Global Justice Manchester

The business of forced labour in global agricultural supply chains

by

Education can sometimes give us answers, but often raises questions which lead us to further thought and investigation.

Such was my experience at Professor Genevieve LeBaron’s University of Manchester Global Development Institute lecture “The business of forced labour in global agricultural supply chains”, a representation of her report on forced labour. This was given appropriately perhaps on International Workers’ Day.

Irritatingly I bungled and missed the beginning of the lecture, but what I heard was sufficiently challenging I write now in the hope it will be published online and this will lead you to give it time.

Poor conditions on tea estates have been published widely, often as an incentive to support Fair Trade.

Professor LeBaron spoke on research in tea and cocoa supply in India and Ghana respectively and was GL WAll(irritatingly) tightlipped in not identifying specific corporations and certification schemes though Fairtrade Foundation, Ethical Tea Partnership, Trustea, Rainforest Alliance and UTZ were familiar names from the supermarket shelf amongst the standards she had investigated. She also stressed her work was on forced labour, not other issues like environmental sustainability, protection of workers from chemicals et al. She has dealt with this in related fields in the past and can be seen at Yale and SOAS and her recent academic publications.

She seems to relish being a boat-rocker in popular articles such as https://delta87.org/2018/10/ethical-certification-doesnt-eradicate-forced-labour/ as well as academic research and boasts her work had not been welcomed by some businesses (who make a living from certification). She declared that she had stopped buying Fairtrade tea and wondered what other ways she might achieve the goal of helping workers. This is not without reaction- one can feel touchiness on Fairtrade Foundation’s part in the Church Times last year.

However, whilst sympathising with the impatience felt by some companies, she was wary of “in-housing” social responsibility certification (such as Sainsbury’s “Fairly Traded” teas which GJMancester campaigned against in 2017) as untransparent and unaccountable.

Key findings as she had already given included: widespread/prevalent underpayment of workers by employers GL greywithholding payment, imposing penalties due to alleged failures to meet quotas imposed by employers, revenue generation by plantations by imposing debt-bondage with high repayment rates (for often non-existent) essential services.

In the cocoa businesses investigated workers were often required to provide additional unpaid labour for small family businesses who then lent money at punitive rates. 60% of cocoa workers were found to be in debt and 55% had no savings. 95% didn’t know if their farms were certified and very frequently there was no difference in the standards followed.

It was not clear there was any difference between multinational corporations and non MNCs, in part due to the domination of the tea chain by a small number of companies which may have espoused various verification schemes but have no real grip of producers- auditing visits often being short, cursory and perhaps limited to only 5% of producers, and that not looking for signs of forced labour.

She identified key factors in this sorry state as: the lack of permanent employment contracts- in cocoa the model of family farms has to be revised as many have hired staff as well and members of extended families brought in- so stories of “slavery” likewise may not fit. Temporary workers and (not surprisingly) women are often forced into exploitative situations.

GL buildingWhy does this happen? She identified several drivers: low prices which have stagnated over many years, rising costs (especially of labour) coupled with the cutting of governmental support for inputs and pesticides, and climate change, including bush fires, all add to the challenging business environment. As a result businesses economically exploit workers to balance their books and survive. However she didn’t advocate paying more at the shop, feeling higher prices should be paid out of traders mark-ups.

She also pointed out that whereas British anti-bribery legislation had teeth, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 with its focus on trafficking and coerced prostitution in the UK had no effective enforcement relating to supply chains overseas or requirement to demonstrate the effectiveness of measures taken. However there are proposals to amend the Act.

An unsettling event- showing perhaps the weakness of Fairtrade as we know it and showing the virtues of Traidcraft’s recent campaign to get the major UK tea companies to publish the originating estates of their leaves. So perhaps Fairtrade, as it currently stands, is not such a first step towards Trade Justice as I had fondly supposed. Hmmmmmm… one will have to keep one’s eye on this!

If you wish to study her work further, the book the lecture relates to is available on http://globalbusinessofforcedlabour.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Report-of-Findings-Global-Business-of-Forced-Labour.pdf

From Fairtrade to Global Justice – campaigning in Fairtrade Fortnight 2019

by

Chorlton Councillor Eve Holt shows support

Fairtrade can be regarded flippantly as an indulgence by the middle classes wanting to assuage their consciences by spending a few pence more on nice chocolate, wine, craft or textiles.

But although nobody ever gets rich from being a FT producer, the dividend paid and (self) respect accruing from having a fixed contract and not being at the mercy of manipulated markets is in itself not only a moral and morale good, it puts children in school and food in their bellies. And decisions made by community groups on the ground as to how they spend their money gives ownership and security to development projects such as clinics, infrastructure such as water supplies and roads, and training and communal workshop facilities.

Family Group2
Whole families got involved!

