So here's the deal. I talked a lot about stuff I was going to post on here, but a large chunk remains to be posted. I also started my last year of college this week, and have been hammered with the many homeworks and obligations that come with that, leaving me with little time.
Put that together and here I am finally posting my last piece to my development paper. Now, I have been made well aware by my friends and family that this may not be the most invigorating or accessible topic that I've posted on here, and I apologize for that. However, I will say that I do believe very deeply everything that I've written here, and maybe, just maybe, my little story about the banana industry will be intriguing to you. Plus, if you read this post, you'll understand how hypocritical it would be for me to not post this.
Enjoy, and maybe dare to think...it is the school season after all.
The Recognition of Human Dignity in the Practice of Development
(for parts 1 and 2, see my posts in April.)
An alternative option to development is presented in the neoliberalist school of thought. In recent history, the focus of the economy at large has been on this neoliberalist theory, with free markets portrayed as the means to bring economic growth and development. In an attempt to create economic growth, the holds and restrictions of government have been reduced so that the market can more closely follow the laws of supply and demand. Despite the widespread acceptance of neoliberalist theory by the economic community, its effects and consequences must be carefully weighed. Using the banana industry in Honduras and Latin America at large as a case study, I will examine the results and ramifications of neoliberalist theory, comparing these with the potential change provided by the theory previously presented.
The banana industry in Honduras first developed at the beginning of the 20th century, when two American based companies began shipping bananas to the United States.
Resonating strongly with the claims of dependency theory, these banana plantations of the early 1900s have been described as a “green prison”, characterized by extensive workdays, malnutrition, filth, and sickness. Despite accounting for as much as 90% of the total exports in Honduras, the industry failed to bring development to the country. After years of being subjected to such harsh conditions, in 1954 the Honduran plantation workers, amidst rumors of massive layoffs and with news of successful labor reform in Guatemala, began a strike that successfully ended in some of the most progressive labor agreements in the world at the time. After this strike, the banana unions became some of the strongest unions in Honduras, making the banana sector one of the most favorable sectors to work in.
Unfortunately, in recent history, the benefits found in the banana sector have become fewer and further between. In a recent meeting, leaders of SITRATERCO, the Chiquita workers union, described how the strength of their union has been diminishing, and how the increasing number of subcontracted and temporary workers hired in the banana industry are unable to unionize or obtain the benefits of union workers. A good indicator of this loss of union strength can be seen in the failed 42-day strike in 1990 by SITRATERCO, which ended up being one of the last attempts at direct confrontation.
1000 miles away from the banana plantations of Honduras, the banana industry of Ecuador has rapidly expanded over the last 20 years; to the point that from 2002 to 2006, it was responsible for 30% of world banana exports. The main reason for this large share of the export market is due to the low cost of production in Ecuador, some 20% lower than that of other Central American countries. In fact, the low price of production in Ecuador has been blamed for the push in Central America to cut costs, which has inevitably led to the repression of unions such as SITRATERCO.
According to free market policy and neoliberalist thought, this low cost of production in Ecuador is an indication of efficiency. As this more efficient system of production grows and expands, other banana producing areas will either adapt the more efficient means of production or abandon banana production in exchange for another more suitable niche in the world market. The macro view of the banana industry allows lower production costs to be an appealing standard to strive for; however, as Banana Link, an agriculture awareness group, comments, “the key to comparative advantage is cutting costs, and the easiest way of doing this in the agricultural sector is by not paying workers enough to live on and by disregarding environmental impacts.” Unfortunately, this is exactly what is happening in Ecuador.
Human Rights Watch investigated the conditions on banana plantations in Ecuador through a series of interviews with workers and letters to company representatives. The investigation found that workers on Ecuadorean banana plantations were paid less than the federal minimum wage, and that the wages of two working adults failed to reach the basic needs bundle of a family of $288 a month. This shortcoming is supplemented by child labor, with 59% of rural children ages 10-17 working. These children reported working an average of 11 hours a day (up to 13 hours) and began working at the average age of 11, with many starting as young as 8 years old. Furthermore, all of these workers are exposed to the insecticides, fungicides, and fumigation in the banana fields without proper protective equipment, toxins that are especially detrimental to developing children.
