From: Deborah James (deborah@globalexchange.org)
Date: Wed Jul 03 2002 - 13:45:20 EDT
Dear Fair Traders,
Please read below a long and comprehensive article from an industry
publication, Tea and Coffee Trade Journal, about child labor from earlier
this year. We hope it will be an interesting and useful discussion piece,
especially for parents and teachers, as we are out of school for the summer
and have time to reflect on issues that might be important to incorporate
into our educational system.
Deborah and and Melissa
*******************************************************************
Tea and Coffee Trade Journal
Jan/Feb 2002 volume 176, number 1
http://www.teaandcoffee.net/0102/special2.htm
The Plight of Coffeeıs Children
This article is the first in a two-part series: this first installment will
discuss various aspects of the problem and root causes of child labor in
coffee. Its sequel in next monthıs issue will look at the steps being taken
by industry players, governments, and international agencies to improve the
welfare of coffeeıs children, and to ensure that coffee fields around the
world are free of exploitative child labor.
In May 2001 Knight Ridder Newspapers published a scathing article about the
rampant use of child slave labor on cocoa plantations in the Cote dıAvoire
[sic]. Dailies across the nation carried the story, prompting U.S. Senator
Tom Harkin (Democrat from Iowa) to call for urgent action on the part of the
Chocolate Manufacturers Association (CMA) to remedy the situation. After a
subsequent Knight Ridder article was published on June 24, 2001, entitled
³Some Coffee Beans May Also Be Tainted,² the coffee industry leapt to
evaluate its own vulnerability to this controversial issue and potential
public relations debacle. Specialty coffee supporters argue that higher
prices paid for gourmet beans, and the fact that little if any specialty
coffee is sourced from the Ivory Coast, assures that child slave labor is
not an issue for specialty consumers. This notion, accurate or not, is
unlikely to assuage consumer concerns should the media spotlight turn its
focus to coffee. For consumers, the slightest insinuation that any child
labor, slave or not, taints specialty coffee beans can make even the finest
gourmet coffee leave a bitter taste.
Most child welfare advocates agree that the proper place for a child is in
the schoolroom, not the workplace. Even so, the International Labor
Organization (ILO) estimates that there are 250 million working children,
120 million of whom work full time. Especially in agricultural communities,
children often must work in order to help their families survive. In
agriculture, childrenıs work generally falls within three different
contexts: as child slaves or bonded laborers, as migrant or estate workers
usually as part of a family unit, or growing up on family farms. Many
children work for commercial farms and plantations that produce commodities
exclusively for export, making up an estimated 7-12% of the work force on
these plantations. Among the products that children help to harvest are
cocoa, coffee, coconuts, cotton, fruit and vegetables, jasmine, palm oil,
rubber, sisal, sugar cane, tea, tobacco, and vanilla.
Child labor is a complex issue primarily rooted in poverty. A ³one size fits
all² solution developed in a vacuum in order to avert a potential public
relations scandal will not put an end to child labor. A strategy to address
the welfare of children in the coffee industry must prioritize the
elimination of the most egregious forms of child labor, and take into
consideration the root causes and the various forms of child labor in coffee
and address each one appropriately.
Children Toiling In The Fields
Traveling throughout Central America and other coffee producing countries
around the world, one cannot help but notice the sheer number of young
children and adolescents. Recent census statistics show that populations in
Latin American countries, contrary to those in the U.S. and Europe, are
increasingly younger, ranging from 38-52% of inhabitants under the age of
18. On coffee farms, large and small, the prevalence of children is
significant - some playing, others caring for young siblings and still
others working alongside their parents. When visiting the fields as a coffee
buyer or visitor, one nearly always encounters children beneath the branches
of the coffee trees picking the red beans, their nimble hands often
outpacing those of their parents.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, more children work in agriculture
around the world than any other economic sector. Accurate statistics on the
prevalence of child labor in coffee are scarce, though anecdotal evidence
indicates that the occurrence is widespread in coffee producing countries
around the world. While certain forms of ³light work² are acceptable for
children, most working situations for children do not protect their rights,
or provide them access to adequate education and opportunities for their
future. Because childrenıs work is not legally sanctioned in most countries,
their presence goes unreported. Largely invisible, child laborers fall
through the cracks of existing government protections or monitoring. As an
easily subjugated workforce, their voices are not often heard, leaving them
subject to low pay (if any), and dangerous working conditions, which affect
their health and safety.
Working children suffer consequences of their early employment well into
life. According to UNICEF, working adolescents between 13 and 17 have one to
two yearsı less education than those who do not work. Two yearsı less
education implies about 20% less in monthly income during active life. The
cost of education pays off later in life according to UNICEF - the rise in
incomes of salaried urban adults with three more years of primary or
secondary level education amounts to between six and eight times the cost of
these additional years of education.