So it’s natural that whatever the “mainstream” campaigns Global Justice Now is running, each year GJManc. tends to do a campaign action for Fairtrade Fortnight. This year the campaigning side of FTF was more in evidence with a petition calling for guaranteeing a “living wage” for chocolate producers under the hashtag #Shedeserves.

To this end we ran stalls on Friday and Saturday in Chorlton, picking up customers going to Unicorn on Friday and some ward councillors and Saturday shoppers. Initially leading with the FTF card, we followed up with GJN #StopISDS campaign cards, making the point that ISDS could stop the City council favouring Fairtrade (as well as a number of other evils).

Signing a campaign card

This worked well. People knew about FT and trusted it, appreciating the rationale of the campaign and its going beyond feel-good shopping; that done they were receptive to learning about the Trade (In)Justice potential of ISDS.

We also invited people to pose for photos (for tweeting) with messages and thereby promote this campaign further and reduplicate the effort. Chorlton councillors were happy to do so, and may be helpful in the future if their support is needed.  

Steph. Pennells

GJ Manchester

You can tell the Prime Minister that future trade deals should work for the poor here #SheDeserves

 

The stop ISDS petition is here

 

Is Fairtrade worthwhile? See the discussion on the GMTAN Trade Action Blog

“A World for the many, not the few”: Kate Osamor at the Global Development Institute

by

Members of Global Justice Manchester and the Jubilee Debt Campaign turned out to hear Kate Osamor, shadow development secretary, speak at the University of Manchester Global Development Institute on Friday.

Kate stated that “aggressive change” is necessary since inequality is a defining feature of the world situation, and malnutrition is increasingly widespread. In addition, violence to women, unequal pay and climate change are issues that have their greatest impact on the poorest people. She pointed to an international system of tax avoidance, facilitated by local elites.

Introducing Labour’s Green Paper on international development, she called for a challenge to the fundamental economic causes of poverty, rather than the symptoms, outlining five necessary measures

KateOsamorMU

  1. The advance of feminism.
  2. A fairer global economy, including:
    1. an attack on tax avoidance;
    2. more debt relief;
    3. fairer trade;
    4. national wealth to remain in situ.
  3. A Global movement for public services and an end to PFIs.
  4. A drive for World Peace including restrictions on the international arms trade, increased help for migrants and an ethical foreign policy.
  5. Measures to mitigate climate change in recognition that it is a major driver of poverty and that we have only 12 years left in which to act including:
    1. an end to subsidies for fossil fuels;
    2. investment in renewable energy;
    3. new measures of wealth and wellbeing to replace GDP growth.

Kate spoke of alternative models of prosperity, based on the key recognition that inequality is holding back progress. It is a problem that industry is not currently rooted in local communities. We need to build worldwide progressive movements which will demand an increased say for civil society. We must also recognise that aid alone is not enough; donor countries must not take more than they give.

MembersMUOf course, this agenda faces many obstacles, some of which were raised in the questions that followed, but it came as a breath of fresh air in comparison to current government policy.

Afterwards, activists handed out ‘Drop the Debt’ and ‘Sick? Scratch Cards’ to people leaving the event.  These were well received and we had some interesting discussions,

Join the fight for affordable medicines

 

It makes yer fink! (visit to the Commons International Trade Committee)

by

On 20th. June I arrived in London on an early morning coach and having time to spare before a meeting went along to Parliament where the Commons International Trade Committee was taking evidence. You can watch it (and me) on https://goo.gl/kQrBab.

There were two hearings on the impact of Brexit on “Trade with the Commonwealth: Developing Countries”; the first with Professor Tony Heron, Department of Politics, University of York , and Brendan Vickers, Head of Research and Policy for International Trade and Economic Development, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development and a member of the Commonwealth Secretariat. The Prof. was difficult to follow, Vickers had experience in the Commonwealth, presented some reports his body had produced and spoke energetically, drawing distinctions between different Commonwealth countries as trading partners.

JohnWeekesThe second sitting was perhaps more interesting in some ways as the line up were unreservedly “Free Traders” with a history of negotiation deals including NAFTA.

Not billed, but coming along to support the others was John Weekes, (Pic. Bennett Jones) is a member of the Institute of Economic Affairs and an architect of NAFTA which in the past he’s advocated the UK joining, along with TPP.

Second up was Alan Oxley, Australian former ambassador to GATT, Chair of the Free-Trade Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and International Trade and Competition Unit Advisory Council. His activities in relation to deforestation and the Palm-Oil industries were criticised by the Global South environmental group REDD-Monitor in 2010 citing an open letter sent by eminent scientists worldwide, including Sir Ghillean Prance FRS. Emeritus Director of Kew Gardens.

