While Chocolate Lovers Smile,
Child Cocoa Workers Cry
Abusive Child Labor in the Cocoa Industry: How
Corporations and International Financial Institutions Are Causing It, and How Fair Trade Can Solve It
Cover photos: Richard Kadrey, Melissa A. Schweisguth
Authors: Deborah Toler, Ph. D., Melissa A. Schweisguth
Editor: Jason D. Mark
building people-to-people ties
2017 Mission Street, Suite 303 San Francisco, CA 94110
415-255-7296 www.globalexchange.org
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Full Text
Introduction: Dimensions of the Problem ....................................................................... 1
Labor Required in Cocoa Production .................................................................................................................. 1
Labor categories ................................................................................................................................................... 1
Incidence of Abusive Child Labor in West Africa ................................................................................................ 2
The Industry Response ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Methodological Concerns ................................................................................................................................... 5
Independent Investigation by the International Labor Rights Fund .................................................................... 5
The IMF, the World Bank, and the Cocoa Sector .............................................................. 6
Background and Basic Operations of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund ................................... 6
Effects on Africa .................................................................................................................................................. 6
Table 1: Debt payment in relation to GNP and social spending ........................................................................... 7
Structural Adjustment Policies ............................................................................................................................. 7
IMF and World Bank Impacts on the Ivory Coast and Its Cocoa Industry .......................................................... 8
The Complicity of the Chocolate Corporations ............................................................. 10
The Role of M&M/Mars ................................................................................................................................... 10
Letting the Market Run Wild ............................................................................................................................ 11
Trading Farmers’ Lives ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Abstaining from the ICA ................................................................................................................................... 13
Development Projects with USAID ................................................................................................................... 13
Pushing the Industry into Action ....................................................................................................................... 14
The Industry Protocol ....................................................................................................................................... 14
Shortcomings of the Protocol ............................................................................................................................ 15
Fair Trade: A Real Solution .............................................................................................. 15
Fair Trade Guidelines ......................................................................................................................................... 16
The Relevance of Fair Trade to Abusive Child Labor and the Industry Protocol ................................................ 17
Fair Trade as a Means of Price Stabilization ....................................................................................................... 17
Fair Trade’s Benefits ........................................................................................................................................... 17
The American Fair Trade market ....................................................................................................................... 18
Fair Trade Advocacy and the Industry’s Response .............................................................................................. 19
Recommendations to Mars, Its Industry Partners and the IMF and World Bank ........ 20
Recommendations to the Chocolate Corporations ............................................................................................ 20
Recommendations to the IMF and World Bank ................................................................................................ 21
Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 22
I. TABLE OF CONTENTS
|1
Table of Contents, continued
III. Appendices
IITA Research Findings
ILRF Research Findings
Chocolate Manufacturers of America Joint Statement
Correspondence
Initial letter to Mars from Global Exchange
Mars’ Response to Global Exchange
Global Exchange Response to Mars’ Response
Organizational Sign-on letter to Mars
Fair Trade Cocoa Standards
IV. Endnotes
2|
I. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary of Findings from the Child Labor Surveys
In the Cocoa Sector of West Africa:
Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria
July 2002
The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and national research
collaborators in Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria have completed a study of
child labor in the cocoa sector of West Africa, with the support of the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL), World Cocoa
Foundation, International Labor Organization (ILO), and the participating West African
governments. The research was carried out under the framework of IITA’s Sustainable
Tree Crops Program (STCP).
West Africa accounts for approximately 70 percent of the world’s cocoa production; with
an estimated 43 percent produced by Côte d’Ivoire, 15 percent produced by Ghana, 7
percent produced by Nigeria, and 4 percent by Cameroon. Since the adoption of ILO
Convention 182 “Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination
of the Worst Forms of Child Labor” on June 17, 1999, and of ILO Convention 184
“Concerning the Safety and Health in Agriculture” on June 5, 2001, there is a growing
need to research the extent and nature of children’s work in agriculture to determine the
types of activities that place children at risk. With a vast majority (70 percent) of the
world’s working children in agriculture, these two international standards provide
important guidance to address the needs of children engaged in hazardous work for this
sector.
Purpose of Study
•
Recent reports on child labor on cocoa farms in West Africa by foreign
governments, international agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and
the media have increased awareness on child labor practices in the cocoa sector
and elicited significant actions by governments and the chocolate industry to
address these concerns.
•
In response to the need for accurate information to inform policy development
and program interventions in accordance with the International Labor
Organization (ILO) Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labor, this
study was commissioned as part of the “Protocol for the Growing and Processing
of Cocoa Beans and their Derivative Products” that was signed between the U.S.
Congress, in particular Senator Harkin and Congressman Engel, and the global
chocolate industry on September 19, 2001.
Research Objectives
•
The primary objectives of the child labor studies were to: (1) collect and analyze
information related to children working in the cocoa sector; (2) determine the
estimated magnitude of children working on cocoa farms; (3) identify the nature
of conditions in which children work; (4) establish the social, demographic, and
economic characteristics of working children, their families and communities; and
(5) document the migration and work histories of children working in the cocoa
sector in the study areas of West Africa.
Research Methods and Procedures
•
Both quantitative and qualitative approaches using three different types of interrelated surveys were designed to collect data on child labor practices in the cocoa
sector of West Africa. The surveys employed in the study were the (1) Baseline
Producer Survey (BPS), (2) Producer-Worker Survey (PWS), and (3) Community
Survey (CS).
•
Households interviewed for the quantitative study were randomly selected in
areas with high rates of national cocoa production.
Study Areas
•
Baseline Producer Surveys (BPS) were conducted in 203 villages in Cameroon,
Ghana, and Nigeria. The sample size for these countries included 3,086
respondents. A BPS has just been concluded in Côte d’Ivoire, and data from this
survey are currently being analyzed.
•
Producer-Worker Surveys (PWS) and Community Surveys (CS) were conducted
in Côte d’Ivoire. The PWS covered the entire cocoa producing region visiting
250 localities and interviewing 1,500 producers. The CS included 114 interviews
in 15 of the 250 PWS localities.
Technical Advisory Committee
•
USAID established a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of 16 independent
experts drawn from international research institutes, the World Bank, United
Nations agencies (FAO, ILO, UNICEF), national research organizations, trade
unions, and the NGO community to ensure that the survey instruments and
outcomes of the study are credible and scientifically sound.
On-Going Efforts & Future Actions
•
USAID and USDOL are committed to collaborating with the governments of
West Africa, the global chocolate industry, ILO, and other international
organizations and NGOs to address the problem of child labor in cocoa
production in West Africa.
•
During the past year, these stakeholders have focused on developing an action
plan to respond to the needs and challenges identified by the study. Planning of
pilot phase activities will build on the ongoing USAID-STCP program, USDOLsupported ILO-IPEC project to combat the trafficking of children for labor
exploitation in nine countries in West and Central Africa, and the findings from
the child labor surveys.
Key Definitions and Concepts
•
The international definition of child labor is derived from ILO Convention 138,
which states that child labor is any economic activity performed by a person
under the age of 15 years. However, not all work is considered harmful to or
exploitative of children. Child labor is defined as work that prevents children
from attending and participating effectively in school or is performed by children
under hazardous conditions that place their healthy physical, intellectual, or moral
development at risk.
•
ILO Convention 182 defines the worst forms of child labor as the use of any
individual under the age of 18 for the purposes of debt bondage, armed conflict,
commercial sexual exploitation, drug trafficking, and other types of work
identified as hazardous to children by ratifying members.
•
Working children are those who carried out at least one task/activity in the cocoa
farm, i.e., clearing ground; weeding; maintaining cocoa trees; applying pesticides;
spreading fertilizer; harvesting; piling/gathering up; pod breaking; fermenting;
transporting; drying; and other activities.
Major Findings
Child Labor in Cocoa Farming
In West Africa, children in rural areas have traditionally worked in agriculture as part
of the family unit. The child labor surveys conducted in the four West African
countries studied found the following:
•
Overall, family labor is the most used labor type. In Côte d’Ivoire, 87 percent of
the permanent labor used in cocoa farming came from the family.
•
Some children working in cocoa farms have no family ties to the farmers.
•
In cocoa farming, children are engaged in a number of tasks/activities such as
clearing fields; weeding; maintaining cocoa trees; applying pesticides, fermenting;
transporting; drying; and other tasks.
•
Boys are more likely to work in cocoa farming. About 59 percent of children
working cocoa farming are boys while girls account for 41 percent.