Children in agriculture face many safety and health risks. Coffee picking is
exhausting work, and for a childıs developing physiology the impact can be
damaging. Long hours, hot temperatures, overexposure to sun and snakebites
are a constant threat to the well being of coffeeıs children. Regular
exposure to dangerous chemical fertilizers and pesticides (protective gear
is uncommon) that have been banned in the U.S. are still used frequently in
coffee production and pose another threat to children. Children are often
malnourished and get sick easily, particularly those in the migrant work
force. With Central American countries facing famine this harvest season,
the welfare of coffeeıs children has already diminished even more
dramatically.
Various Forms of Childrenıs Agricultural Work
Each of the three primary categories of child labor has different level of
acceptance among child advocates and distinct impacts on the childıs
welfare:
Worst forms: Slavery and Bonded Labor
The most exploitative types of child labor - child slavery and bonded child
labor - are also the most universally condemned. The exploitation of child
labor can generate large profits for whole industries, as child workers
provide employers with a low-cost and easily subjugated labor force. The
issue in cocoa has revolved specifically around child slave labor.
In the Knight Ridder piece, ³Some Coffee Beans May Also Be Tainted,²
journalist Sumana Chatterjee writes that ³Chocolate isnıt the only American
staple tainted by slavery. In addition to being the king of cocoa, Cote
dıAvoire is the worldıs fourth-largest Robusta coffee grower, after Vietnam,
Indonesia and Uganda. The two crops often are grown together, so the taller
cacao trees can shade the coffee bushes, and on some farms, young slaves
harvest coffee beans as well as the cacao pods that yield cocoa beans.² In
the U.S., about 5% of Robusta beans come from the Cote dıAvoire. ³As with
cocoa, thereıs no way to tell whether a shipment of coffee beans contains
beans picked by slaves or those picked by paid workers,² the article states.
Since specialty coffee for the most part doesnıt use Robusta, it is unlikely
that the child slavery issue affects the specialty coffee industry as it
does the cocoa industry, though the distinction is less clear with the
commercial coffee brands which use quite a bit of Robusta coffee for their
blends. Industry consolidation where there are a few big players involved
allows more aggressive downward price pressures, and resulting cost-cutting
measures in production including labor. Minimizing labor costs dramatically
encourages more exploitative labor practices.
Child slaves work long hours, have no rights and are frequently subjected to
brutal treatment and sub-human living conditions. Bonded labor - or debt
bondage - is a form of forced labor in which children enter into servitude
as a result of some initial financial transaction. This most frequently
occurs when, having no other security to offer, parents pledge their own
labor or that of their child in return for a money advance or credit.
Landless and near-landless families, as well as migrant laborers, are the
main victims of bonded labor. With few resources to meet daily needs, and no
alternative sources of credit available, parents are often forced to pledge
their childrenıs labor as payment or collateral on a debt. While parents may
assume their children will be able to repay the debt out of future earnings,
a combination of low wages and high interest rates often make repayment
impossible. The child becomes bonded indefinitely.
Estate and Migrant Workers
Migrant workers in coffee plantations tend to be local workers from within
the same country, versus in cocoa in Africa where they come from other
countries to work, and become enslaved. Child workers in coffee tend to work
mainly during the harvest season as temporary estate labor where they are
not accounted for or recognized as employees under local labor laws. Dennis
Smith, president of Guatemalaıs Commission for the Verification of Corporate
Codes of Conduct (COVERCO) says that child labor must be analyzed in two
different categories. ³For children of legal working age (14-18 years
according to Guatemalan labor law), the issue is to check to ensure that
they are working in accordance with the law. For children ages 7-13, their
part in the labor market needs to be looked at in two ways: whether they are
working on the family farm as part of a family unit, or whether they are
part of the migrant labor pool. We think that it is more common for children
to be involved in migrant labor, where the child has very few options, does
not enjoy protection or does not keep their own pay. Their pay is given to
the family and the childıs production goes to the accumulated value of the
family unit. The issue is whether they have the option to work or not, and
if they have access to school - and this needs to further documented.²
On estates, seasonal workers are generally paid by ³piece-rate² - quantity
of a given product produced - in the case of coffee, the number of baskets
or kilos of cherries picked. For an average adult working a 10-hour day,
this pay frequently does not meet the minimum wage of the local country.
Even with both parents working to support a family, the minimum wage in
developing nations is typically less than what is needed to provide a decent
standard of living; therefore children are often employed to help bolster
the family income. On plantations, young children often assist their mothers
in filling the bags, while older children work independently. Even with such
assistance, the earnings are barely enough to buy food.
