The Ecological Association of Permaculturalists of Suchitoto (AEPS)

The Ecological Association of Permaculturalists of Suchitoto (AEPS) / Asociación Ecológica de Permacultores y Permaculturas de Suchitoto

Towards the end of 2014 problems of land tenure, staffing and management of the Permaculture Institute of El Salvador (IPES) led to a change in organisation both on the ground and in management of the IPES Demonstration Plot outside the town of Suchitoto, El Salvador. From the start of 2015 the Ecological Association of Permaculturalists of Suchitoto (AEPS) assumed management, control and working of the land on the Demonstration Plot. Many of the same characters involved with the IPES are now also involved with the AEPS and the business of organic agriculture on the plot remains much the same, including the training of campesinos from communities all around El Salvador.

The following two items – a short video and a Powerpoint presentation of the work on the Demonstration Plot – were produced by members of the AEPS during 2015.

The rise of Rainforest Alliance

The previous article from the organisation Banana Link covered the certification of tropical fruit suppliers by the Rainforest Alliance. Banana Link has produced more information on certification by the Rainforest Alliance in the ‘Banana Trade News Bulletin No.55 (August 2016). Given that this issue affects us all as consumers of tropical fruits and users of supermarkets, this further information is reproduced here.

Reproduced by kind permission of Banana Link – www.bananalink.org.uk

Key words: Rainforest Alliance; certification; SAN standards; supermarkets; banana production.

RA certified products (which today include bananas, pineapples, coffee, tea, palm oil and a great many other commodities) are increasingly popular with retailers and other businesses which offer cheap food and drink. Among the companies selling products which carry the RA’s green frog logo are McDonald’s, Dunkin Donuts, Kraft, Unilever, Mars and a great many others not usually perceived as particularly socially or environmentally responsible.

To gain RA certification, banana and pineapple plantations have to comply with Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN) standards, developed and revised by its International Standards Committee, composed of SAN’s Secretariat and currently a group of 9 experts.

Use of the RA label has expanded rapidly, particularly in coffee, cocoa, tea and bananas since 2010. Around 1 million Metric Tonnes of bananas were certified in 2010. Today over 6 million tonnes display the frog logo, meaning that 5.5% of world banana exports were RA certified in 2014.

This is an impressive achievement, but the rapid expansion of RA certification has invited a growing suspicion that much of its success can be attributed to the laxity of the standards themselves and the undemanding nature of the RA certification process.

SAN standards

Within the Sustainable Agriculture Standard, there are 100 criteria, grouped under ten guiding principles. Six of these principles involve ecological criteria, one relates to management systems and the other three contain social criteria. Of the 100 criteria, 16 are critical and have to be passed to achieve RA certification.

The critical environmental criteria require the protection of existing ecosystems on the farm, the non-destruction of rainforest for farming activities and an embargo on hunting wild animals. Farms may not discharge waste into natural water systems and there is a list of forbidden chemical and biological substances.

The critical social criteria require that:

  • farms do not employ children under the age of 15, use forced labour or apply discriminatory employment practices;
  • workers must have the right to organize freely and to negotiate their working conditions collectively;
  • farms must have and divulge a policy guaranteeing this right and must not impede workers from forming or joining trade unions or from undertaking collective bargaining; and
  • wages should at least equal the regional average or legally established minimums.

Other critical criteria include, in the area of health and safety, that workers in contact with agrochemicals should use personal protective equipment and, in the area of community relations, that farms should put in place policies and procedures which identify and take into account the interests of local populations.

In addition to complying with the critical criteria, farms must also comply with at least 50 per cent of the applicable criteria, relating to each of the ten guiding principles and at least 80 per cent of the total applicable criteria of the Sustainable Agriculture Standard. 46 per cent of all criteria are checked in each individual audit.

Although it’s not possible to analyse the SAN criteria in detail here, it is worth noting that the critical criteria are mostly requirements which are already contained in national legislation, existing company Codes of Practice and in other standards such as GlobalGAP, which are already required by EU retailers selling imported bananas and pineapples. Only one criteria relating to restoration of natural ecosystems appears to add value beyond usual pre-existent requirements.

