access safer alternatives. A blanket ban alone may cause unintended harm; therefore, ex-ante impact assessments are essential to ensure effective accompanying measures. We call on the Commission to fulfill its commitment to ban hazardous pesticide exports and engage with trading partnersespecially least developed and developing countriesto support transitions to safer pest management methods, such as Integrated Pest Management, agroforestry, and agroecology. This will help prevent crop losses and reduce reliance on hazardous chemicals. The EU must also use its diplomatic, trade, and development tools to promote the global phase-out of pesticides no longer approved in the EU and encourage low-risk alternatives. Participation in the upcoming Global Alliance on Highly Hazardous Pesticides would support this goal. We urge the Commission to ensure that any pesticide banned in the EU is automatically listed in Annex V of Regulation 649/2012, prohibiting its export. Furthermore, this double standard extends beyond pesticides. A 2024 briefing endorsed by hundreds of civil society organizations, revealed that EU law still allows the export of goods deemed unsafe for EU citizenssuch as unsafe toys, single-use plastics, and intrusive AI systems. We therefore call on the Commission to adopt horizontal legislation that closes all loopholes and prohibits the export of goods banned for sale, use, or consumption within the EU. Please also refer to our detailed submission uploaded in addition to the above feedback.
Read full response

Response to Targeted amendment to the CMO and other CAP Regulations strengthening farmers position in the food supply chain

10 Mar 2025

Kindly find the feedback of Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International e.V. (Fairtrade International) attached. Thank you
Read full response

Response to Cooperation for the enforcement of EU rules on unfair trading practices in the agricultural and food supply chain

10 Mar 2025

Kindy find the feedback from Fairtrade International in the attached file. Thank you
Read full response

Response to Evaluation of the Public Procurement Directives

6 Mar 2025

Please find attached a file with the position of the Fair Trade movement of which Fairtrade International is part of
Read full response

Response to Postponement of deadlines within the Accounting Directive for the adoption of certain ESRS

19 Dec 2023

European sustainability reporting standards (ESRS) postponement of deadlines under the Accounting Directive Fairtrade International welcomes the opportunity to give feedback on the proposal to delay the adoption of sector-specific standards related of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) We work in agriculture and textiles with more than 2 million farmers and workers from 70 countries, with almost 2600 brands and retailers and over 4000 manufacturers and traders. Both our core fields of work are identified as high-risk sectors and will benefit from the EFRAG sector-specific standards. As a sustainability scheme our role is to support value chain actors to respect human rights and the environment as well as advocate for legislation and instruments which enhance fairer trade and human rights and environmental due diligence as outlined in the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). We emphasise collaboration across the value chain, cost sharing and focus on identifying and addressing the root causes of (potential) adverse impacts on people and planet. One of those root causes is buyer companies unfair purchasing practices which contribute to lack of living incomes and wages and other human and environmental violations. To increase company accountability for its impacts, including reflections on its own business model and purchasing practices, Fairtrade International considers the development of sustainability reporting standards as fundamental instruments to companies in scope to help them to assume their responsibility and report about it. The current mechanisms embedded in the ESRS set 1 (many sustainability topics subject to company materiality assessment and not automatically mandatory as well as phase-outs) already permit companies, including SMEs, to prepare for reporting without being overburdened. On the contrary, delaying the adoption of the sector-specific standards will result in poor quality reporting and is not encouraging companies to adopt solid HREDD processes and hence risks human rights and environmental abuses to remain addressed. Also, the sector-specific standards are needed to support companies in their materiality assessment by clarifying what should be disclosed. This said, Fairtrade International is concerned about the proposal to delay the adoption of sector-specific standards from the original deadline of 30 June 2024 by two years to 30 June 2026. We call the European Commission to ensure, e.g. by providing sufficient funding to EFRAG, that companies report on their sustainability issues as clearly and comprehensively from the start by prioritising the development and adoption of sector-specific standards. This would increase transparency, reliable and comparable information but also makes reporting easier and clearer for companies. Our recommendations are: 1. Prioritise the work of sector specific standards: EFRAG has the capacity of delivering these standards if sector-specific work is prioritized again. The standards must be developed as soon as possible, as already from 2024, companies must start applying sector-agnostic reporting requirements which include requirements to report sector-specific information. 2. By the end of 2024 or early 2025, adopt the first 5 high impact sector standards that have already been worked by EFRAG, including textiles and agriculture. 3. Develop and adopt the rest of the sector-specific standards as soon as possible. By 2026 all the twenty high-impact sector specific standards should be adopted.
Read full response

