by IUF Asia/Pacific | Sep 3, 2022 | Food Security, Human Rights, Land & Freedom, Secure Jobs, Social Justice
As a counter-summit to the official Tuna Congress in General Santos City in the Philippines, SENTRO held its 4th National Fishworkers Congress September 2-3, 2022. Hundreds of fisherfolks, commercial fishers and canning factory workers attending the Fishworkers Congress angrily denounced the new Voluntary Code of Good Practices signed by the SOCSKSARGEN Federation of Fishing and Allied Industries (SAFFAI) Tripartite Council during the official Tuna Festival.
“The so-called Voluntary Code, is nothing but a PR exercise that SAFFAI is using to whitewash its horrendous record in wantonly violating the rights and welfare of its workers”, said Herbert Demos, Regional Secretary of SENTRO SOCSARGEN.
“Its promises to uphold safely and health, provide education and skills upgrading, utilize alternative dispute mechanisms, respect labor standards and use retrenchments as a last resort will have no chance of being enforced so long as the industry continues to ignore workers’ right to freedom of association.”
The fraudulent Voluntary Code claims to be tripartite but has no legitimate labour representation. It is designed to avoid the legal obligations of DO-156
The Voluntary Code was signed without properly consulting the labor sector. The labor representatives who signed the document were members of the management and their allies.
SENTRO has long been criticizing SAFFAI for actively blocking the enforcement of Department Order No.156 Rules and Regulations governing the Working and Living Conditions of Fishers on board Fishing Vessels engaged in Commercial Fishing Operation which was issued in 2016.
“8 years after the issuance of DO-156, none of our commercial fishers have enjoyed its guarantee that they get at least the minimum wage on top of their rightful share of the catch and all the labor standards are respected.”
More importantly, workers in the canning factories and those onboard commercial fishing vessels have yet to access their full trade union rights. The extensive use of contractualization, the denial of employee-employer relations and the militant anti-union attitude of employers are the key factors preventing unionization.
“We call on all those government representatives who signed the Voluntary Code to withdraw their imprimatur unless SAFFAI agrees to subject the same to meaningful consultation and takes into consideration the respect for workers’ constitutional right to self-organize, collectively bargain and to strike.”
by IUF Asia/Pacific | May 20, 2022 | child labour, Climate Crisis, Land & Freedom
Please read the Comment published in The Lancet Planetary Health online here.
by IUF Asia/Pacific | Nov 3, 2021 | child labour, Land & Freedom
The recent FAO report, Accelerating action to help to end child labour in agriculture in Asia, addresses a range of critical issues requiring coherent, multi-sectoral policy action. Among these actions is the need to reduce the risks associated with hazardous pesticides. The exposure of children to pesticides is one of several hazardous conditions in agricultural work. Hazardous work is a key determinant in defining child labour. Child labour refers to work that: is mentally, physically, socially or morally dangerous and harmful to children and interferes with their schooling.
As such, extreme hazards are associated with extreme forms of child labour. The Worst Forms of Child Labour Recommendation, 1999 (No. 190) refers in its definition of hazardous work to:
3. (d) work in an unhealthy environment which may, for example, expose children to hazardous substances, agents or processes, or to temperatures, noise levels, or vibrations damaging to their health;
Clearly toxic pesticides are among the hazardous substances that children are exposed to on farms and plantations. The ILO Code of Practice on safety and health in agriculture states that:
Children are considered to be at particularly high risk from pesticides. Their small size, rapid development, under-developed metabolism, diet and behaviour mean that smaller doses of toxins have a greater impact than in adults. Developmental effects can include disturbance of the nervous system, endocrine disruption and carcinogenity. Children can be exposed if they are present in the agricultural workplace, if their family members return home with pesticides on their clothing and skin, or if the family vehicle becomes contaminated. Special care must be taken to keep children away from pesticides, whether in concentrated or dilute form, and their containers, and to ensure that such chemicals are not brought into the home according to label recommendations.
It is in this context that an integrated approach to ending child labour in agriculture must incorporate both the reduction of pesticide use and the improved protection of the health and safety of agricultural workers. A key part of this approach is to ban the use of extremely hazardous pesticides such as paraquat and glyphosate (which cannot be used safely) and to reduce and restrict pesticide use according to the specific risks they pose to workers’ health and the environment.