•
The majority of working children (64 percent) in cocoa farming are below the age
of 14.
Children in potentially hazardous/exploitative situations
Children work in a variety of tasks which depending on the conditions may or may
not be detrimental to the child’s well-being. Types of hazardous activities in cocoa
farming include spraying of pesticide, use of machetes, and carrying heavy loads. In
addition, children with no family ties and those recruited through intermediaries are
more likely to be at risk for exploitation. The surveys found that:
•
In the four West African countries studied, numerous children were engaged in
hazardous activities in cocoa farming. For instance, an estimated 284,000 children
were clearing fields in cocoa farms using machetes, and 153,000 children were
involved in the application of pesticides (See Table 1).
Table 1. Estimates of Child Labor by Selected Characteristics in Study Areas of West Africa
Characteristic
Children who carry out all tasks
Apply pesticides
Use dangerous tools (machetes)
Paid child workers
Children with no family ties
Côte d’Ivoire
129,410
Cameroon
Ghana
Nigeria
–
–
13,200
71,100
5,121
11,994
5,500
35,200
0
–
–
38,700
0
4,600
9,300
1,220
–
–
–
Sources: Calculations based on data from the Sustainable Tree Crops Program Surveys (STCP).
– Not Available
•
Close to 12,000 children had no family relations to the cocoa farmer or local farm
workers in Côte d’Ivoire.
•
There is an estimated 2,500 working children who were recruited through
intermediaries for cocoa farming in Côte d’Ivoire and Nigeria.
Table 2. Estimates of Working Children at High Risk by Selected Activities and Characteristics in
Study Areas of West Africa
Characteristic
Côte d’Ivoire
Cameroon
Ghana
Nigeria
Application of pesticides
Children recruited through intermediaries
Use of machetes by children (Under 15)
142,610
2,100
109,299
5,500
0
16,192
–
0
18,189
4,600
354
2,325
Children without family ties
11,994
–
–
–
Sources: Calculations based on data from the Sustainable Tree Crops Program Surveys (STCP).
– Not Available
Child Labor and Education
Children that work are less likely to be enrolled or attending school. The type of
work that is of greatest concern is that which denies children access to education or
that diminishes the benefits that a child could derive from schooling. The surveys
found that:
•
In Côte d’Ivoire, approximately one-third of school-age children (6 to 17) living
in cocoa producing households have never attended school.
•
Children working in Côte d’Ivoire involved in all cocoa farming tasks were less
likely to be enrolled in school (34 percent school enrollment rate) compared to
those children who did not work (64 percent).
•
In Côte d’Ivoire, children of immigrant cocoa farmers are also less likely to be
enrolled in school compared to children of local cocoa farmers – 33 percent
compared to 71 percent, respectively.
•
Throughout the survey areas, girls have lower enrollment rates than boys.
Farmers’ Income and Child Labor
In West Africa, cocoa production is labor intensive, with little use of mechanized
tools. Most of the production is in the hands of small-scale farmers with little
resources that often use their entire family unit to contribute to cocoa farming. The
surveys found that:
•
Average annual cocoa revenues ranged from US$ 30 to US$ 110 per household
member.
•
Cocoa accounts for a large share of total household income among cocoa
farmers – ranging from 50 percent in Cameroon, 55 percent in Ghana, 66 percent
in Côte d’Ivoire, to 68 percent in Nigeria.
•
Even though cocoa farming is the main source of income, the quantity of cocoa
production is relatively low making it difficult for families to have sufficient
income to meet their needs. In West Africa, the average cocoa yield is in the
range of 207 kg/ha in Ghana to 475 kg/ha in Nigeria.
###
The World Bank and IMF Policies in Cote d’Ivoire:
Impact on Child Labor in the Cocoa Industry
International Labor Rights Fund
733 15th Street, NW Suite 920
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 347-4100
Fax: (202) 347-4885
www.laborrights.org
The World Bank and IMF Policies in Cote d’Ivoire:
Impact on Child Labor in the Cocoa Industry
Africa has become the “forgotten continent”1, left behind in the globalization race. Most
African countries have the highest level of poverty in the world. The legacy of the colonial past,
corruption of the rulers, and the dependence of Sub-Saharan African economies on primary
commodities are some of the many theories that exist to explain this phenomenon. However, the
advent of structural adjustment policies (SAPS) imposed by the World Bank and IMF in the
region within the last two decades has exacerbated social and economic problems. Their attempt
to bring the African countries onto the world stage has only resulted in reversal of development
there.
Cote d’Ivoire is a perfect example of a country where the socioeconomic situation
deteriorated with the arrival of the World Bank and IMF. Cote d’Ivoire was a relatively stable
country and possessed the largest economy in the West Africa Monetary Union,2 until it began
engagement with the World Bank and IMF in 1989. In exchange for aid and loans, the
international institutions imposed structural adjustment policies that were harmful to the poor.
Specifically, their policies have exacerbated the child labor problem in Cote d’Ivoire’s cocoa
farms.
Before linking the policies of the international institutions to the deterioration of Cote
d’Ivoire’s socioeconomic environment, a brief introduction to the World Bank and IMF, and
their policies will be given. It is followed by description of the impacts of these policies on
poverty, education, health, and ultimately child labor in Cote d’Ivoire.
I. The World Bank and IMF: Reversing Development
The World Bank and IMF are US-created, international development/financial institutions
that were started in 1946 in Bretton Woods, Massachusetts, to assist countries recovering from
the devastation of World War II. While the World Bank took to financing development projects,
IMF provided financial policy advice to donor countries. Their aim was to stabilize national
currency and balance of payments in order to encourage foreign investments. They also
provided aid and loans in exchange for structural adjustment policies (SAPs) the donor countries
had to implement. The policies include reduction in government expenditures, monetary
tightening, elimination of government subsidies for food, privatization of state owned
enterprises, and reductions in barriers to trade, foreign investment, and ownership.3
1
Mkand awire, T hand ika & Soludo, C harles. Our Continent Our Future: African Perspectives on Structural
Adjustment. New Jersey: Africa W orld Press, Inc. 1999 .
2
The W orld Bank G roup . Countries: Cote d’Ivoire, April 2002 (visited May 15, 2002)
<http://www .world bank.org/afr/ci2.htm >.
3
Naiman, Rob ert and Watkins, Neil. “A Survey of the Impacts of IMF Structural Adjustment in Africa: Growth,
Social Spending and Debt Relief.” Center for Economic and Policy Research April 1999.
1
Today, after more than fifty years, the World Bank and IMF have brought about more misery
than wealth. Their remedy to every donor country is the package of structural adjustment
policies that is intended as a “one-size-fits all” model of development. No matter the
development stage of the donor country or the credibility of the government, these reforms in the
financial, banking, export sectors, and fiscal policies have to be carried out in exchange for aid
and loans.
II. Cote d’Ivoire: Fall from Grace
Cote d’Ivoire was a country of relative prosperity and a symbol of stability in West Africa.
After independence in 1960, the economy enjoyed a growth rate of about seven percent per year
until the early 1980s. However, this image does not hold true today. News reports of political
riots, increasing racial tensions, and to the embarrassment of the world cocoa producers, bonded
child laborers working on cocoa farms in Cote d’Ivoire are now the face of the country. How the
country fell from grace in the last two decades can only be explained by the arrival of the World
Bank and IMF into Cote d’Ivoire.
The IMF became involved in Cote d'Ivoire in November 1989 on a stand-by arrangement
where the government and IMF agreed on an outline of economic policy changes. Following the
initial stand-by arrangements, six World Bank Structural Adjustment Loans from 1989-1993
followed. Then, in 1994, Cote d'Ivoire entered into the IMF Enhanced Structural Adjustment
Facility (ESAF), which is an IMF concessional lending facility for the least developed countries.
It offered low interest rates (0.5%) and repayment terms of five and a half to ten years. The loan
was disbursed in the amount of $384 million over a period of three years.4
Prior to the ESAF loan, the Cote d’Ivoire government had to first agree to a set of structural
adjustment programs as dictated by the World Bank and IMF. It was a program of accelerated
privatization, reduction in government expenditures followed by currency devaluation. The
main structural reforms in Cote d’Ivoire and their effects were:
I. Liberalization of the cocoa and coffee sectors. (Cocoa is the main focus here).
Consequences:
- High economic instability
- Increased agriculture poverty
- Widespread child labor practices
II. Reduction in government expenditures
Consequences:
- Decline in the quality of education
- Decline in the quality of the national health system
III. Currency devaluation
4
Naima n and W atkins.