In Kenya for example, ³casual² coffee workers make approximately 1000
shillings a month (roughly U.S. $12), while the minimum wage required by law
is 3 to 4 times that amount. Natacha Thys, Assistant General Council for the
International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF) confirms that these workers ³fall
outside of labor protections, as temporary workers there are no labor laws
and no unions to protect their rights.² Recent privatization of the
education system in Kenya exacerbates the problem, she states ³There used to
be free public education in Kenya - now parents have to pay school fees in
order for their children to attend school, and since most coffee families
cannot afford the fees, the children stay home. And, if the children are at
home the parents feel they may as well bring them along to the fields to
work.²
In addition to compensation issues, the living conditions on plantations
often include substandard hygienic conditions, unsafe drinking water,
unclean sanitary facilities, and medical facilities that, if they exist at
all, are often inadequate to treat the illnesses and injuries suffered by
children. ³Migrant laborers are easier to exploit. Even here in the U.S. we
have children working to harvest crops,² says Terry Collingsworth, executive
director of the International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF). ³There is a control
and power issue with children, they donıt form unions, they donıt strike and
you can beat them.²
Family Farms
The primary purpose of family farms is to support the families that operate
them. They typically produce a variety of subsistence crops, in addition to
at least one ³cash² or export crop, such as coffee. The income the family
receives from coffee is used to buy products that cannot be produced on the
farm, and pay for other family expenses such as medicines and school fees
when they can afford it. On family farms, children are often expected to
help support the viability of the family unit. Children growing up on farms
begin to work at an early age, and they often know no other way of life,
particularly if they lack access to education. In many agrarian societies,
children as young as five years old perform small tasks on the farm. Tasks
performed by children include helping in the house, harvesting subsistence
crops, caring for siblings, picking or sorting coffee cherries or other work
relating to the coffee harvest. As part of a family unit, the children are
not frequently exposed to dangerous conditions that jeopardize their health
and safety.
Price, Poverty and Cheap Labor
The foremost contributing factor to all of these forms of child labor is
poverty. The hard life of an agricultural worker - receiving little pay for
backbreaking work - requires that all family members support the survival of
the family unit. Parents sell their children into bonded labor because they
are too poor and see little other alternative. Estate workers get paid too
little, and family farmers get prices that are too low that allow them the
liberty to not have their kids work. The resulting link between low price,
poverty and child labor is inextricable. ³Even at a good price,² says Thys
of the ILRF, ³the distribution of the price is the issue, higher prices do
not necessarily translate into higher incomes for workers. The key is
ensuring the fair distribution of the price.²
Coffee is a labor-intensive product to cultivate, harvest and process. Extra
care to maintain a standard of quality on the farm and through the
processing requires additional time and effort. Coffee experts in producing
countries estimate that the amount of labor required to produce a pound of
coffee is 2.2 hours. Even at commodity price levels of $1.00, pressure to
keep labor costs low is intense. At current prices, which have fallen well
below the cost of production, labor costs are being driven down even
further.
COVERCO reports that for several years now estate holders have been
massively laying off ³colonos,² the permanently employed labor on the
estate, in favor of hiring cheaper temporary and migrant labors outside the
protections of the Guatemalan law. The situation has been exacerbated by
this yearıs price crisis, and there is evidence that this trend is picking
up in other countries as well. In Brazil, both resident workers on
plantations and small farmers expelled from their land joined the ranks of
migrant and temporary workers that became known as boias-frias or volantes
(in English, ³floaters²). Because the earnings of many families diminished
considerably, they increasingly employed children to bolster family income.
Today, child boias-frias and volantes comprise a large number of Brazilıs
child workers.
Family farmers typically earn a fraction of the export price for their
coffee, since they work through local middlemen or ³coyotes² that take a
substantial percentage. The family income is subject to the swings of the
commodity market, and children work because their parents are unable to earn
enough to support the household. Children become productive parts of a
family unit, who can produce income to help the family sustain itself and
even to help pay for their own school and medical expenses.