In this regard the Safety and Health in Agriculture Convention, 2001 (No. 184) and the Code of Practice on safety and health in agriculture provide an important basis for policy and practice at national and local level. Yet in the Asia-Pacific region only one country – Fiji – has ratified Convention No.184. This must be urgently rectified. More governments in the Asia-Pacific region should ratify Convention No.184 as part of an integrated and more comprehensive strategy to end child labour in agriculture, as well ensuring that the agricultural work undertaken by adult workers that is so vital to rural development and food security is based on the right to safe, sustainable work.
The banning of extremely harmful pesticides such as paraquat and glyphosate and the effective protection of occupational safety, health and the environment (OSH&E) in agriculture are important preconditions for creating a safe environment for all agricultural workers. By reducing exposure to hazardous work, there is a possibility of safe, light work in agriculture that can be undertaken by children – as long as this work does not cause harm or interfere in children’s schooling. This of course must occur in a context where comprehensive policy action is taken to address the drivers of child labour.
Please read: eliminating child labour in agriculture needs guaranteed living wages, fair crop prices and freedom from debt – IUF Asia-Pacific
by IUF Asia/Pacific | Aug 27, 2021 | Food Security, Land & Freedom
In recent years we have seen growing public awareness of the social and environmental impact of food supply chains. Of course much greater awareness and action is needed, especially in terms of the appalling working conditions in agriculture and irreparable damage to human health and the environment. But there is no doubt that concern about the source of products in global food supply chains – how they are grown, processed, produced, packaged and transported – is increasing. This is combined with an expectation that these supply chains are guaranteed to be socially and environmentally sustainable. Those consumers who can afford it are willing to pay more for products that they believe do not cause environmental or social harm. These are deemed more sustainable or more ethical products.
Most concerns regarding environmental sustainability focus on deforestation, habitat destruction, endangered animal species, over-exploitation of scarce natural resources, pesticides, industrial waste, plastic pollution, and climate change. These environmental concerns intersect with health concerns. For example, there is a greater awareness of the link between consumer health, food safety and pesticide use.
While climate change is the major concern, there is also a greater interest in biodiversity loss. The Dasgupta Review in the UK, for example, could eventually have a far-reaching impact on international economic policy (including trade, aid and investment decisions). In the COVID-19 era there will be greater focus on how industrialized agriculture and habitat destruction contributes to the emergence of zoonoses like the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.
The main concerns regarding social sustainability focus on child labour, forced labour and trafficking (modern slavery), poverty wages, and rural livelihoods. The Modern Slavery Act [2015] in the UK has already had a far-reaching impact on UK-based companies, especially retailers and supermarkets. The Modern Slavery Act [2018] in Australia has had a similar impact. Similar laws and regulations are being introduced in the EU.
In several countries shareholders and financial institutions also require reporting on the environmental impact of a company’s supply chains, especially in terms of climate change. To a lesser degree there is concern with compliance with new human rights instruments, particularly modern slavery and child labour. Of course much of this is driven by concerns with legal liability and business sustainability in terms of generating (or losing) future potential profits.
As more agri-food companies try to ensure compliance with new environmental and social standards in their supply chains and meet consumer expectations, they are turning to private sector auditing firms, accreditation bodies and international NGOs. Brands carrying certification or accreditation are seen as value-added and consumers are willing to pay a premium price.
However, the business of social and environmental auditing and accreditation by private firms and NGOs is costly. In many cases monitoring and verification by these organizations absorbs a significant part of the premium price – and this reduces the amount passed on to farmers in the form of fair prices or workers in terms of fair wages. This reduces the overall economic and social contribution to the country/province/region in general and the rural community in particular.
In several cases, third party monitoring by NGOs or auditing firms absorbs so much of the premium that small farmers lose any financial incentive to undertake socially and environmentally sustainable farming practices. On both farms and plantations safer, more sustainable work practices through reduced pesticide use may in fact increased costs. If this is not offset by premium prices, then it becomes economically unsustainable despite the potential benefits to health and the environment.
There is also a risk that NGOs and accreditation bodies develop a vested interest in these social and environmental problems continuing. They are paid or receive funding as long as they continue to expose problems, such as child labour. In this case, human rights or environmental issues may become leverage for more funding and to exert pressure on local governments. These organizations are then financed to devise and implement action plans externally, regardless of local government and trade union efforts in this regard.