When it comes to non-critical criteria, there is enough flexibility in the requirements to make it possible for most commercial banana and pineapple plantations to achieve certification without any great difficulty.

Certification

SAN authorizes a number of bodies to audit farms and approve certification. 84% of all certifications for all products are carried out by a division of the Rainforest Alliance, RA-Cert (also known as Sustainable Farm Certification International Ltd., SFC). The remaining 16% are mostly carried out in regions which do not export bananas or pineapples to the EU, which means that 100% (or very nearly 100%) of banana and pineapple plantation audits are carried out effectively by Rainforest Alliance itself. As a leading member of SAN, Rainforest Alliance sets its standards and as the owner of RA Cert it also audits farms.

Where violations are found, plantations are normally given warnings, encouraging them to improve performance in future. There is a system for whistle-blowing and RA usually responds quickly to allegations. Some complainants report however that making and following up a complaint can involve a lot of time and effort and there can be no guarantee that they will be satisfied by the outcome.

The only external challenges to the system tend to come from trade unions and civil society organisations which know about the daily realities of life on RA Certified farms. Neither of these agencies have the financial resources to monitor RA farms systematically. Nevertheless, when they do find the resources to investigate, violations of standards (including critical criteria) appear to be almost invariably found. This inevitably raises questions as to the overall reliability of RA and its certification system.

Do certified farms comply with SAN Standards?

It is not always easy for external agencies to get access to farms. This makes it difficult to assess RA’s environmental impacts in any detail. It is easier to assess the Alliance’s social impact as information can be obtained, if necessary, by interviewing workers and trade union organisers outside the plantation gates.

Preliminary investigations of RA’s performance in banana and pineapple farms have been carried out by Banana Link (UK), by Oxfam Germany, by a number of Latin American trade unions and by SOMO Netherlands – for the tea, coffee and flower sectors. Their findings are briefly outlined below:

In Costa Rica, in Ecuador, in Honduras and in Guatemala (and in Kenya for tea) researchers found Rainforest Alliance Certified farms where:

  • Trade union membership and activities were suppressed and unionised workers sacked
  • Wages paid were below the legal minimum requirement
  • Hours worked exceeded legal limits and overtime was not paid
  • Areas for eating and sanitary facilities were not provided
  • Migrant workers were contracted at lower rates than national workers
  • Use of subcontractors generated instability in the workplace
  • Safety equipment was inadequate and agrochemical contamination occurred
  • Workers suffered health problems associated with the use of agrochemicals
  • Contracts without social security and other social guarantees were used
  • There was evidence of environmental non-compliance

Ecuador and Costa Rica are the biggest suppliers of bananas to the EU. Costa Rica is the biggest supplier of pineapples. Some of the farms investigated are known to supply Lidl (and also Aldi).

So does Rainforest certification deliver?

It would appear that RA certification does not provide a guarantee that even such “critical criteria” as basic labour rights or payment of minimum wages have been respected.

The SAN and RA aspire to offer sustainable tropical fruit and to do this at no extra cost to consumers. When supermarkets offer fruit to consumers at exceptionally low prices however they need in turn to buy from their own suppliers at the lowest possible prices.

“Hard discounters” like Lidl and its competitor, Aldi have driven prices down to levels not seen since the 1970s  Other supermarkets are trying to match these low prices but costs to producers have risen dramatically in this period.

Can it be realistic to expect banana and pineapple growers to produce sustainably when the prices they are paid barely cover the costs of production? Is it surprising that, when researchers investigate RA Certified farms, they find that SAN standards are not being met? Producers have to pay RA for certification which adds further to their costs. When low prices are paid to producers it makes it more difficult for them to meet the costs of sustainable production and this makes it more likely that production systems will lead to negative social and environmental impacts.