Supporting Factors
In addition to poverty, several other factors exacerbate the problem of
child labor: inadequate government policy and enforcement, lack of
opportunities for education, and societal acceptance. Each of these factors
play a critical role in determining whether children work and in what forms
of labor they engage:
Inadequate Government Policy and Enforcement
In many countries, governmental policies simply ignore the plight of
children. While laws may exist, the lack of surveillance, enforcement, and
intervention on the part of governments allows child labor to flourish. Even
when violators are caught and prosecuted, penalties are often too small to
affect employersı practices. The lack of NGO and monitoring agencies and the
scarcity of resources devoted to improving the situation further contributes
to the persistence of child labor. This issue was validated by COVERCO in
their 1999 study of the Guatemalan coffee industry. The report states, ³The
coffee industry in the communities studied demonstrates a lack of commitment
to the rule of law in Guatemala. Large majorities in all the communities
studied report lack of payment of overtime and legally mandated employee
benefits. Almost half report lack of compliance with the legally mandated
minimum wage. Anecdotal evidence from our focus groups demonstrates similar
problems with child labor, discrimination against women, legally-mandated
health and safety programs, educational services and hygienic living
conditions.²
Lack of Education
Sparse economic resources of developing countries are often spent in urban
versus rural areas, further encouraging the neglect of education for
families in the agriculture sector. In coffee communities, schools are
remote and simply inaccessible to most. Children in coffee villages
typically must walk for several miles to attend school past the age of 10.
Even where school is more accessible, often families cannot afford the fees
and supplies. In coffee, typically, the school vacation coincides with the
coffee harvest, however, this is hard to control, and when harvest season
and school do coincide, large numbers of families send their kids to the
fields instead of to school. Children have little say in whether or not they
work, and whether they have access to school or opportunities for an
alternative vocational choice in their future. Many young boys and girls,
once they start working, donıt return to school. On some estates, children
of permanent workers may have access to some schooling; but as ILO data
indicates, ³Primary education facilities are available on most plantations,
but are generally found insufficient to enable all children to attend school
regularly and complete their primary education.²
Societal Acceptance
In certain cultures, working children are part of an accepted societal norm;
child labor is viewed as beneficial to the child, the family, and the
society in general. Indonesiaıs ³Pancasila² ideology states that a childıs
foremost duty is to help their parent. An ILO study of child labor in
Indonesia notes that ³cultural values in Indonesia accept and even encourage
child employment as an educational process² that brings understanding of
work, personal responsibility, self-discipline, and job satisfaction.
Similar attitudes are common in many communities throughout the world.
Finally, society in general contributes to child labor through omission,
indifference, a lack of awareness, or the acceptance of child labor as a
natural and customary way of life. In the economies of countries where the
multi-million dollar coffee export industry plays a key role, the lack of
serious data and analysis on worker and child labor issues is a testament to
this indifference.
The Child Labor Debate: Abolish or Regulate?
While most child rights advocates will agree that at the least the worst
forms of child labor must be abolished immediately, they are divided as to
the most appropriate approach to improve the lives of the worldıs working
children. While some support the abolition of all forms of child labor,
others argue that its abolition is unrealistic and contrary to the interests
of the children themselves. Such advocates emphasize that the issue of child
labor must be analyzed within the broader context of social, economic and
educational progress in the developing world.
With the recent increased public awareness of child labor, some coffee
industry companies have sought a ³Certified - no child labor² guarantee like
the chocolate industry is considering as a Band-Aid to their public
relations quandary. Such quick fix solutions to the broader child labor
issue tend to be shortsighted and result in misguided policies.
Collingsworth of the ILRF says, ³The ultimate buyer, they donıt want child
labor. They are just woefully ignorant. Child labor exists and companies can
only claim ignorance for so long before they get caught. It would be a lot
more constructive to work in a proactive fashion versus a reactive fashion;
setting up programs going in rather than dealing with the public relations
crisis. It is much better to have a constructive partnership where
industries work with local authorities and put kids in school.² Acting in a
reactive manner, he continues, ³allows people to question - what is going on
here? Is this a cover-up or are you really interested in impacting the
situation?²
The child labor issue in agriculture is not likely to disappear any time
soon, if ever. Children are going to work in coffee as long as poverty
exists in their communities. The challenge for the coffee industry is not to
treat child labor as a mere public relations issue, but rather as one
component of a broader social and economic agenda to improve industry policy
and practice. At the most basic level, better access to school, health care
and decent housing is essential for children on both coffee estates and
family farms - better wages and prices would help make this possible. The
ultimate vision perhaps, is for children in coffee producing communities to
live as healthily and carefree as the children of the U.S. specialty coffee
community - such an industry transformation would make an unmistakably
newsworthy piece for journalists to report around the world.
Numerous international organizations work on behalf of children around the
world. In the coffee industry, several initiatives have begun to address
child labor and its root causes. Programs such as codes of conduct for
suppliers with appropriate enforcement, fair trade initiatives, and
community development projects through organizations such as Coffee Kids are
providing promising opportunities for children outside of coffee ³business
as usual.²
Next month, the second article of the series The Plight of Coffeeıs Children
will analyze programs that address the issue of children in the coffee
industry.