2
Consequences:
- Decrease in purchasing power of the poor
- Decrease in standard of living
The rigid structural policies prescribed by the World Bank and IMF left Cote d’Ivoire with
no choice but to perform the set of reform policies in exchange for aid and loans. As explained
in detail below, the reforms consisted of ill-advised policies that produced devastating effects on
the poor.
III.Liberalization of the Cocoa Industry
The cocoa industry in Cote d’Ivoire was once a state managed industry before it was forced
to privatize at the demands of the World Bank and IMF. Officials of the World Bank and IMF
insisted that the cocoa farmers must receive the true price of cocoa beans in the world market
without the intervention of the government. Little did it occur to them that rapid liberalization
would produce devastating effects in a country that is highly dependent on cocoa as a major
contribution to GDP and in an industry dominated by small family farms.
Since 1955, Cote d’Ivoire’s cocoa industry was regulated by a state institution it inherited
from the French called CAISTAB (Caisse de Stabilisation). The government exerted a
considerable influence on the cocoa sector through this institution. The role of CAISTAB
included setting an official export price, releasing exports negotiated by private exporters, selling
a proportion of the crop, setting the pricing structure, and farmgate price (price that farmers get)
and ensuring the quality of the beans at the point of export.5 The system served as a safety net
for the cocoa farmers who were guaranteed a minimum price for the season no matter the price
of cocoa beans in the world market.
CAISTAB was completely privatized and split into three branches in November 1999.
Under the new cocoa privatized system, the price risk was transferred to the farmers. The
system, which is still evolving, was split into three private branches, Autorite de Regulation du
Café et du Cacao (ARCC), Bourse du Café et du Cacao(BCC), and Regulatory and Control Fund
(FRC).6
An auction system exists for export rights of cocoa. This new system was meant to
guarantee the transparency of the cocoa industry and prevent the abuse of monopolistic positions
and encourage fair trade. It has also aimed to limit cocoa processors from buying more beans
than their plants can process to make it easier for local farmers to compete in the international
marketplace.
5
International Cocoa Organization. Q and A: Information on the Effects of Liberalization on Ivory Coast’s Cocoa
Market (visited June 21,20 02) <http://www.icco.org/questions/ivory.htm> .
6
ARCC is charged with overseeing export licenses and resolving possible conflicts between various members of the
cocoa sector. BCC is operated by the private sector and it is in charge of carrying out technical, financial, and
supervisory missions in the marketing of cocoa to exporters. FRC is also privately run and was established in 2002
to administer the money generated from cocoa taxes.
3
IV. Consequences
Despite the World Bank and IMF’s glamorous talk of free open market systems that would
better the lives of the farmers, the new privatized system failed to improve the standard of living
for many of them. Cote d’Ivoire continues to suffer from high economic instability as a result of
liberalization of their nation’s significant agriculture sector. The lives of agricultural workers
have also been adversely affected by the decline of world cocoa prices. Worst of all, the use of
child labor has become a common practice on cocoa farms, sometimes with reports of abusive
and exploitative treatment of the child laborers.
Most importantly, the World Bank and IMF failed to take into account the fact that Cote
d’Ivoire’s economic and social structures are closely intertwined with the cocoa industry.
Reforming the cocoa industry affected the basic foundation of the Cote d’Ivorian’s
socioeconomic structure. The economy is highly dependent on agriculture products and engages
between 60%-70% of the population in agricultural activity. 7 In return, agriculture accounts for
approximately 70% of the country’s export earnings in which cocoa and coffee make up for 40%
of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).8 Cote d’Ivoire is the world’s largest cocoa
producer providing for 43% of the world’s output.9 Privatization of the once state-owned cocoa
industry was going to bring about monumental social and economic changes to Cote d’Ivoire; it
was not going to be a simple application of the economic model of free market system.
A. High Economic Instability
Despite the Cote d’Ivorian government’s attempt to diversify the economy, it remains highly
dependent on primary commodities, cocoa and coffee, whose prices in the world market
fluctuate. Cocoa is characterized by boom and bust cycle - as global production/supply rise,
price of cocoa beans fall and vice versa. Consequently, income from the sale of the good
shrinks, the term referred to as the “fallacy of composition”.10
Throughout the 1980s, cocoa prices plummeted in the world market and Cote d’Ivoire
suffered a serious economic downturn. The economy had a comeback in 1994 due to the 50%
devaluation of the currency and improved prices for cocoa and coffee.11 The economy sustained
rates of growth of about 6% from 1995 to 1998. However, in 1999, cocoa prices plummeted
7
The US Department of State. Backgrou nd N ote: Co te d’Ivoire (visited April 8, 2002)
<http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2846.htm>.
8
Countries: Cote d’Ivoire, April 2002.
9
UN CT AD . www.unctad .org/info com m/ang lais/coco a/market.htm.
10
Robbins, Peter. All abo ard the T itanic––M anaging trop ical com modity ma rkets (visited May 15, 2002)
<http://www .iita.org/info/phnews3/mi1.htm>.
11
Central Intelligence A gency. Cote d ’Ivoire (visited May 15,2002)
<http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iv.html>.
4
again leading to a drop in the economic growth to 1.6% in 1999. In 2000, the World Bank
estimated that the decline in GDP was about –2.4%.12
Despite the economic instability of Cote d’Ivoire, the World Bank and IMF still insisted on
complete liberalization of the cocoa industry. As liberalization was completed in 1999, it
coincided with the decline in world’s cocoa prices13, and the farmers were the worst hit. They
were left feeling extremely vulnerable and exposed to the cocoa price fluctuations and the
government was unable to intervene as their role in the cocoa industry has been eliminated.
Today, to fight back the pain of privatization, coca-producing countries, including Cote
d’Ivoire have formed a cartel to control the price of cocoa beans by restricting the supply of their
commodities. In 2000, four African cocoa-producing countries, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria,
and Cameroon agreed to destroy 250,000 tons of cocoa bean to raise prices.14
B. Increase Agriculture Poverty
The poverty level of agricultural workers increased greatly as a result of the liberalization of
the cocoa industry. With the fall in cocoa prices throughout the 1980s and most of 1990s,
agricultural workers were left to fend for themselves at below profit levels. The government
who used to set the minimum guaranteed price could no longer protect them. Because 70% of
the population is engaged in agricultural activity in Cote d’Ivoire, the fall of cocoa prices
significantly increased rural poverty.
From 1988 to 1995, the incidence and intensity of poverty doubled from 17.8% to 37% of the
population.15 In addition, although Cote d’Ivoire’s exports increased from $3 billion to $5
billion from 1980 to 1995, an analysis from Friends of the Earth International showed its GDP
remained stagnant at $10 billion for that period.16
Many farmers were confused when privatization arrived as little or no education or training
existed to assist their proper transition. Programs to train the farmers into the new system were
non-existent or minimal. In a country where 57% of the population is illiterate17, the
“mechanics” of free market system was not clearly communicated to the cocoa farmers.
Whereas the government used to set the cocoa prices for the season, the farmers now had to
listen to state radio and newspaper’s announcements that highlighted the London price upon
12
Countries: Co te d’Ivoire, A pril 20 02.
International Cocoa Organization. ICCO Monthly and Annual Averages of Daily Prices of Cocoa Beans, 19712002 (visited August 21, 2002 ) <http://www .icco.o rg/prices/pricesave.htm>.
14
Nigeria Exchange, 4 African countries to destroy 250,000 tonnes of cocoa (visited August 21, 2002)
<www.ngex.co m/new s/190 700 .htm>.
15
The W orld Bank. Poverty in Cote d'Ivoire: A Framework for Action 1997 (visited May 18,2002) < http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDS_IBank_Servlet?pcont=details&eid=000009265_3971104184200>.
16
Friend s of the E arth Internation al. Briefin g: Th e Wo rld Tra de System : Ho w it Works a nd W hat’s Wro ng w ith it
(visited M ay 15, 2002) < http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/world_trade_system.html>
17
The W orld Bank. Cote d’Ivoire at a Glance 2001(last modified September 18, 2001)
<http://www.worldbank.org/data/countrydata/aag/civ_aag.pdf>.