It is also worth pointing out that Oxfam Germany has published a report ‘Sweet Fruit, Bitter Truth’ which alleges that inhumane conditions exist on many Costa Rican pineapple farms and Ecuadorean banana operations, laying the ultimate blame for this on Germany’s leading discount retailers such as Lidl, which also operates in the UK. Oxfam alleges underpayment, dangerous pesticide exposure and inhumane living conditions across a range of farms. The report can be found at: http://makefruitfair.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Sweet-fruit-bitter-truth.pdf

Nicaragua’s Zero Hunger Programme

Nicaragua’s Zero Hunger Programme was inaugurated in May 2007 with a five year budget of US$18.58 million. The principal element of the programme is the provision of a US$2,000 ‘productive food bond’ given as part of the Productive Food Programme (PPA). The bond is made up of a breed cow and pig, hens and a rooster, seeds, corral materials and training. “The idea is to provide the family table with meat, milk, eggs and fruit, eradicating hunger and malnutrition.”[i] Families in some locations such as Raití rejected the cows asking for short-haired sheep instead; they also requested help with the cultivation of cacao rather than basic grains.

The bonds are issued mainly to women heads of households. As Paul Kester outlines, the beneficiaries must satisfy various criteria:

Need – the family must be in a state of extreme poverty suffering at least two of the five basic unmet needs (overcrowding, inadequate housing, insufficient services, low education levels and economic dependence).
Capacity – the family must have a plot of 0.7 to 1.5 hectares available for the animals and plants.
Commitment – the beneficiaries must pledge to participate in training workshops, not sell the animals issued to them, organise into ‘nuclei’ and save-contribute the equivalent of 20 per cent of the bond’s value to create a rural revolving fund for the development of their community.[ii]

Other elements of the programme include mother-and-child health, food for education and food for training for 225,000 beneficiaries.


[i] Revista Envío (May 2007) ‘Nicaragua Briefs – Zero Hunger’, Revista Envío, No. 310.
[ii] Paul Kester (January 2010) ‘Nicaragua: Zero Hunger: Development or Just Raindrops?’, Revista Envío, No. 342.

Freedom and fairness for Fyffes workers

screen-shot-2017-03-26-at-10-52-52The following article focuses on banana production with an examination of the practices of the major importing company Fyffes. I am grateful to Banana Link for permission to reproduce extracts from their article which appeared in the Make Fruit Fair! Newsletter of 23rd January 2017.

 Key words: Fyffes; labour rights; tropical fruit production; fair trade; supermarkets.

The Make Fruit Fair! Campaign is calling on Fyffes – the number one importer of bananas to Europe, and among the largest global marketer for Supersweet pineapples and winter season melons – to respect the rights of workers in its global supply chains. Read more about the campaign below.

Serious abuses of labour rights in Costa Rica and Honduras

screen-shot-2017-03-26-at-10-52-58“They never contributed to social insurance and now I will not be able to retire or finally rest after so many years spent on the plantations. I have to continue looking for work to survive.” – María Gómez (65) who worked for nearly 30 years as a supervisor at Melon Export SA.

Since the summer of 2015, the Make Fruit Fair! campaign has collected evidence of very serious violations of core labour standards at specific Fyffes’ subsidiaries: ANEXCO in Costa Rica and Suragroh and Melon Export SA in Honduras, where a largely female workforce, reliant on temporary seasonal work, is particularly vulnerable.

These violations include: failure to pay minimum wages and social insurance (an estimated £2.5m in pay and social insurance have been withheld); exposure of workers to hazardous agrochemicals; failure to respect freedom of association including threats, harassment and sacking of union members; and blocking collective bargaining processes.

In the case of Suragroh, Make Fruit Fair partners Banana Link and the International Union of Foodworkers (IUF) have alleged breaches of the UK’s Ethical Trading Initiative Base Code for failure to respect unions and pay living wages, and Fyffes has refused to participate in local mediation to remedy these.

screen-shot-2017-03-26-at-10-53-04 “I got pregnant, and they do not allow pregnancy” – Marys Suyapa Gómez, sacked for being pregnant after working at Suragroh for 15 years

The Honduran Labour Inspectorate has also found non-payment of minimum wages and other statutory benefits. Additionally, a 2015 report by the U.S. Department of Labour confirmed allegations that Suragroh failed to pay the minimum wage, among a lengthy list of other violations.