Foot Notes:
1: ³General Survey of the Reports relating to Convention 138 and
Recommendation No. 146 concerning Minimum Age, Report III (Part 4 B)²
(Geneva: International Labor Organization, 1981) 73.
2: ³By the Sweat and Toil of Children: the Use of Child Labor in American
Imports,² Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor,
July 15, 1994.
*******************************************************************
Tea and Coffee Trade Journal
Feb/March 2002 volume 176, number 2
http://www.teaandcoffee.net/0202/special.htm
Working to Help Coffeeıs Children
This article is the second of a two-part series on child labor in the coffee
industry. The first article provided an overview of the background and root
causes of child labor. This second article looks at steps being taken by
international agencies, governments, and industry players to improve the
welfare of coffeeıs children, and to ensure that coffeeıs beans are free of
exploitative child labor.
Today, millions of children throughout the world went to work instead of
school or play. Their large numbers in every region of the world make child
labor the most widespread abuse of children. The coffee industry is no
exception. As coffee harvest moves into full swing in this year of
historically low prices, even more families are finding it necessary to put
their children to work to supplement the diminished family income.
In the past decade, international attention on the issue of child labor has
increased dramatically. International trade and businesses have come under
increased pressure from social activists, labor unions and others to help
find new solutions to end exploitative child labor and help get children the
education and training they need to become productive adults. Multi-national
corporations in the spotlight include respected companies, such as Nike and
GAP, as well as many other lesser-known businesses. Coffee industry giant
Starbucks has also been a key target of labor advocacy groups.
After recent Knight Ridder news exposés on child slavery in cocoa and coffee
in the Ivory Coast, the coffee industry reacted quickly and firmly with
statements to condemn the situation there, and to establish public positions
and policies on the broader issue of child labor. While child slavery and
forced child labor are not prevalent in the coffee industry, the issue of
children working to produce coffee is troublesome to many consumers who pay
$5 - $14 on average for a pound of their favorite beans.
The coffee industry has been quick to act publicly to support international
and government initiatives to combat the worst forms of child labor, though
significant quantifiable progress for agricultural workers has been slow.
The task is indeed daunting given the vast scope of the problem and many
obstacles. Some special programs within the coffee industry, however, have
begun to make an impact: development projects, Fair Trade and other direct
trade relationships, independent monitoring and verification of labor
issues, and company codes of conduct are slowly taking shape and gaining
industry and consumer acceptance.
Price Crisis Exacerbates Poverty and Child Labor
³Poverty emerges as the compelling reason why children work,² states the
International Labor Organization (ILO). ³Children commonly contribute around
20-25% of family income. Moreover, their income keeps numerous families
above the bread line.² According to UNICEF, ³A review of nine Latin American
countries has shown that without the income of working children aged 13-17,
the incidence of poverty would rise by between 10-20%.²
Even in a normal ³C² price year, poverty is endemic throughout coffee
producing countries, forcing many families to put their children to work to
make ends meet. This year, the situation is dramatically worse, driving
farmers and farm workers into a desperate economic situation that requires
them to take drastic measures to ensure the survival of their family.
Farming families that in the past have been able to scrape by are losing
their land, and farm workers are losing their jobs or are unable to find
work. The price crisis affects more than just childrenıs need to work; it
also impacts their ability to attend school and their nutrition. Today, it
is more apparent than ever that in coffee, children work so that they can
eat.
In extreme cases this year, children of coffee workers and farmers are being
forced into harsher, more exploitive forms of child labor. Displaced coffee
workers in Nicaragua, according to a recent news story in La Prensa, have
congregated near the Costa Rican border, and reports of child prostitution
have sprung up for the first time there, as families have been driven to
desperate actions just to survive.
The Specialty Coffee Association of Americaıs (SCAA) executive director Ted
Lingle points out the concept of ³diminishing opportunity² with falling
prices. ³The underlying problem has been low world coffee prices, which for
the past fifty years have not kept pace with U.S. inflation.² Lingle states,
³Through their purchases consumers have consistently rewarded those firms
selling coffee for the lowest prices. This means in order to maintain or
increase sales, many coffee roasters have continued to seek out low cost
coffees. In a global economy the net result is that farmers in Guatemala
must compete with farmers in Vietnam for market share, and consequently the
value of farm labor in Guatemala is discounted against lower labor costs in
Vietnam. In every producing country, coffee farm workers remain at the mercy
of the international market. While parents of coffee farming families would
like to provide their children with better economic, education, health, and
nutrition opportunities, they simply do not have the incomes to pay for it.²
The fact that poverty is widespread throughout coffee producing regions,
even in a high ³C² price market, points to other causes of poverty not
related to price. While steps are being taken to alleviate some of the most
severe effects of the price crisis and oversupply issues by industry
associations, governments and international policy institutions, important
progress has yet to be made in terms of the root causes of poverty in
producing countries: economic relationships that keep people poor including
lack of access to markets and credit, trade policy that favors big business
interests over those of workers and families, and ineffective economic
development programs in producing communities.