5
13
which the farmers get 60% of the price. A great deal of loss and resentment resulted when
farmers were misinformed about how to perform the price setting.18
A senior Agriculture Ministry official was reported as admitting that the first three years of
liberalization would be difficult for the farmers. He also predicted trouble particularly from
“friction between farmers and buyers over farmgate prices” particularly when the farmers do not
know at what price they should be selling.19 Despite such predictions, nothing was done to help
ease the transition for the farmers.
C. Widespread Child Labor Practice
The legal minimum age in Cote d’Ivoire for agriculture work is 12. Forced or bonded child
labor is prohibited in the country but is not enforced. Similarly, there is a labor law limiting
hours of young workers defined as those under the age of 1820, but in the agriculture sector,
violators go unnoticed or unpunished. Liberalization of the cocoa industry, and in the aftermath
of high economic instability and increased agricultural poverty, the practice of child labor has
become a common practice.
The US State Department estimated there are approximately 15,000 children working on
cocoa, coffee and cotton farms in Cote d’Ivoire. Media reports have documented children as
young as nine years old working on cocoa farms in exploitative conditions. Many work for 12hour days conducting hazardous types of work such as using machetes to open cocoa pods,
carrying heavy loads and applying pesticides.21 The most recent study completed in July 2002
by a collaboration of cocoa industry, US and several West African governments, and ILO
revealed Cote d’Ivoire had the highest number of child laborers among West African cocoa
producing nations.
The majority of child workers are Ivorians and are employed by their families or those with
family ties. The nature of cocoa farming is labor-intensive. And with the continuous fall out of
world cocoa prices and increasing cost of education (see II. 2), farmers have been pushed to use
their own children or those supplied by traffickers.
Immigrants from neighboring countries also make up many of the child laborers. While
some have come willingly to look for an income, others are tricked into slavery. In
“Understanding Children’s Work”, a collective study by ILO, UNICEF, and the World Bank,
there are 38.2% Ghanian, 24.5% Burkinable, 25.8% Malian, and 17.3% other Africans children
18
T’Sas, Vincent. Ivorian Ma rket Liberalisation Con fuses Farmers (visited May 15, 2002)
<http://www.expressindia.com/fe/daily/19990222/fec220088.html>.
19
T’Sas, Vincent.
20
The US Department of State. Cote d’Ivoire: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2001.
21
International Institute of T ropical Agriculture. Child Labor in the Cocoa Sector of West Africa: Synthesis of
Finding s in Ca meroon, Co te d’Ivoire, G han a, an d Nigeria. Sustaina ble T ree C rops Pro gram. August 200 2.
6
engaged in work in Cote d’Ivoire.22 The study show majority of these children are believed to be
engaged in agricultural work.
The inflow of laborers into Cote d’Ivoire is due to demand on cocoa farms for cheap labor.
As prices fall for cocoa in the world market, farmers, who were fervently encouraged by the
World Bank to produce and export the basic commodity to bring in foreign exchange, were left
at a loss. The result has been the widespread use of cheap child labor.
D. Reduction in Government Expenditures.
The Cote d’Ivoirian government was forced to reduce national spending in order to correct
the government budget deficit. Reduction in government expenditures took a toll on social
wellbeing of the people, as user fees were introduced into the national health system, and
education budgets were cut. In addition, increased debt burden tied down the Cote d’Ivoirian
government and repayment came in the form of more government cuts in health and education
budgets.
E. Health
Per capita spending in health declined between 1990 and 1995. In addition, “user fees” were
introduced into the public health care system in 1991 at the demands of the World Bank and
IMF. The cost of user fees made health services more inaccessible to the poor.
F. Education
Reduction in public expenditures also took a toll on the education sector. Teachers’ wage
salaries were reduced in accordance with the structural reforms. A law implemented in 1991 cut
starting salaries of primary, secondary, and university teachers to half the amounts of those hired
previously. 23 This naturally led to an automatic decline in the quality of education. Data from a
UNICEF study on Cote d’Ivoire shows a consistent decline in per capita spending on education
from 1990 to 1995 from CFA 20,000 per year to approximately CFA 13,000.24
When public services fail to meet the needs of the poor, the vicious cycle of poverty is
perpetuated. In the case of child labor, a study found eighty-eight percent of the child workers
surveyed in Cote d’Ivoire had never attended school.25 Improving education services and
outreach would have significant impact on reducing child labor.
G. Debt Burden
22
Francesca Francavilla and Scott Lyo n. Child Work in Cote d’Ivoire: An Overview. Und erstand ing Children’s
Work Project. March 2002.
23
The US Department of State. Cote d’Ivoire: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2001.
24
UNICEF. Financement des Secteurs Sociauz de Base: Suivi de l'initiative 20-20 en Cote d'Ivoire. August 1997.
25
International Institute of T ropical Agriculture, Child Labor in the Cocoa Sector of West Africa: A Synthesis of
findings in C am eroo n, Co te d’Ivoire, G han a an d Nigeria. August 200 2.
7
Cote d’Ivoire suffers from a crippling debt burden with an external debt that grew from $7.4
billion to $17.7 billion from 1980-1990.26 Total debt rose from 73.3% of (GDP) in 1980 to
164.3% in 1990.27 Cote d’Ivoire has become one of the most indebted countries in the world
qualifying them under the IMF Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC). Increasing debt burden
has negative social consequences as repayment comes at the expense of public spending.
H. Currency Devaluation
Cote d’Ivoire’s currency was devalued by fifty percent in 1994 at the urging of the World
Bank and IMF to make its exports cheaper in the world market. This significantly affected the
poor as their savings and purchasing power dwindled overnight.
The standard of living in the rural areas significantly declined as health and education
services became more inaccessible. Cote d’Ivoire’s debt burden was further enhanced with the
devaluation of the local currency.
V. Conclusion
For two decades after independence, Cote d’Ivoire boasted an image of prosperity and
stability. However, Cote d’Ivoire made the mistake of following the advice of the World Bank
and IMF. Liberalization of the cocoa industry, a key commodity sector, produced disastrous
results at a time when world commodity prices were falling. Adjustments with fiscal policies
did not help the situation, particularly when public expenditures such as education and health
budgets were cut. Currency devaluation further worsened the living standards of the poor.
These ill-advised policies have altogether fueled the abusive practice of child labor on cocoa
farms in Cote d’Ivoire.
The World Bank defends that the failure of policies in their donor countries is due to the
donor governments’ failure to implement the policies to the full extent. It is interesting that
Cote d’Ivoire’s neighbor has in place a marketing board system in its cocoa industry where the
state has a role in protecting farmers from the crush of world cocoa prices. Coincidentally,
Ghana does not have the child labor problem to the extent of Cote d’Ivoire.
The World Bank and IMF have yet to prove that they are genuinely concerned about lifting
third world countries out of poverty. They need to reassess their ill-advised policies that are
producing negative consequences in their donor countries. As long as poor nations are
complying with the dictates of the World Bank and IMF who, in return, are catering to the
interests of the powerful industrialized nations and multinational corporations, the world will
always be divided into have and have-nots.
26
27
Cote d’Ivoire at a Glance.
Ibid.
8
Appendices
Chocolate Manufacturers of
America Joint Statement
November 30, 2001
CAOBISCO, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association,
the Chocolate Manufacturers Association of Canada, the
Cocoa Association of London, the Cocoa Merchants
Association of America, the European Cocoa Association,
the International Cocoa Organization, the IOCCC, the
World Cocoa Foundation, the Child Labor Coalition,
Free The Slaves, the International Union of Food,
Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and
Allied Workers Associations, and the National
Consumers League (sometimes hereinafter the
“Signatories”) recognize the urgent need to identify and
eliminate child labour in violation of International
Labour Organization (“ILO”) Convention 182 with
respect to the growing and processing of cocoa beans
and their derivative products.
The Signatories also recognize the need to identify and
eliminate practices in violation of ILO Convention 29
with equal urgency.
The Signatories affirm their support for the International
Labour Organization’s (ILO) mission to improve
working conditions worldwide, as exemplified in the ILO
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at
Work. We also share the view that practices in violation
of ILO Conventions 182 (the “worst forms of child
labour”) and 29 (“forced labour”) result from poverty
and a complex set of social and economic conditions
often faced by small family farmers and agricultural
workers, and that effective solutions to address these
violations must include action by appropriate parties to
improve overall labour standards and access to education.
