SAFTA vs. Fairtrade: Two Approaches to Fairer Trade

Fair Trade Bananas

When it comes to ethical trade, the most well-known name in the game is Fairtrade. But another model is quietly reshaping the fruit export industry: South American & African Fruit Trade Assistance or SAFTA for short.

While both SAFTA and Fairtrade aim to create fairer conditions for producers, they take very different approaches.

So, which one works best for farmers? Let’s break it down.


What is Fairtrade?

Fairtrade is a certification system that protects small-scale farmers from unpredictable market fluctuations. It sets a minimum Fairtrade price to ensure that producers don’t sell at a loss if the market crashes. When the market price is higher than the minimum, farmers receive the market rate.

In addition, Fairtrade-certified producers receive a Fairtrade Premium, an extra sum of money used for community development (such as schools, healthcare, or infrastructure).

Sounds great, right? Not so fast.


Challenges of Fairtrade

While Fairtrade has good intentions, the reality is unfortunately not always as promising:

A | Not all products sell at Fairtrade prices

Just because a farmer is Fairtrade certified does not mean all their produce will be bought at Fairtrade prices. The Fairtrade Minimum Price only applies if buyers (such as supermarkets and importers) choose to purchase the product as Fairtrade-certified goods. If demand is low, farmers must sell some of their harvest at regular market rates, which can be lower than the Fairtrade price.

 

B | Certification is costly

Farmers must pay for certification and audits, which can be expensive and bureaucratic.

Example:

A mango farmer seeking GLOBAL G.A.P. certification, often required alongside Fairtrade certification, may pay up to €5,000 per year for registration, audits, and compliance costs. If the farmer produces 20 tons of mangoes, this adds €0.25 per kilo in costs before considering packaging, labour, and transport.

If the Fairtrade Minimum Price does not account for these extra costs, farmers may struggle to break even despite being certified.

 

C | Limited flexibility

The Fairtrade Minimum Price is determined by industry consultation, not by the actual production costs of individual farmers.

Example:

A banana farmer might have production costs of $0.85 per kilo, but if the Fairtrade Minimum Price is set at $0.80 per kilo, they are forced to sell at a loss.

Unlike SAFTA, which tailors pricing to real production costs, Fairtrade does not adjust its price structure based on individual farmer expenses.


How is SAFTA Different?

SAFTA was built with a different goal: ensuring stability and transparency for fruit exporters from Latin America and East Africa.

Instead of relying on certification, SAFTA operates through direct agreements between exporters and buyers.

SAFTA’s FOB+ Pricing Model

The SAFTA model is simple:

  1. Calculate the actual production cost per kilo of fruit

  2. Add a 20% profit margin → This becomes the FOB+ price

  3. Buyers commit to this price—even if the market crashes

  4. If the market rises above the FOB+ price, the extra profit is split 50/50 between the exporter and SAFTA.

 

SAFTA Certification vs. European Certification

SAFTA itself does not require certification, but exporters must meet European standards like Global GAP to access European markets. This ensures food safety and compliance with European import regulations without adding unnecessary Fairtrade certification costs.


SAFTA vs. Fairtrade

Feature SAFTA Fairtrade
Pricing Model Based on real production costs + 20% profit margin (FOB+ pricing) Industry-determined minimum price, which may not cover actual costs
Market Stability Guaranteed minimum price, even if the market drops Not guaranteed – only applies if buyers purchase at Fairtrade prices
Profit Sharing SAFTA Plus: Extra profits are shared 50/50 with exporters No structured profit-sharing mechanism
Certification Costs No SAFTA certification required, only necessary EU certifications (e.g., Global GAP) Farmers must pay for Fairtrade certification and audits, adding costs per kilo
Use of Additional Revenue Farmers directly earn more through transparent pricing Fairtrade Premium goes to community projects, not directly to farmers
Flexibility Pricing tailored to real costs per farm Fixed pricing does not adapt to individual production costs
Market Access Buyers commit to SAFTA pricing upfront Farmers must still find buyers willing to pay Fairtrade rates

Final Thoughts

Both models seek to create a more ethical trade system, but SAFTA takes a market-driven approach, ensuring that farmers always earn above their production costs, while Fairtrade relies on a certification-based system with benefits that vary depending on demand.

For fruit exporters who want stability, fair pricing, and a direct path to buyers, SAFTA offers a more predictable and financially rewarding alternative to Fairtrade.

Previous
Previous

FOB Pricing | The Good, The Bad, The Ugly (2025)

Next
Next

4 Costly Mistakes Exporters Make (and How to Avoid Them)