International Agencies Take the Lead
As S.L. Brachman noted in a recent issue of Business Economics magazine, the
child labor situation has only recently gotten past the barrier of
acknowledging the problem to taking steps to address it. ³At the beginning
of the 1980s, the governments of many developing nations denied that their
economies contained child labor, and businesses followed suit. By the 1990s,
the expanded definition of child labor was becoming more accepted, and
governments began admitting that child labor existed in their economies. By
the end of the century, the dominant question at the ILO was no longer how
to get governments to admit that child labor existed, but how to implement
programs to help children. While the ILO has taken almost two decades to
conclude how to handle the problem of child labor, firms face a more
demanding time-frame and are more vulnerable to suffering short-term
consequences from falsely or mistakenly denying that child labor exists in
their operations or those of their suppliers.²1
One of the first concrete steps taken by the ILO was the creation of the
International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labor (IPEC) in 1998 for
the elimination of the worst forms of child labor. Since then over 175
countries have ratified ILO Convention 182, which applies to all children
under 18, concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the
Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor. Under this Convention, the
term ³worst forms of child labor² includes slavery and bonded labor, child
prostitution or pornography, using a child for illicit activities such as
drug trafficking, and work that harms the health, safety or morals of
children. Convention 182 requires ratifying nations to remove children from
abusive child labor and provide them with rehabilitation, social
reintegration, access to free basic education and vocational training; and
to consult with employer and worker organizations to create appropriate
mechanisms to monitor implementation of the Convention.
As indicated by this Convention and agreed upon by child advocates; simply
removing children from work is not the whole solution - there must be
alternatives for them and their families to replace lost income, as well as
provide adequate schooling or care for children. As first steps to reduce
and eliminate child labor and provide alternatives for child workers, some
governments are introducing legislation to make primary education
compulsory, while others are raising the number of years children are
required to attend school. Numerous non-government organizations (NGOs) are
developing and implementing programs to assist child workers and their
families, including establishing small, non-formal education programs for
children.
In a recent move specifically targeted to eliminate child labor in the
coffee industry in six countries, the U.S. Labor Department announced a $6
million grant for IPEC programs. IPEC is working with Costa Rica, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic, to
remove children from jobs harmful to their development, provide them
schooling and health services, and prevent the employment of other children
in the workplaces that the projects target. This development of and approval
for this program was supported by the North American coffee industry,
largely through the efforts of the National Coffee Association (NCA) with
backing of the International Coffee Organization (ICO).
In addition to the impact they are expected to have, these programs will
also be important learning opportunities and models on which to base future
programs. But while these initiatives are promising, they are as yet
untested. Real impacts will be difficult to measure particularly in terms of
short-term results. This year specifically, in light of the coffee price
crisis, concrete benefits that might have been noticed are simply not being
felt. Instead, because many familiesı incomes have been more than halved in
this low market, these program initiatives are mainly helping to keep
families from slipping more deeply into poverty.
Industry Challenges to Improvements in Child Labor
When the Ivory Coast slavery scandal broke, the three major North American
coffee associations issued public statements strongly condemning the
situation, urging all producing nations to ratify the International Labor
Organizationıs Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labor, and calling on
signatories of the Convention to take necessary measures to ensure its
effective implementation.
For a long time, the industry was able to essentially ignore issues outside
of its direct control, such as child labor in coffee producing countries. In
todayıs media climate, this is no longer the case. And, since development
projects tend to have a long-term perspective and gradual impact, businesses
have a proactive role to play alongside international agencies, governments
and industry associations in order to encourage more rapid and effective
progress and mitigate potential public relations risks.
Industry associations have a role to play, notes the SCAA statement,
³Ultimately, local enforcement is necessary to prohibit and stop illegal
child labor. Although trade associations cannot literally act as local
enforcementı in producing nations, trade associations can take the lead in
directing attention to areas where these conditions exist and encouraging
their members to find alternative sources of supply. Trade associations, by
providing a common forum for discussion of the issues, can also help their
members to achieve the delicate balance between ethical sourcing, foreign
sovereignty, and corporate earnings that arise from purchasing tropical
agricultural products from developing countries.²
While public positions against child labor are crucial, leaving the
implementation and enforcement of such policies to corrupt governments of
impoverished nations does not offer much confidence to businesses that are
susceptible to public scrutiny and even negative consumer demands. Countries
are under extreme economic pressures, and the global trading trend is to
drive down prices. In their bid to compete for a low-priced sale, local
producers often do whatever is necessary to bend the laws, or turn a blind
eye to infractions with the assumption they wonıt get caught. This fact
directly impacts companiesı and industry initiatives working to dispel
consumer concerns that their coffee may be tainted with child labor.