In order to keep these low production costs as the status quo, Ecuadoran plantations have been extremely hostile to the freedom of association, an activity protected by Ecuadorean and International Law. In the human rights report, numerous interviewees described being fired and blacklisted for alleged union sympathies or activities. The fear of punishment for union activity is pervasive enough that of the 120,000 to 148,000 banana workers in Ecuador, only 1,650 of these workers are unionized.
In reality, the “low production costs” that have brought Ecuador to the forefront of the banana industry prove quite costly to the workers on those plantations. In the case of the banana industry, free market principles have failed to create development; on the contrary, the human rights violations in Ecuador that allow for its low production cost has begun to degrade the progress made in Honduras toward working conditions that appreciate the dignity of the workers. In light of the situation in Ecuador, of 10 year old children pulling 1500 pounds of bananas a distance of 16 kilometers daily, the free market cannot be blindly trusted to bring development. Development in the banana industry must take a conscious effort by civil society demanding that the rights of banana workers are recognized and upheld.
During the 1990s, the European Union, in an effort to protect its former colonies in Africa and the Caribbean, established trade regimes allowing the tariff free import of specific quotas of bananas from these African and Caribbean Producing (ACP) countries. This preferential treatment sought to protect ACP countries from other producing countries with lower production costs, and the protection came out of the European Unions sense of responsibility to bring development to its former colonies. These trade regimes produced resistance from the World Trade Organization, as they opposed the liberalization and free market ideals that the WTO supported. As of 2006, the EU has removed its quota system and has moved to a “Tariff-Only” system, which imposes tariffs on all bananas equally.
Although it has now returned to a system that resembles neoliberalism practice, the EU trade regimes give a partial solution to the situation of banana workers in Honduras and Ecuador. The preferential treatment of ACP countries shows the European Union’s sense of responsibility to these countries’ development, but this does fall short of the need to bring development to all people in a need to recognize the rights of all humanity. The main merit of these trade regimes comes from the fact that in spite of causing the increase in banana prices, the import of bananas into the EU continues to grow. Measures were taken to promote the development of ACP countries, which led to increased banana prices, and yet consumers still responded positively. In fact, bananas continue to be the single most profitable item in supermarkets, accounting for between 1% and 2% of total sales.
With this in mind, it is reasonable to implement the solutions promoted by organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Banana Link. , Recognizing the failure of free markets to ensure development, both of these organizations have called for a tariff system that creates preferential treatment for bananas produced by workers earning a living wage, working in humane conditions, and using environmentally sustainable methods. Tariffs such as these would create economic advantages for banana producers that complied with these new standards. Although the prices of bananas would increase, the EU trade regimes of the 1990s show us that this increase will not have a seriously negative impact. In order to implement this “fair trade” preference, increased monitoring and inspection would need to occur. This monitoring and inspection could occur at the local level, and would provide an opportunity to also strengthen the infrastructure of banana producing regions, something that is critical to bringing lasting development. These solutions are not new, and many organizations are already well underway in campaigning for this lasting change.
On the international level, legislature like this seems to be an effective way to bring change. Unfortunately, the change is not going to happen on its own, but will require the effort of many people choosing on the individual level that change needs to come. Thankfully, I am not the first person to recognize the injustice of this situation, and many groups have already begun to strive for a solution and change. As an individual, it is important for me to recognize and support these groups that have already begun to strive for change. Two such groups involved in the banana industry are the previously cited Banana Link (www.bananalink.org) and Human Rights Watch (www.hrw.org).
The truth is that while a full solution cannot come until international law and regulations allow it, something must be done now. As Nicholas Wolterstorff commented, “Even when you don’t know what to do, you must keep saying, ‘This must not be!’” While we should work for long-term change, we must also work in the present to act justly. In the banana industry, this means things like buying fair trade certified bananas in place of the cheaper bananas produced under conditions that don’t guarantee a living wage. In the broader sense, it means choosing a lifestyle that supports sustainability, the recognition of human rights, and the economic support of these justices.