The Signatories support the framework provided in the
Protocol signed by the Chocolate Manufacturers
Association and the World Cocoa Foundation on
September 19, 2001, which provides for cooperation and
for credible, effective problem solving in West Africa,
where a specific program of research, information
exchange, and action is immediately warranted.
of governments, global industry (comprised of major
manufacturers of cocoa and chocolate products as well
as other, major cocoa users), cocoa producers, labour
representatives, nongovernmental organizations, and
consumers that have joined this process.
The Signatories recognize the need to work in concert
with the ILO because the ILO will play an important
role in identifying positive strategies, including
developmental alternatives for children engaged in the
worst forms of child labour and adults engaged in forced
labour in the growing and processing of cocoa beans
and their derivative products.
The strategies to be developed will be effective only if
they are comprehensive and part of a durable initiative.
The steps to be taken to sustain this initiative include:
(i) execution of a binding memorandum of cooperation
among the Signatories that establishes a joint action
program of research, information exchange, and
action to enforce the internationally-recognized and
mutually-agreed upon standards to eliminate the
worst forms of child labour in the growing and
processing of cocoa beans and their derivative
products
(ii) incorporation of this research that will include efforts
to determine the most appropriate and practicable
independent means of monitoring and public
reporting in compliance with those standards;
(iii) establishment of a joint foundation to oversee and
sustain efforts to eliminate the worst forms of child
labour and forced labour in the growing and
processing of cocoa beans and their derivative
products. The Signatories welcome industry’s
commitment to provide initial and ongoing, primary
financial support for the foundation.
We anticipate that other parties may be able to play a
positive role in our important work. Subject to mutual
consent by the Signatories, additional parties may be
invited to sign onto this statement in the future.
Witnessed by the International Labour Organization this
30th day of November, 2001. Geneva, Switzerland
This Joint Statement expresses the shared commitment
of the Signatories to work collaboratively toward the goal
of eliminating the worst forms of child labour and forced
labour in cocoa growing.
Signed:
The strategies developed as part of this process will only
be credible to the public and meet the expectations of
consumers if there is committed engagement on the part
Chocolate Manufacturers Association of Canada
CAOBISCO
Chocolate Manufacturers Association
Cocoa Association of London
III. APPENDICES
|1
Cocoa Merchants Association of America
European Cocoa Association
International Cocoa Organization
IOCCC
World Cocoa Foundation
Child Labor Coalition
Free The Slaves
International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel,
Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers
Associations
National Consumers League
2|
III. APPENDICES
Correspondence with M&M/Mars
Global Exchange’s Initial Letter to Mars
Paul Michaels, President
M&M/Mars Inc.
6885 Elm St.
McLean, VA 22101
March 25, 2002
Dear Mr. Michaels,
We are writing to express our concerns about the current
state of the cocoa industry, and to ask you purchase cocoa
that is Fair Trade Certified.
As you certainly know, several recent reports have
revealed the existence of child slave labor in the cocoa
industry. The reemergence of child slavery can be blamed,
in part, by a downturn in raw cocoa prices. As a result,
cocoa growers have been forced to cut their labor costs,
and tragically many of them have turned to using slave
labor. While low cocoa prices mean lower raw materials
costs and hence more profit for M&M/Mars, for cocoa
farmers and workers, the results are tragic.
Although slavery is the most prominent and egregious
labor rights violation, we join with the Child Labor
Coalition, Free the Slaves, and the International Union
of Foodworkers in supporting the need to not only to
eliminate child slavery, but to ensure that all International
Labor Organization conventions are enforced, starting
with Conventions 182 (the worst forms of child labor)
and 29 (forced labor).
We are aware that this past year that M&M/Mars, along
with other members of the Chocolate Manufacturers
Association and the World Cocoa Foundation, agreed
to take steps to eliminate child slavery and work towards
enforcement of ILO conventions by releasing a Protocol
and Joint Statement. This is a positive development.
However, it does nothing to correct the low world cocoa
prices that are a root cause of slave labor practices.
Solutions to the current crisis must include ensuring that
farmers are paid a fair price for their harvest.
Surely, most of your customers would be outraged to
learn that the sweetness of their favorite chocolate is
tainted with the bitterness of slavery and worker
exploitation, and would like to know that you are doing
everything within your power as a chocolate company
to ensure that farmers and workers are treated fairly.
Fortunately there is one solution available to the
chocolate industry now that would guarantee that its
chocolate is produced fairly and without exploitation:
Fair Trade. The Fair Trade system corrects market
imbalances by guaranteeing a minimum price for small
farmers’ harvests. Your Protocol states that “effective
solutions to address these violations must include action
by appropriate parties to improve overall labor standards
and access to education.” Only when cocoa producers
are paid such a fair and stable income will they have the
resources to feed their families and keep their children
in school.
To find out how you can purchase cocoa that has been
produced according to Fair Trade criteria, contact
TransFair USA at (510) 663.5260. TransFair USA already
certifies over 120 companies in the U.S. that market
Fair Trade coffee and tea, and they have the capacity to
certify US chocolate companies such as M&M/Mars.
Although Fair Trade Certified cocoa products are widely
available in Europe, no US companies have yet taken
advantage of this opportunity. Fair Trade cooperatives
produce cocoa in Ghana, Cameroon, Brazil, Nicaragua,
Belize, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Costa
Rica. Last year, cooperatives in these countries produced
89 million pounds of cocoa, yet only 3 million pounds
of it was sold at Fair Trade prices. Clearly there is
sufficient supply for expanding the Fair Trade Cocoa
market to companies that offer quality chocolate
products such as M&M/Mars.
We believe that M&M/Mars, as a leader of the $13
billion chocolate industry, has the responsibility to ensure
that its principal product, chocolate, is produced under
fair labor conditions. It is clear that you have the resources
to do so, given that you control almost 17% of the total
US chocolate market, and that Mars garnered an
estimated $15.5 billion in revenues last year.
Thus, we formally call on you to commit to purchasing
a starting minimum of at least five percent of your cocoa
as Fair Trade Certified, to be independently verified and
monitored, according to international standards, by
TransFair USA.
Thank you for your consideration. We request that you
reply promptly with a specific plan introducing Fair Trade
Certified chocolate products outlined above. Until you
agree to offer a Fair Trade price for your cocoa, the
sweetness of your chocolate will be ruined for more and
more consumers, because the cocoa producers - whose
work is so central to M&M/Mars’ business - will
continue to face bitter hardships.
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Deborah James
Fair Trade Director
III. APPENDICES
|3
Mars’ Response to Global Exchange
April 18, 2002
Dear Ms. James,
I am writing in response to your letter of March 25,
addressed to Paul Michaels at M&M/Mars, now Mars
Masterfoods.
The use of abusive labor practices in the growing of cocoa
is simply unacceptable to us. We strongly condemn these
practices wherever they may occur. We believe that our
products and their ingredients should be produced in a
manner that is socially, environmentally and
economically responsible.
We would like to thank you for taking an interest in an
issue that we in the chocolate industry have been working
very hard to address. Child trafficking and abusive labor
practices in the growing of cocoa are simply unacceptable
to us at Mars.
Like you, we aim to improve the economic conditions
of cocoa farmers. The majority of West Africa cocoa
farmers, however, do not have access to the type of
infrastructure (i.e. Co-ops) that is necessary to take part
in a fair trade supply chain. Fair trade is an approach
that works best with farmers having access to
communications and warehousing facilities and that
operate within a more structured commercial system.
That is why we are working on solutions that address
the needs of the entirety of West African cocoa farmers
and their rural communities; not only those with access
to successful cocoa cooperatives, which are few and far
between in West Africa.
Unacceptable labor practices are not simply a function
of low cocoa prices but are the results of a complex set
of factors facing the populations of West Africa. For this
reason the chocolate industry has adopted the broader,
more holistic approach that will reach the majority of
farmers and help improve the overall economic, social
and environmental conditions related to cocoa
production.
Our approach, codified in the September 2001 Protocol
singed by representative groups of the chocolate industry
and witnessed by government officials and third-party
labor experts, including the Child Labor Coalition and
the International Labor Union, and Free the Slaves
commits to actively investigating and addressing any
potential child trafficking or abusive labor conditions
on cocoa farms in West Africa.
4|
III. APPENDICES
Truly sustainable solutions will require a coordinated
effort by industry, governments in West Africa and the
developed world, donor agencies and NGOs. The steps
we are currently taking are part of a broader efforts
initiated by Mars and the global chocolate industry in
1998 to improve the well-being of millions of small
farmers who grow cocoa worldwide. While the solutions
will take time to implement successfully, a number of
commitments have already been fulfilled. The issues are
complex but we are fully committed to achieving the
objectives of the Protocol as quickly and effectively as
possible.