Workers are required to provide their own work equipment such as hoes, machetes and shoes, the costs of which can amount to an entire week’s income.

Workers are also exposed to hazardous chemicals, many reporting headaches, sickness and high temperatures as a result, and report a lack of information about and training to avoid and be protected from the dangers of chemical exposure. In December 2015, about 100 women suffered poisoning, 14 of whom were hospitalised, after they were accidentally dropped off downwind of herbicide and chlorine spraying in an adjoining plot.

You can read more about working conditions at Suragroh here:

Meanwhile, at ANEXCO, dialogue facilitated by the Costa Rican Ministry of Labour has failed to provide a space in which local unions can negotiate with ANEXCO management and Fyffes, and the local unions report continued failure to comply with core labour standards enshrined in Costa Rican legislation.

The rights abuses at ANEXCO are the subject of an ongoing Make Fruit Fair urgent action launched in September 2015. The key demands of respect for labour rights and an end to harassment and discrimination against union members have yet to be met.

Both cases clearly illustrate that Fyffes is also in breach of OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises for the failure to “Respect the right of their employees to be represented by trade unions”.

“Fyffes in Honduras does not respect the fundamental rights of women workers; the majority of employees are women who have up to 26 years of work without social security rights or social benefits. We demand respect for freedom of association and collective bargaining.” – Iris Munguía, Coordinator, COLSIBA (the Regional Coordination of Latin American Banana & Agro-Industrial Workers’ Unions)

Banana Link and many of our partners from Europe and Latin America wrote to Fyffes Chairman, David McCann, in November last year asking him to take action to address these issues, but received no response.

Despite Fyffes’ claim on its website that “if something isn’t working, we change the way we do it”, the company has failed to take responsibility in Costa Rica and Honduras.

No company, especially a company that professes to respect the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, should benefit from the appalling abuses suffered by those at the bottom of their supply chain.

An alliance of civil society organisations and trade unions, including unions in Costa Rica and Honduras, are calling on Fyffes to ensure that local plantation management

  • ends the discrimination of union members at Anexco (Costa Rica) and Suragroh (Honduras)
  • recognises unions at both Anexco (Costa Rica) and Suragroh (Honduras) and engages in collective bargaining with these unions to provide opportunity for workers to be represented in negotiations on pay and working conditions on plantations.

We are also calling for shareholders and directors with responsibility for Fyffes

  • to establish and implement a global company wide policy to ensure the respect of workers’ rights throughout its supply chains, including the right to join an independent trade union and for unions to engage in collective bargaining

screen-shot-2017-03-26-at-10-53-18“Fyffes must take responsibility for ensuring that their local managements in Costa Rica and Honduras recognise and enter into good faith negotiations with local unions and that company-wide freedom of association and collective bargaining is respected at every level.“ – Ron Oswald, General Secretary, International Union of Foodworkers.

Fyffes and Fairtrade

Fyffes are a significant trader of Fairtrade certified bananas in the UK. The Fairtrade mark is given to individual products not entire companies or their business practices. In the case of Fyffes only some of their produce is Fairtrade certified – the produce from the Fyffes subsidiaries in Costa Rica and Honduras is not covered by Fairtrade certification. Although Fairtrade Trader Standards do place ethical requirements on Fyffes, these requirements only cover farms that are part of certified supply chains, not those on non-certified farms.

Fyffes and UK supermarkets

We believe that supermarkets have a responsibility for ensuring ethical standards are respected throughout all of their supply chains. Most supermarkets in the UK buy some, or all, of their bananas through Fyffes. We, therefore, believe that these supermarkets have a responsibility for raising our concerns about labour rights with Fyffes. We have contacted all the UK supermarkets and the majority have responded and are in dialogue with Fyffes. But two supermarkets – Asda and Lidl – have not responded to our communications.

