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