We thank you for your concern,
Sincerely,
Marlene M. Machut
Director, External & Scientific Affairs
Global Exchange Response to Mars’ Response
Organizational Sign-on Letter to Mars
Paul Michaels, President, M&M/Mars Inc.
6885 Elm St.
McLean, VA 22101
June 18, 2002
Dear Mr. Michaels,
We, the undersigned organizations, represent a diverse
group of churches, unions, student and consumer
groups, environmental and economic justice
organizations, and others who are concerned about the
wages and living conditions of cocoa farmers and
workers. We are writing today to urge you to purchase
cocoa that is Fair Trade Certified. We believe that Fair
Trade certification is the best way for you to ensure that
child slavery and poverty are no longer facts of life on
cocoa farms.
As you certainly know, several recent reports have
revealed the existence of child slave labor in the cocoa
industry. The reemergence of child slavery can be blamed,
in part, on low prices in the cocoa industry over the last
ten years. At present, cocoa farmers receive about 1 cent
for a regular candy bar. As a result of insufficient revenues,
cocoa growers have been forced to cut their labor costs,
and tragically many of them have turned to using slave
labor. While low cocoa prices mean lower raw materials
costs and hence more profit for M&M/Mars, for cocoa
farmers and workers, the results have been tragic.
Although slavery is the most prominent and egregious
labor rights violation, we join with the Child Labor
Coalition, Free the Slaves, and the International Union
of Foodworkers in supporting the need to not only to
eliminate child slavery, but to ensure that all International
Labor Organization conventions are enforced, starting
with Conventions 182 (the worst forms of child labor)
and 29 (forced labor).
We are aware that this past year M&M/Mars, along with
other members of the Chocolate Manufacturers
Association and the World Cocoa Foundation, agreed
to take steps to eliminate child slavery and work toward
enforcement of ILO conventions by releasing a Protocol
and Joint Statement. This is a positive development.
However, it does nothing to correct the low world cocoa
prices that are a root cause of exploitative labor practices.
Solutions to the current crisis must include ensuring that
farmers are paid a fair price for their harvest.
Surely, most of your customers would be outraged to learn
that the sweetness of their favorite chocolate is tainted
with the bitterness of slavery and worker exploitation.
Fortunately there is one solution available to the
chocolate industry now that would guarantee that its
chocolate is produced fairly and without exploitation:
Fair Trade. The Fair Trade system corrects market
imbalances by guaranteeing a minimum price for small
farmers’ harvests and prohibits the worst forms of child
labor and forced labor. Your Protocol states that “we also
share the view that practices in violation of ILO
Conventions 182 and 29 result from poverty and a
complex set of social and economic conditions often
faced by small family farmers and agricultural workers,
and that effective solutions to address these violations
must include action by appropriate parties to improve
overall labor standards and access to education.” Only
when cocoa producers are paid such a fair and stable
income will they be able to rise above poverty, experience
permanent improvements in overall labor standards, and
have the resources to feed their families and keep their
children in school.
To find out how you can purchase cocoa that has been
produced according to Fair Trade criteria, contact
TransFair USA at (510) 663.5260. TransFair USA already
certifies over 120 companies in the U.S. that market
Fair Trade coffee and tea, and has the capacity to certify
chocolate companies such as M&M/Mars.
Although Fair Trade Certified cocoa products are widely
available in Europe, no U.S. companies have yet taken
advantage of this opportunity. Fair Trade cooperatives
produce cocoa in Ghana, Cameroon, Brazil, Nicaragua,
Belize, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Costa
Rica. Last year, cooperatives in these countries produced
89 million pounds of cocoa, yet only 3 million pounds
of it was sold at Fair Trade prices. Clearly there is
sufficient supply for expanding the Fair Trade cocoa
market to companies that offer quality chocolate
products such as M&M/Mars. Fair Trade also specifies
that producers must be small farmers. Given that 90%
of all cocoa worldwide is produced by small farmers who
own 12 acres or less, Fair Trade could certainly be a reality
for the majority of the world’s cocoa producers, if only
companies like M&M/Mars would buy Fair Trade cocoa.
We believe that M&M/Mars, as a leader of the $13
billion chocolate industry, has the responsibility to ensure
that its principal product, chocolate, is produced under
fair labor conditions. It is clear that you have the resources
to do so, given that M&M/Mars is the 4th largest private
III. APPENDICES
|7
company in the U.S., controls almost 17% of the total
U.S. chocolate market, and garnered an estimated $15.5
billion in revenues last year.
Boreal Footprint Project
Thus, we, the undersigned organizations, call on you to
commit to purchasing a minimum of at least five percent
of your cocoa as Fair Trade Certified, to be independently
verified and monitored, according to international
standards, by TransFair USA.
California Fair Trade Campaign
Thank you for your consideration. We request that you
reply promptly with a specific plan introducing Fair Trade
Certified chocolate. Until you agree to offer a Fair Trade
price for your cocoa, the sweetness of your chocolate
will be ruined because the cocoa producers - whose work
is so central to M&M/Mars’ business - will continue to
face bitter hardships.
No matter what the shade, make our M&M’s Fair Trade.
Sincerely,
Buddhist Peace Fellowship
Burma Project
California Fair Trade Coalition
California Peace Action
California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.
Call To Action
Campaign for Labor Rights (CLR)
Campus Greens at UCSD
Campus Labor Action Coalition, University of California Santa
Barbara
Casa Maria Catholic Worker
Catholic Migrant Farmworker Network
CAUSA (Oregon’s Immigrant Rights Coalition)
Center for Economic Justice
Center for International Policy
Center for Reflection, Education & Action
Center for Third World Organizing
Chicago Religious Leadership Network on Latin America
50 Years Is Enough! Network
Church of the Brethren
AcadeMedia
Church Women United
Acadie Religious Community
Citizen Works
ACT UP Philadelphia
Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana
Action for Community & Ecology in the Regions of Central
America (ACERCA)
Coalition for a Humane Economy
Action NOW!
Africa Action
Africa Alive
Africa Faith & Justice Network
Agricultural Missions, Inc.
Aid Through Trade
Alabama Fair Trade Coalition
Alliance for Democracy, Santa Cruz, CA
Alliance for Responsible Trade (ART)
Alliance for Sustainable Jobs & the Environment (ASJE)
American Anti-Slavery Group
American Muslims for Global Peace and Justice
Coalition of Immokalee Workers
Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES)
Committee to Free Lori Berenson
Community Alliance for Global Justice
Congregation of St. Agnes
Consumers Against Food Engineering
Co-op America
Corporate Agribusiness Research Project
CorpWatch
Crafts Center
Daily Acts
Daughters of Mary and Joseph
American Postal Workers Union, Miami Area, AFL-CIO
Democratizing the Global Economy Project (a project of the
American Friends Service Committee)
Amnesty International USA
Development Gap
Anti-Slavery International
Dominican Sisters of San Rafael
Arise for Social Justice
Duke University Student Action with Farmworkers
Association of Concerned Africa Scholars
Earth Island Institute
Bay Area Burma Roundtable
Earth Ministry
Bicycle for Everyone’s Earth
Earth Rights Institute
Black Radical Congress
Ecology Center
Border Agricultural Workers Center (Centro de los Trabajadores
Agrícolas Fronterizos)
Ecumenical Program on Central America & the Caribbean
(EPICA)
8|
III. APPENDICES
Edmonds Institute
Maryland United for Peace and Justice
Educate for Justice
Methodist Federation for Social Action
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Mexico Solidarity Network
Équiterre
Missionary Sisters - Our Lady of Africa
Fair Trade Federation
Missouri Rural Crisis Center
Fair Trade Resource Network (FTRN)
National Campus Greens
Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC)
National Family Farm Coalition
Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc.