Relevant websites:

Banana Link – www.bananalink.org.uk

Make Fruit Fair! – www.makefruitfair.org

Ethical Trading Initiative – www.ethicaltrade.org

International Union of Food Workers (IUF) – www.iuf.org

Fair Trade Advocacy Office (FTAO) – www.fairtrade-advocacy.org

Ostrich farming in Belize?

The following short report is made up of adapted extracts taken from ‘Breaking Belize News’ in an article by Benjamin Flowers.

Fеbruаrу 24, 2022

Рrіmе Міnіѕtеr Јоhn Вrісеñо has ѕаіd thаt thе рrоѕресt оf оѕtrісh fаrmіng іn Веlіzе wоuld bе а gооd есоnоmіс орроrtunіtу, рrоvіdеd thаt аll thе nесеѕѕаrу рrесаutіоnѕ аrе рut іn рlасе.

Вrісеñо ѕаіd thаt the Міnіѕtеr оf Nеw Grоwth Іnduѕtrіеѕ Каrееm Мuѕа аррrоvеѕ оf оѕtrісh fаrmіng аnd hе ѕuрроrtѕ Мuѕа’ѕ dеtеrmіnаtіоn. Не аddеd thаt hе hаѕ реrѕоnаllу ѕроkеn tо оѕtrісh brееdеr Nаnсу Маrіn аbоut thе nоvеl іnіtіаtіvе, but thаt thе Веlіzе Аgrісulturаl Неаlth Аuthоrіtу (ВАНА) аnd thе Dераrtmеnt оf thе Еnvіrоnmеnt (DОЕ) ѕtіll nееd tо dо thеіr duе dіlіgеnсе fоr ѕаfеtу rеаѕоnѕ.

“… wе nееd tо bе аblе tо hоld thеm іn аn іѕоlаtеd аrеа јuѕt tо еnѕurе thаt thеу аrе nоt brіngіng аnу kіnd оf nеw vіruѕ оr аnуthіng thаt саn аffесt оur роultrу іnduѕtrу. Ѕо ВАНА аnd the Міnіѕtrу оf Еnvіrоnmеnt іѕ rіght tо ѕау thаt wе nееd tо dо іt рrореrlу,” Вrісеnо ѕаіd.

Вrісеñо nоtеd thаt thеrе hаѕ bееn аn іnѕtаnсе thаt а рrоѕресtіvе brееdеr brоught іn оѕtrісhеѕ іllеgаllу аnd thе ѕіtuаtіоn wаѕ nоt рrореrlу hаndlеd. Не ѕаіd thаt hе реrѕоnаllу соntасtеd thе Міnіѕtеr оf Ѕuѕtаіnаblе Dеvеlорmеnt, Сlіmаtе Сhаngе, аnd Dіѕаѕtеr Rіѕk Маnаgеmеnt tо rаіѕе аn іѕѕuе wіth thе іllеgаl оѕtrісh brееdеr.

“І thіnk ѕоmе реорlе hаd аlrеаdу brоught іn oѕtrісhes wіthоut thе рrореr dосumеntаtіоn аnd thаt іѕ whаt wаѕ ѕо wrоng, thаt hеrе іѕ а grоuр thаt іѕ trуіng tо fоllоw thе lаw, trуіng tо dо іt рrореrlу аnd thеn thеу аrе реnаlіzеd, уеt wе hаvе оthеr реорlе thаt hаvе brоught іt іn аnd thе реорlе аt DОЕ аnd ВАНА knеw thаt thеѕе bіrdѕ аrе hеrе аnd dіd nоthіng аbоut іt аnd thаt іѕ mу рrоblеm thаt І hаd wіth Міnіѕtеr Наbеt whеn І wаѕ tеllіng hіm – but іtѕ аlrеаdу hеrе, ѕо аllоw thе реорlе tо соmе tо dо іt аnd dо іt іn а соntrоllеd еnvіrоnmеnt.”