A further challenge is that international standards outlined and promoted by
the ILO and IPEC are non-binding. The laws of individual countries define
children and child-appropriate work differently, using different ages for
different types of work. Add to that uneven enforcement of these laws, and
the reality of the situation and real progress becomes obscured to agencies,
businesses and consumers alike. Media reports and growing consumer activism
make it risky and inadvisable for companies to sit back and wait for
progress of international agencies and programs to be reported.
In spring 2000, a television news report by San Francisco ABC7ıs Dan Noyes
found that ³Labor rights groups (say) that American companies are not using
the power they have to keep children from being exploited. According to
Guatemalan law, itıs illegal for children under 14 to work - but we spoke
with children as young as 6-years-old, working the plantations day in and
day out to earn less than a dollar a day. Some live in open-air bunkhouses,
hundreds crammed into small sleeping areas. They bathe, and wash dishes and
clothing all in the same tub.²2
Many child advocates agree that there are rampant problems with enforcement
of laws and policies. In their 1999 study of the Guatemalan coffee industry,
the Commission for the Verification of Corporate Codes of Conduct (COVERCO)
found that ³The coffee industry in the communities studied demonstrates a
lack of commitment to the rule of law in Guatemala. Large majorities in all
the communities studied report lack of payment of overtime and legally
mandated employee benefits. Almost half report lack of compliance with the
legally mandated minimum wage. Anecdotal evidence from our focus groups
demonstrates similar problems with child labor, discrimination against
women, legally-mandated health and safety programs, educational services and
hygienic living conditions.²
Another complexity is to understand that not all child labor is bad. In
coffee communities, children working alongside their families in the coffee
fields is culturally appropriate - children learn as they work, participate
in family activities, learn to be productive members of society, and help
their families be more viable. The key is when children are working - are
they also in school and are they together with their families? Many child
advocates would agree that, in this situation, child labor is not
necessarily harmful to them, though it is a delicate and difficult balance
to strike.
Promising Models to Improve the Plight of Coffeeıs Children
The complexity and enormity of the endeavor to reduce child labor in coffee
and offer concrete alternatives means that real progress will be a long time
coming. While international organizations and trade associations deal with
larger policy issues moving local governments and NGOs forward, some
concrete solutions are being offered by non-profit organizations working
with coffee companies, particularly within the specialty sector. New market
alternatives such as Fair Trade, development projects through Coffee Kids or
other non-profit development organizations, and codes of conduct implemented
for coffee suppliers, are three concrete opportunities for making an impact
immediately on farming communities and child workers.
Fair Trade and other Direct Trade initiatives: According to the Fair Trade
Labeling Organization (FLO) in Bonn, Germany, the criteria required for fair
trade certification were created taking into account relevant ILO
conventions concerning child labor (29, 105 and 138). Under the criteria for
coffee, there can be no forced labor, and, because fair trade works with
family farms, the children are not working under harmful conditions.
Furthermore, the minimum price criteria provide families with a dignified
standard of living, eliminating the need for children to work for wages.
Many cooperatives within the fair trade network use premiums from their fair
trade coffee sales to provide scholarship programs to keep kids in school
instead of in the fields.
Direct trade relationships with estates as well, offer more opportunities
for companies to verify whether child labor is employed or not. Independent
verification is crucial though, since estate owners control what visitors
and buyers witness and their interaction with workers during visits. In a
direct trade relationship, companies can also exert more control as buyers
over estate conduct and treatment of workers and children.
Development Projects: Coffee Kidsı key objectives are to keep kids in school
and to provide economic alternatives in the coffee communities in which they
work. The Hijos del Campo scholarship program in Costa Rica is one key
initiative that Coffee Kids donations help to fund. Through the COOCAFE
coffee cooperative, funds are provided to send children to school as well as
to improve school facilities and infrastructure, provide bus transportation
and obtain trained teachers. In a growing number of communities, Coffee
Kidsı micro-credit programs are targeted toward helping women develop small
businesses to earn alternative sources of income to free them from their
economic vulnerability to coffee commodity market swings. The results of
these programs, this year in particular, are keeping families together so
that men donıt have to go off to look for other work, keeping kids in school
and providing them with a more nutritious diet.