National Labor Committee
Fellowship of Reconciliation, Seattle Area
Native Forest Network
Free the Planet
New England Guatemalan Alliance
Free the Slaves
New York State Labor-Religion Coalition
Fresno County Green Party
Nicaragua Center for Community Action
Friends of the Earth
Nicaragua Network
Global Economy Working Group, Church Council of Greater
Seattle
Northwest Labor and Employment Law Office
Global Exchange
Organic Consumers Association (OCA)
Global Response
Our Developing World
Grassroots Globalization Network
Oxfam America
Grassroots International
Pax Christi- Michigan
Greater Kansas City Fair Trade Coalition
Pax Christi- St. Gabriel
Green Party of San Francisco
Pax Christi- St. Louis University
Guatemala Human Rights Commission USA
Pax Christi USA
Haiti Reborn
PCUN/Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United
Hawai’i Sustainable Lifestyle Network
PeaceWorks
Heyyanka Foundation Courtemaiche
Peninsula Peace and Justice Center
Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International
Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (HERE)
Pennsylvania Fair Trade Coalition
Human Rights Action Service
Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy
Inter Religious Task Force on Central America
Intercommunity Justice & Peace Center
Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility
Interhemispheric Resource Center
International Development Exchange
International Forum on Globalization
International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF)
International Longshore and Warehouse Union
JAMBO International Center
Jeannette Rankin Peace Center
Jobs with Justice, New York
JustAct
Office of Religious Life, Mount Holyoke College
Pennsylvania State University Eco-Action
Pesticide Action Network North America
Power Shift
Progressive Jewish Alliance
Project Concern International
Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch
Rainbow Churches and Beehive School
Rainforest Action Network (RAN)
Resource Center for Non-Violence
Resource Center of the Americas
Rights Action
Ruckus Society
RUGMARK Foundation USA
Rural Coalition/Coalición Rural
La Siembra Cooperative
Rural TrainingResearch Center (Federation of Southern
Cooperatives)
Leicester Advocating Fair Trade
Sacramentans for International Labor Rights
Los Angeles Leadership Academy
Sacramento Activists for Democratic Trade
MAITRI- The Movement of Solidarity with the Poor of the Third
World (Ruch Solidarnosci z Ubogimi Trzeciego Swiata MAITRI)
Sacred Heart OFM Province Peace and Justice
Marin Interfaith Task Force on Central America
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
San Jose Peace Center
Santa Clara County Green Party
Santa Clarans for Fair Trade
III. APPENDICES
|9
Save the Children Canada
Unitarian Universalists for a Just Economic Community
Save the Redwoods & Boycott the Gap Campaign
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, Eau Claire, WI
Seattle Burma Roundtable
United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries
Sexto Sol Center for Community Action
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America
Sinitesa Foundation
United Farm Workers Washington State
Sisters of Charity, BVM, The Women’s Office
United for a Fair Economy
Sisters of the Holy Names Justice & Peace Committee
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
Society of African Missions, Office of Justice and Peace
United Steelworkers of America Local 1227
Society of Missionaries of Africa, North American Province,
Justice and Peace Office
Vassar College Amnesty International
Society of St. Ursula
Washington Office on Africa
Songbird Foundation
Washington Peace Center
South (Alameda) County Peace & Justice Coalition
Washington State Africa Network
Southern California Fair Trade Network
West Africa Rainforest Network
StanFair: Stanford Students for Fair Trade
Western Massachusetts Global Action Coalition
Student Action with Farmworkers (SAF)
Western Michigan University Peace Center
Student Coalition for Global Solidarity
Wisconsin Fair Trade Campaign
Students Transforming and Resisting Corporations (STARC)
Witness for Peace South East Region
Tennessee Industrial Renewal Network
Witness for Peace Southwest
Texas Fair Trade Coalition
Women’s EDGE
Tikkun Magazine
TransAfrica Forum
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, US
Section (WILPF)
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
World Neighbors
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee
Youth for Environmental Sanity
10 |
III. APPENDICES
Vassar College Student Activist Union
FAIRTRADE LABELLING ORGANIZATIONS INTERNATIONAL
FAIRTRADE STANDARDS
FOR
Cocoa
Fairtrade, an Alternative for Small Farmers and Workers
2
PART A Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Farmer’s Organisations
3
1
Social Development
3
1.1
Fairtrade adds Development Potential
3
1.2
Members are Small Producers
3
1.3
Democracy, Participation and Transparency
3
1.4
Non-Discrimination
4
2
3
4
Economic Development
4
2.1
Fairtrade Premium
4
2.2
Export Ability
4
2.3
Economic Strengthening of the Organisation
5
Environmental Development
5
3.1
5
Environment Protection
Standards on Labour Conditions
(applicable if the organisation employs a considerable amount of workers)
4.1
Forced Labour and Child Labour
5
4.2
Freedom of Association & Collective Bargaining
6
4.3
Conditions of Employment
6
4.4
Occupational Health and Safety
7
PART B Product Specific Standards for Cocoa
9
PART C Trade Standards for Cocoa
10
Version January 2003
Fairtrade, an Alternative for Small Farmers and Workers
Fairtrade is an initiative for small farmers and wage workers in the South, who have been restrained in
their economical and / or social development by the conditions of trade. If fair access to markets
under better conditions of trade can help to overcome the restraints of development, they can join
Fairtrade.
Small farmers can join Fairtrade if they have formed organisations (in co-operatives, associations or
other organisational forms1) which are able to contribute to the social and economic development of
their members and their communities and are democratically controlled by their members.
Organisations can be certified by FLO if they comply with the requirements in this document.
Workers can participate in Fairtrade if they are organised, normally in unions, and if the company
they work for is prepared to promote workers’ development and to pass on to the workers the
additional revenues generated by Fairtrade. Such companies working with hired labour (farms,
plantations, etc.), can be certified if they comply with the requirements in this document.
In setting its Standards FLO follows certain internationally recognised standards and conventions,
especially those of the ILO (International Labour Organisation), as these form the basic labour rights
most widely accepted throughout the world. In this document each Standard is formulated in general
terms, and, where applicable, reference is made to external standards which FLO follows.
The Standard is then followed by the requirements against which producers will actually be
inspected. The requirements are divided into:
•
minimum requirements, which all producer organisations must meet from the moment they
join Fairtrade, or within a specified period; and
•
progress requirements, on which producer organisations must show permanent improvement.
A report on the achievement of progress requirements should be made each year.
Minimum in this sense is meant to ensure that:
1. Fairtrade benefits reach the small farmers and/or workers.
2. The small farmers' organisation and/or the workers has/have potential for development.
3. Fairtrade instruments can take effect and lead to a development which cannot be achieved
otherwise.
The degree of progress, which FLO requires from each producer organisation, depends on the level of
economic benefits it receives from Fairtrade and on its specific context.
FLO also requires that producer organisations always abide by national legislation. Furthermore,
national legislation prevails if it sets higher standards on particular issues than FLO.
The Standards laid out in this document apply to small farmers' organisations
ONLY. For Standards related to hired labour situations please see the respective
document.
1
In the rest of the document the term organisation will be used, which should be read as to include all types of
organisational forms.
Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Farmers’ Organisations
Version January 2003
2
PART A Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Farmer’s
Organisations
1
1.1
Social Development
Fairtrade adds Development Potential
Fairtrade should make a difference in development for certified producers.
1.1.1
Minimum Requirement
1.1.1.1 The producer organisation can demonstrate that Fairtrade revenues will promote social and
economical development of small farmers.
1.1.2
Progress Requirement
1.1.2.1 A monitored plan should be developed under which the benefits of Fairtrade (including the
Premium) are shared based on a democratic decision taken by the beneficiaries.
1.2
Members are Small Producers
By small producers are understood those that are not structurally dependent on permanent
hired labour, managing their farm mainly with their own and their family's labour-force.
1.2.1
Minimum Requirement
1.2.1.1 The majority of the members of the organisation are small producers.
1.2.1.2 Of every Fairtrade-certified product sold by the organisation, more than 50% of the volume
must be produced by small producers.
1.2.2
Progress Requirement
1.2.2.1 Where a minority of small producers from within a small producer organisation is producing
a particular Fairtrade-product, special attention needs to be given to ensure that they will
always receive a cost-covering price for their product from the small producers' organisation.
The small producer organisation will establish an adequate system for this respectively.
1.3
Democracy, Participation and Transparency
The organisation must be an instrument for the social and economical development of the members,
and in particular the benefits of Fairtrade must come to the members. The organisation must therefore
have a democratic structure and transparent administration, which enables an effective control by the
members and its Board over the management, including the decisions about how the benefits are
shared. Furthermore, there must be no discrimination regarding membership and participation.
1.3.1
Minimum requirements
1.3.1.1 An organisational structure is in place which enables control by the members. There is a
General Assembly with voting rights for all members as the supreme decision taking body
and an elected Board. The staff answers through the Board to the General Assembly.