AlanOxleyLockwoodSmithThirds was Sir Lockwood Smith, of the International Trade and Competition Unit Advisory Council, a former New Zealand Parliament Speaker, High Commissioner and Trade Minister has a great smile, seemingly all the time. (Pic. from Legatum Institute)

He’s a kindred spirit, advocate of Britain being free to join the Trans Pacific Partnership and promoted by Brexiteers: http://www.leavemeansleave.eu/media/sir-lockwood-smith-winner-yesterday-uk/ShankerSingham.jpg

Lastly came Shanker Singham (Pic. from Twitter), a colleague of Alan Oxley and (at the time of the hearing) Director of the International Trade and Competition Unit and the IEA: “A hard-Brexit guru whose thinking has influenced senior cabinet ministers” who has since lost his job at Dept. of International Trade over a ““potential conflict of interest”. He had been advising on trade policy while working four days a week at the Institute of Economic Affairs think tank but this month took a part-time role advising the PR firm Grayling.” (Times; paywall). The extent of his work and his frequent privileged access as a “Hard Brexit svengali” has been catalogued by Open Democracy and his outlook can be see in https://reaction.life/brexit-golden-opportunity-reshape-way-world-trades/.

With such an interesting line-up their opinions, in as much as I could understand them, weren’t too difficult to guess. Sir Lockwood in particular rounding off his contribution with the confident assertion that the UK should clearly cut its ties with the EU.

The chair, Angus Brendan MacNeil (SNP for the Western Isles) showed that he had some awareness of Trade Justice concerns and the potential empowerment of women through trade, leading to Brendan Vickers and Tony Heron, talking about “Women’s empowerment”, though the magnitude of achievements they could point to seemed comparatively slight and fragile when compared to the vision of the Free Traders. (One might wonder if the few millions thrown into such projects through “Aid” are really mere sops.)

Challenging the Free Traders he asked where the wellspring for a trade agreement should be – perhaps Trade ministers meeting in an airport lounge? This was answered by Singham neatly hopping from the asserted necessity of executive government doing trade to the impossibility of a country negotiating with another parliament. He favoured the US system where parliament (through committees and “cleared advisors”) might play “an advisory role” with access to secret documents and industry and trade advice- not publicly available to every Tom, Dick or Harriet. MacNeil challenged again and Singham said Government should set the agenda with Parliament having an “up or down vote on the agreement”.

John Weekes’ shared Canadian experience where a government that had previously called an election to get a free trade deal through its parliament decided a policy of openness and candour (“without giving away secrets”) – resulting in more informed discussion and the trade minister saying that a well informed opposition was much easier to deal with than an uninformed one.

Oxley’s contribution seemed to reflect an assumption that business should be consulted, not civil society – although the public had to be told the purpose of discussions, ongoing consultation wasn’t espoused.

It was sad to see that some members of the committee were absent, not contributing or slipping out. The Committee has 11 members; not half attended. (This was particularly notable with Labour members, however Chris Leslie took an active part.) What sort of scrutiny and thinking does this reflect?

I wasn’t the only witness to proceedings. John Hillary (now Head of Trade Policy, Labour Party) and Manchester’s former trade doyen Gabriel Siles-Brügge, now moved to Warwick and “providing support and advice” to the Committee. Disagreeing about Brexit, they share misgivings about potential trade injustices.

I was left with several things to think about:

  1. If paying peanuts leads to hiring monkeys, what sort of advice can you get if you invite “Free Trade” negotiators from “think tanks”?

  2. Will the Committee hear the ideas of Trade Justice advocates or people engaged in shaping regulations to protect workers, industries, environment et al.? They heard Nick Dearden as an advocate of Trade Justice back in November (See https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/international-trade-committee/news-parliament-2017/trade-bill-evidence-17-19/), but what about actual negotiators?

  3. Why weren’t members of the Committee there?

  4. Do members of the Committee (or anyone else in Westminster beyond Carolyn Lucas) ever seriously ponder the desirability of (economic) “Growth” or even “Degrowth”?

  5. Why weren’t more members of the public there?

  6. Wouldn’t it improve our thinking, arguing and campaigning if we listened to and thought about what is actually said by people rather than depending on second hand images through NGO briefings and simplified stereotypes and slogans.

You can readily find such meetings on the Commons website and that day one was spoilt for choice, other hearings involving HS2, the state of Brexit negotiations, Northern Ireland agriculture, Benefit Sanctions, local authority support for Grenfell Tower residents, the proposed ASDA/Sainsbury’s merger and the work of the government’s equality office, to name but a few in the morning.

As long as you leave weapons, placards, tools, whistles and a few other things at home you can get in to walk the corridors of power for free with no more trouble than turning out your pockets and being frisked. They scan bags which you have to keep with you – though I don’t know if they would accept a suitcase. For more information see https://www.parliament.uk/visiting/visiting-and-tours/ukvisitors/committees/

Stephen Pennells

Take action for a more transparent and democratic trade regime

Reflections on “The World We Want”, York

by

This was the confident title of GJN’s annual post AGM get together, this year staged in York. In the event I was the only person from Manchester there (as far as I know), which was a shame as it was a valuable time for networking. (Eve Nortley of GJ Bolton spoke of collaboration and told of a potential new member who is a mature social activist and keen to be involved and who will find coming to Manch. for meetings much easier than where he is currently engaged.) 