Lacking any commitment to a particular country or region, these auditing firms and NGOs can easily shift their business to other countries, causing a shift in supply chains. Ultimately the business of auditing and certification leads to the privatization of labour and environmental standards. This changes the purpose of these standards and diminishes the role and responsibilities of governments. This is not only unsustainable, it could become detrimental to the future of local communities. A more effective and sustainable approach is to develop robust labour inspection systems under the appropriate local government authorities. Labour inspection in agriculture extends to both farms and plantations and covers a range of issues related to recruitment, employment and working conditions.
The scope of labour inspection in agriculture and its mechanics is defined in Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129) and Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Recommendation, 1969 (No. 133). The Safety and Health in Agriculture Convention, 2001 (No. 184) and Safety and Health in Agriculture Recommendation, 2001 (No. 192) are important standards that must be incorporated into these labour inspection systems.
While ratification of these conventions and recommendations by national governments is urgently needed, it is not a necessary precondition to the application of standards. These conventions and recommendations can be used as the recognized international standard applied when developing the new system labour inspection in agriculture. The practical implementation of these conventions and recommendations through an inspection mechanism at provincial/regional level will help to establish the integrity of the system. Education of farm and plantation workers about these standards is a vital part of this. This in turn ensures that compliance can actually be measured.
In this way, a resilient and proactive system of labour inspection in agriculture implemented at regional/provincial level would create the necessary infrastructure and mechanisms for compliance with global standards in supply chains. This will enhance the long-term economic viability of sourcing from this region/province. With a credible government labour inspection system in place, there is less need for private sector and third-party certification. As a result, more of the premium can be passed to small farmers and their communities and – through collective bargaining – achieve better wages (living wages) for agricultural and plantation workers.
An effective labour inspection system also means that an authority accountable to the public and not private companies can talk with workers about the reality of their working and living conditions. The credibility and integrity of independent private audits and certification is undermined by its very purpose: to prove there are no problems. Or if there are problems, then they can be resolved (managed) without affecting the economics of farms and plantations. Despite the role of piece-rate wages as a significant driver of child labour, for example, private auditing and certification bodies see it as untouchable because employers claim it will fundamentally affect productivity.
Public sector labour inspectors in an effective, well resourced system can restore the integrity of investigation and compliance as a responsibility of government to set and regulate standards and protect rights, health and the environment. Of course for workers to be able to speak to anyone about really happens on farms and plantations on a day to basis, they must have guaranteed access to the right to freedom of association under Right of Association (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 (No. 11).
It is no coincidence that the same plantations and farms that supply agri-food companies and readily participate in their privatized standard-setting and compliance mechanisms refuse access to labour inspectors. Not surprisingly the same employers absolutely refuse access to trade unions. If the supply chains are transparent and proven to be fair and sustainable, why is there so much legal action taken to prevent access by labour inspectors or unions?
Building an effective system labour inspection in agriculture requires capacity – institutional, budgetary and personnel. This means that the same agri-food companies that claim to commit to sustainability must pay corporate taxes and stop tax avoidance measures. The must also stop leveraging local governments for subsidies and tax holidays. Even if just some of the financial resources currently going into to the branding and promotion of food products as ethical through private sector certification is diverted to public resources, then there is a greater possibility to make these guarantees a reality.
by IUF Asia/Pacific | Aug 24, 2021 | Food Security, Land & Freedom, Social Justice
For more than a decade the private sugar mill operated by Gangakhed Sugar and Energy Private Limited (GSEPL) in Parbhani, Maharashtra, has regularly released untreated effluent into a nearby lake and irrigation canals. This has caused a such a significant loss of aquatic life in Mannath lake that the fisherfolk dependent on this lake have lost their livelihoods. The untreated effluent from the sugar mill also polluted irrigation canals with a detrimental impact on the crops and soil on nearby farms. For a decade fisherfolk and farmers have struggled to end this pollution. For a decade the food industry has been undermining food security.
Soon after GSEPL started its operations in 2010, the mill released untreated effluent into Mannath Lake and irrigation canals during the sugarcane crushing season. Fisherfolk filed a case with the National Green Tribunal (Western Zone) Bench, Pune, against the company for “polluting the water in Mazalgaon Right canal and Mannath lake, causing water pollution and thereby causing a threat to human health, fishery yield and ecology.” The case referred to pollution caused by “industrial waste molasses and chemical mixed water”.
Despite this, the mill again released untreated effluent into the lake in the 2013-2014 sugarcane crushing season.