Тhuѕ fаr, Маrіn hаѕ bееn аррrоvеd bу thе rеlеvаnt аuthоrіtіеѕ tо hаvе оnе mаlе аnd twо fеmаlе оѕtrісhеѕ оn hеr fаrm, аѕ раrt оf аn оngоіng рrосеѕѕ оf vеttіng.

www.breakingbelizenews.com/2022/02/24/prime-minister-supports-ostrich-farming-in-belize-sees-economic-opportunity/

GMOs in food aid to Central America

World Food Programme and U.S. denounced for the distribution of GMOs

StarLink, a genetically modgmcorncartoon-2-254x300ified maize illegal for human consumption in the US, has been found in food aid distributed by the World Food Programme (WFP) in Central America. In February more than 70 environmental, consumer, farmer, human rights groups and unions from six Central American and Caribbean countries denounced the presence of unauthorized Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in food aid distributed by the WFP, and in commercial imports of food originating mostly from the US. The organisations have requested the WFP to recall all food aid containing GMOs immediately.

Food aid has been identified as the main gate for the introduction of GMOs in the majority of the countries of the region. “In Nicaragua our farmers produce enough food and the WFP should buy any needed food within our country, instead of using imported food with GMOs”, said Julio Sánchez from Centro Humboldt in Nicaragua.

Samples of maize and soy, taken from food aid and commercial imports distributed in Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic, were sent to Genetic ID, an independent U.S. laboratory, to verify whether GMOs were present. In more than 80 per cent of all samples sent to the laboratory, GMOs were identified and the presence of GMOs in one of the samples was greater than 70 per cent.

StarLink has never been authorized for human consumption anywhere in the world due to scientific concerns that it could cause potentially severe allergic reactions. This maize was initially authorized for animal feed, but in 2000 it was found in human food products and authorities immediately removed it from the market and banned its cultivation altogether. … In 2002, it was also found in USAID food aid sent to Bolivia.

“It is not acceptable that a maize which is illegal for human consumption in the U.S. is distributed in our country. The appearance of StarLink contamination four years after it was banned clearly shows that genetic engineering of food is unpredictable and out of control”, added Mariano Godinez of CEIBA in Guatemala.

Commercial imports of food containing maize and soy, mostly from the US, were monitored in Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic, countries which are not food aid recipients. Over 75 per cent of all the samples sent to the laboratory tested positive. “The confirmation of the presence of GMOs clearly shows that Costa Rica urgently needs a moratorium. In order to protect our population it is of the utmost importance now more than ever to apply the precautionary principle”, said Fabián Pacheco of the Social Ecology Association in Costa Rica.


Sources:
ENCA Newsletter no. 38 (June 2005), pp. 11-12.
Centro Humboldt, Managua, www.humboldt.org.ni/

Crude oil price and food price index, 2006 – 2009

This figure is referred to in the book as Figure 2.2 (Page 16)

figure2-2


Sources
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/FoodPricesIndex/en/ (accessed 18th July 2009).
Food Price Index: Consists of 55 commodity quotations considered by FAO commodity specialists as representing the international prices for 5 food groups (meat, dairy, creals, oils and fats, sugar).
The New York Merchantile Exchange (2009).
Crude Oil Price: Price history for a barrel of light, sweet crude oil for future delivery as traded on the New York Mechantile Exhange (NYMEX).

Chapter 2: The Food Crisis

There is no doubt that there is a recent and genuine Central American food crisis which began in 2007 and continued throughout 2008 and into 2009. After the 2008 ‘food riots’ hit the international media headlines for a short time, the issue dropped from general view. But even after the worst of the crisis had disappeared from view and various measures had been taken to patch over the seriousness of the situation, in late 2009 came the news from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) that global hunger had just reached over a billion people on the planet[i].

Despite falling off the media radar, the crisis did not disappear; and it would be a mistake to believe that the crisis was new in any case. Perhaps it reached new depths, but for many of the Central American population the crisis of food has existed as long as they can remember. Headlines from 2001 testify to the fact that hunger and famine are common visitors to Central America – ‘Hunger punishes Honduras and Nicaragua’[ii]; ‘Central America faces ‘biblical’ famine’[iii]; and ‘A harsh harvest for Honduras’[iv].