Response to Legislation for plants produced by certain new genomic techniques

30 Oct 2023

Feedback of Fairtrade International on the EU Proposal on New Genomic Techniques: The EU is equipped with an effective GMO legislation, based on transparency, labelling, and safety checks including a proven authorisation procedure. We are concerned that the proposal to deregulate New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) will weaken existing GMO legislation and create new and completely unnecessary risks while the European Court of Justice already ruled that Organisms obtained by mutagenesis are GMOs and are, in principle, subject to the obligations laid down by the GMO Directive. We share the critique already voiced in a CSO letter dated 16 May 2023 to Mr Frans Timmermans former Executive Vice-President for the European Green Deal and the Media reaction of 19 June 2023 by Corporate Europe Observatory on a leaked draft of the proposal. As a leading sustainability scheme and ISEAL Alliance member we regard agroecology as the best way forward to promote sustainability in agriculture, transform food systems and achieve food justice and sustainability. Fairtrade standards demand that our products are GMO-free. We regard any attempt of removing traceability and labelling requirements for new GMOs as potentially harmful. It would undermine objectives of the Farm to Fork Strategy. It would destroy the basis of GMO-free agriculture, including conventional, organic, and agroecological production systems. All non-GMO agricultural production systems depend on full GMO transparency. EUs own Green Deal goal to expand organic farming by 2030 would be at risk. We agree to the critique that exempting new GMOs from safety testing, traceability and labelling requirements on one hand, and seeking to expand organic agriculture on the other hand, are mutually exclusive policy objectives. The report New genomic techniques (NGTs): agriculture, food production and crucial regulatory issues', commissioned by the German Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband (vzbv) lists what a regulation of NGTs should: 1. Prevent: uncontrolled marketing or releases of NGT-GMOs into the environment; damage to biological diversity, ecosystems, agriculture; health hazards from being introduced unnoticed into the food system; data needed for risk assessment by independent experts being treated as confidential business information; contamination of organic and other food or seed production systems that exclude the use of genetically engineered organisms. 2. Ensure: a case-by-case risk assessment and an approval process for each NGT event, including accounting for accumulated effects; the further development of data requirements, guidelines and methods of risk assessment to achieve the highest safety standards, including cut-off criteria in cases where uncertainty is too great; the availability of information to track and trace the NGT-GMOs and derived food products; measures to prevent the uncontrolled spread of NGT-GMOs in the environment; consumer choice and coexistence with organic and GE free food production; animal welfare is fully respected at all stages of the NGT processes; prospective and comprehensive technology assessment is done before NGTs are brought to market. In summary, the report suggests that: -All NGT-GMOs undergo a mandatory approval process before being released -Risk assessment is essential to identify the intended and unintended changes resulting from the technical processes of genetic engineering -A comprehensive and prospective technology assessment is essential prior to use to address systemic risks to biodiversity, socio-economic impacts and effects related to sustainability -NGTs, e.g. CRISPR/Cas, have huge potential to alter the genome but this potential does not easily translate into real benefits -Technology assessment is needed based on the precautionary principle and evaluating the need to apply the technology is required including alternatives. Kindly refer to our additionally uploaded document for more details
Read full response

Meeting with Petros Kokkalis (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Aquaculture Stewardship Council