180616_BOLTON GJN MembersSMALLWhen there are simultaneous alternative workshops one person can’t cover all- I didn’t go to sessions on overseas aid, energy democracy, a world without borders, and food democracy.

Even before the meeting I profited from a good chat about new activism capacity with Laura Williams who I met on the train and arriving at the venue over an hour early met Roger Miller – a regular veteran member from Bristol and we went for a stroll- more useful experience sharing. A third discussion (not on the agenda) was with Oliver Blensdorf (GJN Sheffield) who argued against Stop Trump protests as they objectify and depersonalise someone, this being our objection against his policies- do we achieve “The World We Want” by acting in ways we don’t?

The AGM was without serious hitch, though, we were warned of GJN having to cut back on staff in the months ahead. As with the afternoon, there was an apparent disparity in age and ethnicity between attenders and GJN salaried staff.

180616_World We Want audience from GJNTwSMALLWhen the topic of participation of Youth Network members in local groups was raised the suggestion from a new Youth Network member of GJN’s Council was that we should make our meetings more exciting. Perhaps it is “The World We Want”, but I await gespannt.

There was the usual atmosphere of a Green/Corbynite consensus which sometimes makes me feel we are heading for a situation where folk go along with something they don’t fully believe because of corporate loyalty. It may be “The World We Want”, but do we all want to be told that we want it, with scant regard for the concerns and feelings of those who may see what they have sought for years trashed and for this to be asserted as if self-evidently some sort of heavenly revelation?

180616_Jason HickelSMALLPerhaps the most important “take away” from the day for me was contributed by Jason Hickel <https://www.jasonhickel.org/about/> (whose book The Divide was being given out as a motivation for taking out GJN membership). Arguing that focussing on the metric of “absolute poverty” (the old $1 per day) is deceptive as that number is falling, whereas if one looks at $5 per day one sees growing disparity. Tied to this was the idea of “degrowth”. We may say we despise the constant consumerist drive to “update” our lives and technology, but countries are blinkered to believing in constant growth without consideration of unsustainability.

It’s easy for me as English and middle class, owning my home and getting an occupational pension to feel I aspire to this, but do we really; can we sell the idea to our families; to our society, and to poorer people? And can we get “The World We Want” before “meltdown”.

Hmmmmmm. Things to think about- come next year and we can think together!

Stephen Pennels

London trips: Defend the NHS; Oppose Trump

by

There are two big demos coming up in London, with coaches organised from Manchester.

NHS still underfunded – 30th June

Dear all,
The NHS remains underfunded and over-stretched despite the increased money announced over the weekend, and the cutbacks and privatisation are set to continue. This statement by Keep Our NHS Public explains more.
So we’re going ahead with our national demonstration on Saturday 30 June “NHS at 70: free for everyone forever” and we need you to come with us! The demonstration is in London, it’ll be wholly peaceful, and we’ve got a coach going from Manchester to/from it as with previous protests. If you’d like to come, get back to me for details, and if you or your organisation can donate to the coach costs to help subsidise the low-income discounted rates, then likewise please contact me so we can talk details.
Cheers,
Hugh Caffrey,
secretary,
Greater Manchester Keep Our NHS Public.

konpmcr@hotmail.com

 

Oppose Trump – 13th July (4th July, banner making)

https://act.globaljustice.org.uk/manchester-coach-demo-against-trump-london

When Donald Trump was first elected, people were horrified. When he brought in his ‘Muslim ban’ tens of thousands of people protested at very short notice. But over a year on, there’s a danger that Trump’s hateful politics become the new normal.

We are organising a return coach for anyone wishing to attend the Carnival of Resistance in London, on the American President’s visit to Britain.

– Bus Leaves 7:30AM and returns 11:00PM on the same day
– Banner making session held at Partisan Collective on July 4th from 6-9PM: There will be cake!
– Walking protest starts at 2PM outside the BBC building in Portland Place
– 5-7PM Rally
– 8PM Leave London

Unwaged – £15
Waged – £30
Solidarity rate – £35

Global Justice Now Youth Network will specifically protest Donald Trump’s promise to force feed us chlorine chicken through his secretive, proposed trade deal with the UK. We plan to dress up as chickens and hold a chicken welfare protest demanding that their rights be protected. Anyone joining will be able to take part in the demo and banner making sessions, should you wish!

This is a fun event and first time activists, as well as seasoned organisations, we encourage to join us!

https://www.stoptrump.org.uk