With this in mind, I should particularly like to draw to the reader’s attention the article by Grahame Russell of Rights Action entitled ‘Famine and Hunger Devastate Guatemala …., Again the Pathological Interdependence of Feast and Famine in the Global ‘Free Trade’ Economic Order’. This appears under the chapter sub-heading (on the right hand side of this page) of ‘The long term origins of the food crisis’. If crises like these are ever to be removed in the future, it is important for us all to realise the role of the globalised neoliberal economic order in creating such crises.

The second chapter of ‘the Violence of Development’ discusses the system of food production in Central America.

Keywords: Hunger | Malnutrition | Oil price | Biofuels | Monoculture | Campesino | Agro-export economy | Agribusiness | Climate change | Neoliberal economic development | Food security | Food sovereignty | Colonial plantations | Solidarismo | The Green Revolution | Chemical pesticides and fertilisers | Control over seeds | Organic production | La Finca Humana | Fair trade production

 


[i]   United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) (2010) ‘The State of Food Insecurity in the World’,FAO.
[ii]   El Diario de Hoy (2001) ‘El hambre castiga a Honduras y Nicaragua’, El Salvador, 18 July.
[iii]   Mike Lanchin (2001) ‘Central America faces ‘biblical’ famine’, The Guardian, London, 28 July.
[iv]   Mike Lanchin (2001) ‘A harsh harvest for Honduras’, The Guardian, London, 14 August.

JFC: new union-buster on the block: how solidarismo operates

The following extracts are taken from an article in the Banana Trade News Bulletin, No. 44 (May 2010) produced by Banana Link. I am grateful to Banana Link for permission to reproduce this article.

The Joint Fruit Company (JFC) is Russian-owned and aims to increase international fruit sales in Russian retail chains. JFC first invested in Costa Rica in 2007 and bought over 900 hectares, mostly planted in bananas. It also buys its products from independent producers. It is reported to have continued buying land in 2009/10.

One of the farms it bought was Campo 5 in Cariari, now renamed Finca Bonanza. During 2009, a group of workers had complained to the company and labour inspectors about non-payment of the minimum wage, increased working hours, exaggerated workloads and exposure to chemical spraying, but their complaints had not been addressed. In mid-February they therefore contracted the local SITRAP trade union official to request support in getting the issues taken seriously by the company. A group of 13 workers joined SITRAP and Bonanza was duly informed so that the appropriate deductions could be made from the payroll.

Even before receiving the list of new members, management had circulated a letter for workers to sign requesting the intervention of the John XXIII Social School, the Catholic church body that has led the union-busting campaign for the last three decades in Costa Rica. Within 24 hours the School’s promoters had been contracted in to prevent the union from gaining ground amongst the workforce. The promoters organised elections for a permanent workers’ committee and even though they had lined up their candidates, two of the three workers elected were amongst those who had joined SITRAP.

The committee members were then taken off the plantation for the day with the intention of them signing up to a so-called ‘direct settlement’ (‘arreglo directo’) that had been drafted by the School promoters. Even though the two union members pointed out that they had played no part in drafting a document that was about their pay and conditions, they were pressured into signing the ‘settlement’ on behalf of the whole workforce. The company then created a solidarista association as part of its strategy to discourage union membership. But direct pressure was also applied: one of the two members of the committee was visited almost daily by the School promoter, who went as far as threatening him with sending a hired killer if he didn’t give up his union membership.

Just as happens on virtually every other plantation in Costa Rica where workers choose freely to join a trade union …, a range of tactics deployed by the School and some company representatives have been put into operation. These include threats of being black-listed so that no other plantation will employ you or your family members, threats that the plantation will be forced to close down and offers to accompany workers to the SITRAP offices with their papers signing away union membership at the company’s expense.

On Saturday 1st May, the local SITRAP official was escorted from the plantation by police, following a phone call alleging that the company’s property was about to be damaged. The plantation manager had previously – and very aggressively – tried to evict the same official on the grounds that he was on private property. On 4th May, the company sent the police again during a meeting between the union official and members.