25 Sept 2023 · Green Claims Directive proposal

Response to European Sustainability Reporting Standards

7 Jul 2023

Fairtrade International welcomes the fact that sector agnostic standards for sustainability reporting have been developed through a consultative multi-stakeholder process and regard it as an important development to accountability, transparency and responsible business conduct. We have, however, a number of comments on the draft delegated regulation as well as annex I and II (uploaded in a separate document). Our key comments are: Companies should be mandated to report key metrics related to climate change and social issues The application of a number of previously mandatory disclosure requirements is now subject to materiality assessment. We are concerned that it would allow companies to omit entire disclosures (or specific details within a single disclosure) if they do not regard a disclosure requirement as material. Important topics such as GHG emissions, information about adequate wages, social protection matter and accidents of employees in the value chain should be reported on. We believe that irrespective of the perspective of a company on climate change and such social issues, it is essential to provide such information. We question the purpose of phase-in periods for introducing standards on biodiversity and social issues for smaller companies. Instead these should be included in the reporting from the first year onwards. We note that important definitions such as Living Wages and Decent Standard of Living while mentioned to in the proposed regulation are not included in the glossary. The glossary should be expanded respectively and references to existing internationally accepted definitions are to be included. We regret that there is no reference to Living Incomes in the regulation. Both Living incomes and living wages are human rights rooted in rights to a decent livelihood and essential for the fulfilment of several other human rights. Living incomes and living wages should therefore be at the core of any human rights due diligence policy and corresponding reporting standards including in sustainability reporting which is intrinsically related to human rights. Both concepts should be covered as wages are earned by workers in an employment relationship, and incomes by people working in a self-employed capacity such as could be the case for value chain workers. In principle, living wage and living income gaps could be reported in a similar way as reporting on gender pay gaps is approached.
Read full response

Meeting with Tom Vandenkendelaere (Member of the European Parliament)

15 Mar 2023 · Human Rights Environmental Due diligence, general introduction to fairtrade & fair trade organisations

Meeting with Heidi Hautala (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and Rainforest Alliance

26 Jan 2023 · Corporate sustainability due diligence in agricultural value chains

Response to Effectively banning products produced, extracted or harvested with forced labour

20 Jun 2022

Fairtrade International welcomes the opportunity to submit an input to the European Commission’s call for evidence on ‘Effectively banning products produced, extracted or harvested with forced labour’. General considerations: Objective: We stress the need of the instrument banning products involving forced labour to have as ultimate objective the eradication of forced labour globally. The focus shall not only be on avoiding EU consumers purchasing products involving forced labour. The instrument must be designed for long-term positive impact for the people on the ground. Address root causes: The EU instrument must lead to effective action addressing root causes of forced labour in global supply chains such as endemic poverty, unequal distribution of value in global value chains and asymmetrical power relations. It is key to address patterns of migration exposing workers to abusive work relationships, lack of formal contracts, low awareness of labour rights, lack of access to education and to information, documentation and systems of complaint. Impact for workers: Workers, namely in the informal sector, are the actors affected by forced labour and means should be put in place to remediate their situations. The EU should engage with producing countries to develop a mechanism that is adapted to and effective in different contexts. For avoiding or minimizing unintended consequences, it is important to establish mechanisms for continuous multistakeholder cooperation (businesses; governments and civil society – including workers). Disengagement: The EU must carefully account for risk of disengagement in supply chains without adequate safeguards. Disengagement is a last resort measure and should be preceded by cooperation with business partners to address actual and potential risks. However, in cases of state imposed forced labour, discontinuing relationships might be the best option. Further considerations: Forced labour definition The Commission refers as a good starting point to the ILO definition of forced labour: ‘all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily’. We suggest, however, to strengthen the definition and add: ‘voluntarily is not the case when an employer or recruiter makes false promises so that a worker takes a job he or she would not otherwise have accepted’ Child labour: This very EU instrument to ban products involving forced labour should only include forced child labour. Nonetheless, the problem of child labour will remain and other strategies should be envisioned by the Commission to address the root causes leading to child labour. Businesses should be compelled to prevent child labour through their due diligence process; addressing purchasing practices and including a prohibition to limit the ability of producers to earn a living income should be included to address the root causes of forced child labour. Role of CSOs / trade unions: CSOs and trade unions should have an important role in providing evidence of presence of forced labour and bring that information forward to the authorities in charge of enforcement. CSOs and trade unions should also have procedural rights during application of mechanism but also in decision of lifting the ban. CSOs and trade unions should be consulted ex ante (before putting in place this instrument) on their envisioned impacts, risks and needs for support to face changes introduced by this instrument. International cooperation: International cooperation with countries that have similar instruments in place (USA and Canada) but also with other 3rd countries (eg countries with higher risk of presence of child labour) is essential. There should not be safe harbours for forced labour and for that international cooperation is needed. This should include EU engagement with partner countries to address root causes for forced labour. EU delegations could support that.
Read full response