When fisherfolk and farmers made complaints about this pollution, GSEPL management responded with violent attacks, threats and intimidation. The company also took legal action against fisherfolk and farmers, forcing many of them to abandon their livelihoods and migrate.
The extent of this brutality is reflected in the private prison operated by the mill to punish indebted farmers and critics. This was described in 2012 as follows:
On 30/04/2012 around 11 am, the goons of the mill management came into the UCO bank branch Gangakhed, kidnapped and took V. to the privately owned prison in the factory premises. Mill management was maintaining their own prison for assaulting farmers, workers and everyone who was raising the questions against mill management. According to V. that place was in dark, smoky and unhygienic. When he entered the custodial room there were around 34 detainees were already present. While held here he assaulted many times. All these detainees were kept their [sic] like slaves without any basic amenities and food. Mill management released him the next day around 5 pm.
A public demonstration against the GSEPL mill management on 18 October 2013 led to the demolition of the private prison. Yet the violent attacks on fisherfolk and farmer leaders continued.
While water pollution was damaging the ecology, destroying livelihoods and undermining food security (in the prevailing fear of private prisons and violence), the conglomerate Shree Renuka Sugar bought sugar from the GSEPL mill. One of the leading customers of Shree Renuka Sugar at that time was Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited (HCCBPL). Even after the case was filed in the Green Tribunal and the media reported on these violent attacks on the community, Shree Renuka Sugar made several more purchases from GSEPL. This environmental pollution, human rights abuse and food insecurity ran from Mannath lake through the supply chain of Coca-Cola in India.
While water pollution was damaging the ecology, destroying livelihoods and undermining food security, GSEPL successfully registered as an emission-reduction project under the Kyoto Protocol’s clean development mechanism. The UNFCCC’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Executive Board assigned Project No.4816 to Gangakhed Sugar & Energy Private Ltd (GSEPL) 30 MW Bagasse Based Co-generation Power Project. Despite several reviews over 10 years, the CDM ignored the large-scale pollution of Mannath lake and surrounding farmlands. Even when the Green Tribunal ruled in July 2014 that GSEPL had extensively polluted Mannath lake and must pay to replace its water, the company continued to be a green project under the Kyoto Protocol.
After a decade the fisherfolk union, Godavari Magasvargiya Matsya Vyavsay Sahakari Sanstha (GMMVSS), continues to struggle for compensation for their lost livelihoods and to end the pollution that has destroyed the ecology of Mannath lake. They seek an end to an unsustainable food industry and to regain their right to food security.
by IUF Asia/Pacific | Jun 3, 2021 | COVID-19, Land & Freedom, Right to a Safe Workplace
With the surge of COVID-19 in cities across India, millions of migrant workers returned to their villages in rural areas. They feared a repeat of the 2020 crisis when they lost their jobs and livelihoods during the strict lockdown. Around 20 per cent of migrant workers who returned in 2020, stayed in their villages. This added to the employment crisis in rural areas.
In this crisis the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) has proven to be a vital source of livelihood for rural communities. In most cases it is the only work available for rural workers.
NREGA provides 100 days of paid employment on public works for unemployed rural workers. This work includes building public wells, irrigation ditches, and working on their own land. This in turn supports access to potable water and food security in rural communities.
NREGA applications
The IUF-affiliated Gujarat Agricultural Labour Union (GALU) assisted more than 20,000 members and returned migrant workers in six tribal districts to gain paid work under NREGA. Rural workers in tribal districts are the most vulnerable, with a high rate of out-migration due to poverty. After returning to their villages the paid work under NREGA is crucial to their livelihoods.
COVID-19 testing at NREGA sites
GALU ensures that NREGA pays for marginal farmers to farm their own land for food crops and rural communities have access to food grains under National Food Security Act. While promoting mask wearing, distancing and washing hands at NREGA worksites, GALU also arranged for COVID-19 testing with local authorities.
GALU is now focused on promoting vaccine awareness and access to vaccines. GALU is organizing vaccination drives in rural communities through its awareness campaign and arranging free & safe transportation to vaccination centres for women workers. Initially this transportation will be arranged for 2,000 women.
In the COVID-19 era NREGA will continue to play a vital role in rural workers’ access to the right to food and nutrition and the protection of livelihoods. GALU along with other IUF-affiliated unions such as SEWA are demanding that NREGA coverage is extended to 200 days of paid work.