Such activities are in clear violation of international and national labour legislation. With very few exceptions, however, banana companies are all sooner or later drawn into what has become standard union-busting practice. Meanwhile, the industry and government authorities continue to make out that Costa Rica is a socially advanced nation where freedom of association is respected.

Bonanza Servicios, the Costa Rican subsidiary of JFC, has now become embroiled in these violations, aggravated by threats of violence and even killing ordinary workers who find that their grievances are not addressed. It can only be hoped that the company realises that this kind of refusal to engage in any kind of dialogue, let alone free collective bargaining, with their workforce can only harm their operations in the long term.

When Vladimir Putin announced in March … that cheap bananas for Russian consumers were part of a strategy of “keeping down food prices including tropical fruit”, he was not necessarily aware that cheap fruit is often produced at the expense of the workers and the small producers. It is to be hoped that JFC will see that paying a fair price and treating workers fairly is an integral part of being a socially responsible multinational enterprise in the 21st century.


Sources:
URALSIB Fixed Income Research bulletin, Moscow 2006;
Various editions of El Expreso, Guayaquil, Ecuador, Dec 09 – Feb 10;
El Ciudadano, Quito, 05/02/10;
La Nación, San José, 16/06/09;
johnhelmer.net, Moscow, 25/03/10;
SITRAP reports, Siquirres, April and May 2010.
Banana Link website: www.bananalink.org.uk

Palm oil production in Honduras

2007palmoil1-195x300African Oil Palm was first introduced to Honduras in 1927 and by the 1970s there were 11,000 hectares planted throughout the northern part of the country.[1] Traditionally, Honduran palm oil has been produced for use in the food industry to make products such as margarine and cooking oil. In 2006, however, the Honduran government launched a five year program to promote the use of agrifuels with the aim of expanding the total cultivation area of 84,000 hectares by 200,000 hectares.[2]

Honduras is the biggest exporter of palm oil in Central America, accounting for around 45per cent of its production. About 50 per cent of Honduran palm oil is exported.[3] Most production is still concentrated along the Caribbean coast of Honduras with about 68,000 hectares of palm planted along the coastal plains of Atlántida and the Sula and Aguán valleys.[4] Production and processing co-operatives and multinationals are the main producers (accounting for 68 per cent and 29 per cent respectively)[5].

Problems created by monoculture oil palm plantations include:

  • Replacement of tropical forests and other ecosystems;
  • Loss of biodiversity;
  • Flooding;
  • Soil erosion;
  • Soil contamination;
  • Pollution of water courses;
  • Increase in pests due to breakdown in the ecological balance and to changes in the food chain;
  • Depletion of water resources;
  • The use of agrochemicals contaminates workers and local communities;
  • Coral reef contamination – see below.

In Atlántida, the oil palm plantations are located where numerous large rivers flow down from the Nombre de Dios mountain range into the sea. This has increased the delivery of sediment, nutrients and other pollutants which impact the Mesoamerican Reef, the biggest coral reef system in the Americas and the second largest in the world.[6]

The International Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN) Mesoamerican Reef project was set up with support from the UN and World Wildlife Fund to provide comprehensive watershed analysis and to examine the impact of different land uses – including palm oil agriculture – on water quality.[7]


[1] Integrating Small-scale Producers in Agrifood Chains: The Case of the Palm Oil Industry in Honduras by Ingrid Fromm (http://ifama.org/tamu/iama/conferences/2007Conference/SymposiumPapers_files/1024_Paper.pdf) (Accessed 15/07/09)
[2] Ibid.
[3] http://www.cababstractsplus.org/abstracts/Abstract.aspx?AcNo=19871844263 (Accessed 15/07/09)
[4] http://central-america.panda.org/about/countries/honduras/?uNewsID=107200 (Accessed 15/07/09)
[5] See note 3
[6] Watershed Analysis for the Mesoamerican Reef (http://www.wri.org/project/watershed-analysis-mesoamerican-reef) (Accessed 15/07/09)
[7] Ibid.