Response to Application of EU health and environmental standards to imported agricultural and agri-food products

16 Mar 2022

Fairtrade International welcomes the call for evidence launched by the European Commission to assess the rationale and legal feasibility of applying EU health and environmental standards to imported agricultural and agri-food products. Within the F2F strategy, it is relevant for the EU and the Commission to reflect on the possible means to improve sustainability standards applicable to agri-food products that are imported to the EU. As the F2F strategy states: Through its external policies, including international cooperation and trade policy, the EU will pursue the development of Green Alliances on sustainable food systems with all its partners in bilateral, regional and multilateral fora. In this context, the EU should focus on a positive agenda promoting sustainable practices within and outside the EU. The Green Deal, F2F strategy, and trade policy changes can have implications on 3rd countries. The EU has committed to helping these countries reach the UN Sustainable Development Goals, particularly through its commitment to Policy Coherence for Development. Fairtrade International, however, would like to voice our concerns in relation the growing call for introduction of strict conformity requirements for non-EU imported products (the so called ‘mirror clauses’. We would like to stress that due consideration should be given to 3rd countries existing standards and reality on the ground. Imposing EU sustainability standards, dismissing cases where 3rd countries’ standards may be better, is a wrong approach. It is important to understand which sustainability requirements are relevant but at global/local/EU level; not only unilaterally. Similarly, there is a need to thoroughly assess how effective mirror clauses would be in raising standards in third countries so that unintended negative consequences can be ruled out (examples are shown in our attachment). This requires well conducted ex ante and ex post impact assessments and constant dialogue with partner countries. There could be cases where the EU instead of imposing requirements should adapt. There are different weather conditions of tropical countries compared to EU countries which need to be taken into consideration in agricultural production. Moreover, the impact of climate change, means that farmers are increasingly confronted with pests and diseases and in some cases, the allowed use of substances for growing in the EU are not practical in tropical countries. In fact, the EU has a role and commitments to support sustainable development efforts of 3rd countries to transition to sustainable food systems and fulfilment of SDGs. This goes beyond unilateral measure such as mirrow clauses/ conformity requirement, amongst other unilateral measures, but includes policy measures at bilateral level (eg, Sustainability chapters in Free Trade Agreements: TSD chapters and sustainable food systems chapters) and multilateral level (eg multilateral environmental agreements). Basic principles EU should follow when applying EU agri-food standards to imports 1. Cooperation and dialogue with partner countries This includes ex ante and ex post impact assessments, and consideration of 3rd countries standards and reality in the ground. 2. A case-by-case approach is needed. A one size fits all approach would not work -instead case-by-case mechanisms must be sought 3. Flexibility and time to adapt. 3rd countries must be given reasonable transition periods and may require EU assistance to do so. 4. Consumers’ awareness and education. EU should focus on improving EU consumer’s choices and awareness, so they choose products that already incorporate higher environmental and social standards in their production methods (eg Fairtrade, organic) that come from non-EU and EU producers The EU should promote a positive agenda that contributes to global transition to agroecology and where dialogue with partner countries and impact assessment of EU policies are conditio sine qua non to any proposal.
Read full response

Response to Control rules in organic production

26 Aug 2020

Fairtrade International and its members work with many Fairtrade certified small producer organizations in the Global South which are also certified organic. The new regulation with rules on group certification will have significant impacts for existing groups of small holder farmers in the Global South. We have consulted with members and leading organizations of the organic movement on the proposed new regulation as many of the Fairtrade certified organizations in key Fairtrade certified product categories such as coffee, cocoa, or bananas, are also certified organic and as such directly impacted by the proposed changes of the organic regulation. While we acknowledge important improvements compared to earlier versions of the draft new Organic Regulation (EU) 2018/848 we believe more improvements are still required in order to prevent negative implications for small producers and their organizations. We would like to express our specific concerns to several elements of the draft. Please find our detailed feedback attached.
Read full response

Meeting with Jutta Urpilainen (Commissioner) and OXFAM INTERNATIONAL EU ADVOCACY OFFICE and

28 May 2020 · Roundtable with Civil Society (NGOs)-The EU global response to COVID-19