In addition to living a life that supports the realization of human rights, it is our duty to inform those around us of the injustices that we have seen and know about in the world. While change begins at the individual level, it takes the effort of many individuals to bring change. As we begin to tell others “this must not be!” more and more will begin to come alongside of us, to resonate with our cry, and to want to work for change. Shane Claiborne makes an important point of what this calling others to come alongside our efforts ought to look like:
Guilt can be a good thing at first, like when you realize the truth about poverty, slavery, or the amount of stuff we consume in America. Guilt can be a good indicator, but it is a terrible motivator. You cannot lead out of guilt. Once you have paid your dues or appeased your conscience, then you need some other motivation or you’ll just move on. Or else you’ll just get paralyzed in the guilt...Good leaders are able not only to identify what’s wrong in the world but also to point toward what’s right.
When telling others about the injustices around us, about the lack of development, it is crucial that it is not merely for the purpose of showing them their guilt. We must be active in showing people what is right, in creating opportunities to do what will help bring change to a broken situation. Instead of just pointing out how terrible it is that a 5-year-old girl has stitched my T-shirt that I’m wearing right now, I also must show how beautiful it is when instead we choose to buy T-shirts that provide work for women that recently escaped sex trafficking. If I tell others the present banana production system in Ecuador is greatly damaging development in Latin America, I ought to also point them toward an option that is providing at least some workers justice, like fair trade bananas.
While working to strengthen the grassroots movement toward better development practice, we also much recognize its shortcomings. Humans are fallen, and our intentions to do good will only take us so far. With this in mind, when opportunities appear to put human rights and sustainability practice into law, it is crucial to support this more lasting change. We must live out the change we believe needs to come; the change toward living wages, nourishment, quality education, and health services that recognize the dignity of all humanity, and we must work to make this change the new standard for all of society. This is when development can come.
32. Uvin, Peter. Human Rights in the Practice of Development. p. 198
33.Ibid. p. 200
34. Notable examples of this neoliberalist practice are the trade agreements found in CAFTA, NAFTA, and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
35. For a critique of the pervasiveness of neoliberalist thought, see Ignacio Ramonets essay “A New Totalinarianism.” Dueling Globalizations. Foreign Policy. Fall 1999
36. A Country Study. Federal Research Division. Library of Congress. Edited by Tim Merill. 1993.
37. Castro, Agapito Robleda. La Verdad. p. 55 (Translation mine.)
38. Nations Encyclopedia. Honduras. http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Honduras-ECONOMY.html#ixzz2Fln0RXQC
39. Castro, A.R., p. 56
40. http://countrystudies.us/honduras/65.htm
41. http://www.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/banana/market.htm
42. http://www.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/banana/prices.htm
43. Perillo, Bob. The Banana Industry Crisis and Its Effects on Workers in Latin America. US/LEAP. October 2000.
44. Banana Link. http://www.bananalink.org.uk/content/view/110/119/lang,en/
45 Human Rights Watch. Tainted Harvest. 2002. p. 14-15
46 Ibid. p. 21.
47 Ibid. p. 24-37. Often, the toxins used on these plantations (not limited to Ecuador) are chemicals that have been banned from use in the United States due to their health and environmental hazards, but are still used in countries with less environmental regulations.
48. Ibid. 58-59. One worker described how he and his entire team were fired and blacklisted as unionizers for simply speaking to an administrator about getting paid more for a productive day of work.
49. The lower production costs here may be in part due to the conditions previously described, but also includes more favorable production conditions such as flat and fertile lands and more suitable banana growing environment.
50. Banana Link. http://www.bananalink.org.uk/content/view/129/79/lang,en/
51. UNCTAD. Market Information in the Area of Commodities: Bananas. http://www.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/banana/market.htm
52. Perillo, Robert. The Banana Industry Crisis and its effects on workers in Latin America. US/LEAP Staff. Aug. 2000
53. Human Rights Watch. Tainted Harvest. p. 96-97
54. Banana Link. http://www.bananalink.org.uk/content/view/83/43/lang,en/
55. Claiborne, Shane and Perkins, John. Follow Me to Freedom. p. 77-78.
56. See www.freesetglobal.com
57. I can think of more than one occasion where I have passed by the fair trade certified bananas while trying to make my grocery budget for the week.
No comments:
Post a Comment