Codes of Conduct and Sourcing Guidelines: A handful of companies have begun
to implement their own codes of conduct and sourcing guidelines, some of
which specifically bar the use of children in the making of company
products. Frequently, though, consumers and labor advocacy groups remain
skeptical of such initiatives. Many codes of conduct have been criticized
for being difficult to monitor by third parties, and therefore, for
amounting to little more than window-dressing. Few companies have
voluntarily gone beyond such a code to ensure that children removed from the
workplace had access to other opportunities, such as school, or vocational
training. Enforceable, independently monitored guidelines ensure their
effectiveness to both businesses and consumers.
Industry Collaboration: The SCAA points out that ³trade associations can
take the lead in directing attention to areas where (harsh child labor)
conditions exist and encouraging their members to find alternative sources
of supply. Trade associations, by providing a common forum for discussion of
the issues, can also help their members to achieve the delicate balance
between ethical sourcing, foreign sovereignty, and corporate earnings that
arise from purchasing tropical agricultural products from developing
countries.² Other areas for potential collaboration include lobbying and
advocacy in international policy discussions, such as those that have taken
place between the ILO, ICO, USDOL and the coffee industry.
Coordinated efforts on the part of major corporations, significant buyers
and/or industry associations can send a strong signal to producing country
governments and industry, and international agencies to encourage them to
take action on critical issues. One historic moment that highlights such a
successful industry collaboration came as the result of the Folgers Boycott
in 1991. The boycott, led by the solidarity group, Neighbor to Neighbor, was
established with the initial demand that Folgers stop buying El Salvador
coffee to encourage quicker resolution to the decade old civil war and
related human rights abuses. The demands of the consumer activists were
finally met in the form of full page advertisements taken out in all of the
major newspapers in El Salvador by the big three national roasters -
Folgers, Maxwell House and Nestle - with a strong statement in support of
the ongoing peace process in New York. The high profile alliance of the
three companies brought their considerable influence to bear on the parties
negotiating the peace accords, and in the end contributed to the signing of
the accords and peace for El Salvador. A similar coordinated effort could be
constructed around child labor policies and their enforcement. And, because
coffee importers and roasters are ³#1 clients² of producing countries, such
efforts could potentially result in more expeditious action and subsequent
impact than ILO and other NGO activities are able to produce.
Taking Care of Coffeeıs Children
Child labor may always be a reality of life in coffee producing countries,
but it doesnıt necessarily need to be harmful to children. In an industry
that continues to report record profits, the disparity in the economic
situations of farmers and farm workers, industry players, and consumers is
dramatic. Unless consumers and industry decide to share the benefits of
trade fairly with producer partners, exploitative child labor will continue
to exist in the coffee industry. Until now, many companies have turned a
blind eye to the issue of child labor mainly because they feel like there is
nothing they can do, its not their responsibility, or they simply donıt know
what to do. As outlined in this article, opportunities to make a difference
on the child labor issue do exist right now, and new, innovative
opportunities can be developed with industry commitment, foresight and
collaboration. The coffee industry must determine if it is up to the task of
improving the situation of child labor, then move forward with committed
action for the benefit of all industry stakeholders - most importantly for
coffeeıs children.
Foot Notes:
1) The Political Economy of Child Labor and Its Impacts on International
Business², Business Economics, July 2000, S.L. Bachman
2) ABC-7 News, Feb. 3, 2000, I-Team revealed that children are working
very hard to pick beans for your morning cup of coffee.
Resources:
* Specialty Coffee Association: www.scaa.org
* National Coffee Association: www.ncausa.org
* International Labour rganization www.ilo.org
* International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC):
www.ipec.org
* UNICEF: www.unicef.org
* Commission for the Verification of Corporate Codes of Conduct
(Coverco), Guatemala: www.coverco.org
* U.S. Department of Labor: www.dol.gov
* International Labor Rights Fund: www.ilrf.org
* ³By the Sweat and Toil of Children,² U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau
of International Labor Affairs
* Fair Trade Labeling Organization: www.fairtrade.net
* Coffee Kids: www.coffeekids.org
-- Deborah James, Fair Trade Director deborah@globalexchange.org Melissa Schweisguth, Fair Trade Coordinator melissa@globalexchange.org Global Exchange 415.255.7296 x245 or x352 415.255.7498 fax 2017 Mission Street #303, San Francisco, CA 94110 http://www.globalexchange.org/coffee http://www.globalexchange.org/cocoaDo you support Global Exchange's campaigns for Fair Trade? Make it possible for us to keep working with farmers to achieve the economic justice they deserve. Become a MEMBER of Global Exchange at http://store.globalexchange.org/joinus.html
_____________________________________________________________________ Global Exchange http://www.globalexchange.org To unsubscribe, email fairtradelist-request@globalexchange.org with unsubscribe in the body of the message.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 28 2002 - 02:52:33 EST