1.3.1.2 The organisation holds a General Assembly at least once a year.
1.3.1.3 The annual report and accounts are presented to and approved by the General Assembly.
1.3.1.4 Administration is in place.
1.3.2
Progress requirements
1.3.2.1 The organisation works towards transparent planning of the business. Organisations are
encouraged to make annual business plans, cash flow predictions and longer term strategic
plans. Such plans will be approved by the General Assembly.
Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Farmers’ Organisations
Version January 2003
3
1.3.2.2 The participation of members in the organisation's administration and internal control is
promoted through training and education - and improves as a result.
1.3.2.3 The organisation establishes or improves internal mechanisms of members’ control over the
administration, such as a control committee with rights to review the administration, external
audit, etc.
1.3.2.4 Increasingly, the organisation’s policies are discussed in member meetings. Management
actively encourages members’ participation in meetings.
1.3.2.5 There is improvement of the flow of information from board to members about the business
and the organisation’s policies.
1.3.2.6 Measures will be taken to improve the members’ commitment to the organization.
1.4
Non-Discrimination
FLO follows ILO Convention 111 on ending discrimination of workers. The Convention rejects “any
distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion,
national extraction or social origin, which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of
opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation” (art. 1). As far as applicable, FLO extends
these principles to members of organisations.
1.4.1
Minimum requirements
1.4.1.1 If the organisation restricts new membership, the restriction may not contribute to the
discrimination of particular social groups.
1.4.2
Progress requirements
1.4.2.1 Programs related to disadvantaged/minority groups within the organisation are in place to
improve the position of those groups in the organisation, particularly with respect to
recruitment, staff and committee membership.
2
2.1
Economic Development
Fairtrade Premium
The organisation has the commitment and capacity to administer the Fairtrade Premium in a way
which is transparent for beneficiaries and FLO. Decisions on the use of the Premium are taken
democratically by the members.
2.1.1
Minimum requirements
2.1.1.1 The organisation administrates and manages the Premium transparently and uses it in line
with the requirements outlined in these Standards.
2.1.1.2 The use of the Fairtrade Premium is decided by the General Assembly and properly
documented
2.1.2
Progress requirements
2.1.2.1 As soon as Premium is available, there is a yearly Premium plan and budget, preferably these
are part of a general work plan and budget of the organisation.
2.2
Export Ability
The producers must have access to the logistical, administrative and technical means to bring a quality
product to the market.
2.2.1
Minimum requirements
Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Farmers’ Organisations
Version January 2003
4
2.2.1.1 Logistics and communication equipment are in place.
2.2.1.2 The producer organisation proves that it meets current export quality standards, preferably
through previously exported products which were accepted by importers.
2.2.1.3 Demand for the producers’ Fairtrade product exists.
2.2.1.4 The organisation has experience in the commercialisation of a product as an organisation.
2.2.2
Progress requirements
2.2.2.1 The producer organisation increases efficiency in their exporting operations as well as in
other operations and this way maximises the return to the members.
2.3
Economic Strengthening of the Organisation
2.3.1
Progress requirements
2.3.1.1 Members will gradually take on more responsibility over the whole export process.
2.3.1.2 The organisation will work towards the strengthening of its business related operations. This
could for example be through the building up of working capital, implementation of quality
control, training/education and risk management systems, etc.
3
3.1
Environmental Development
Environment protection
Producers are expected to protect the natural environment and to make environment protection a part
of farm management.
Producers will implement a system of Integrated Crop Management (ICM), with the aim of establishing
a balance between environment protection and business results, through the permanent monitoring of
economic and environmental parameters, on the basis of which an integrated cultivation and
protection plan is devised and permanently adapted. FLO encourages producers to work towards
organic certification.
ICM minimises the use of fertilisers and pesticides, and partially and gradually replaces them with
organic fertilisers and biological disease control.
3.1.1
Minimum requirements
3.1.1.1 The producers live up to national and international legislation regarding the use of pesticides,
handling pesticides (storing, filling, cleaning, administration, etc.), the protection of natural
waters, virgin forest and other ecosystems of high ecological value, erosion and waste
management.
3.1.1.2 Pesticides in WHO class 1 a+b, pesticides in the Pesticide Action Network’s “dirty dozen” list
and pesticides in FAO/UNEP's Prior Informed Consent Procedure list (respecting updates, see
appendix) cannot be used.
3.1.2
Progress requirements
3.1.2.1 The producer organisation will encourage its members to implement a system of Integrated
Crop Management.
4
Standards on Labour Conditions
FLO regards the ILO Conventions as the authority on working conditions, and expects all registered
producers to meet the requirements as far as possible. Where a significant number of workers are
employed by a small farmer organisation, there are specific standards to meet. Where a smaller
number are employed and where workers are casually hired by farmers themselves, the organisations
should take steps to improve working conditions and to ensure that such workers share the benefits of
Fairtrade. This should be part of the development plan and be reported to FLO.
Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Farmers’ Organisations
5
Version January 2003
The term “workers” refers to all those employed, including casual, seasonal and permanent workers.
In cases where a plantation or factory is a member of the producer organisation certified by FLO, the
generic standards for hired labour apply fully and the plantation or factory will need to go through a
separate certification process.
Applicable to all producer organisations:
4.1
Forced Labour and Child Labour
FLO follows ILO Conventions 29, 105 and 138 on child labour and forced labour. Forced or bonded
labour must not occur. Bonded labour can be the result of forms of indebtedness of workers to the
company or middlemen. Children may only work if their education is not jeopardised. If children work,
they must not execute tasks, which are especially hazardous for them due to their age.
4.1.1
Minimum requirements
4.1.1.1 Forced labour, including bonded or involuntary prison labour, does not occur.
4.1.1.2 Children are not employed (contracted) below the age of 15.
4.1.1.3 Working does not jeopardise schooling or the social, moral or physical development of the
young person.
4.1.1.4 The minimum age of admission to any type of work which by its nature or the circumstances
under which it is carried out, is likely to jeopardise the health, safety or morals of young
people, shall not be less than 18 years.
4.1.1.5 Employment is not conditioned by employment of the spouse. Spouses have the right to offfarm employment.
Applicable to Producer organisations in which a significant number of workers are employed:
4.2
Freedom of Association & Collective Bargaining
FLO follows ILO Conventions 87 and 98 on freedom of association and collective bargaining. Workers
and employers shall have the right to establish and to join organisations of their own choosing, and to
draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives and to formulate their programmes.
Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their
employment.
4.2.1
Minimum requirements
4.2.1.1 The organisation recognises in writing the right of all employees to join an independent trade
union, free of interference of the employer, the right to establish and join federations, and the
right to collective bargaining.
4.2.1.2 The organisation allows trade union organisers to meet all the workers, and allows workers to
hold meetings and organise themselves without the interference of the management.
4.2.1.3 The organisation does not discriminate against workers on the basis of union membership or
union activities.
4.2.2
Progress requirements
4.2.2.3 If one or more independent and active trade unions exist in the sector and the region, FLO
expects that the workers will be represented by (a) trade union(s) and that the workers will be
covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
4.2.2.4 If no independent and active union exists in the region and the sector, all the worker’s will
democratically elect a worker’s committee, which represents them, discusses with the
organisation and defends their interests. This committee negotiates with the organisation an
agreement on the conditions of employment, covering all aspects normally covered by a
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Farmers’ Organisations
Version January 2003
6
4.2.2.5 The representation and participation of the workers is improved through training activities.
These are also aimed at improving the workers’ awareness of the principles of Fairtrade.
4.2.2.6 If no union is present, the organisation and the workers’ committee gets into a process of
consultation with the national union federation(s) and the International Union of Food,
Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF)
or the respective International Trade Secretariat about improvement of the workers’
representation and implementing a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
4.3
Conditions of employment
FLO follows ILO Plantation Convention 110, ILO Conventions 100 on equal remuneration and 111 on
discrimination. All employees must work under fair conditions of employment. The producer
organisation must pay wages in line with or exceeding national laws and agreements on minimum
wages or the regional average.
4.3.1 Minimum requirements
4.3.1.1 Salaries are in line with or exceeding regional average and official minimum wages for
similar occupations. The employer will specify wages for all functions.
4.3.1.2 Payment must be made regularly and in legal tender and properly documented.
4.3.2
Progress requirements
4.3.2.1 Regarding other conditions of employment like maternity leave, social security provisions,
non-monetary benefits, etc. at least the provisions as laid out in the Collective Bargaining
Agreement or the Agreement signed between the workers' committee must be fulfilled.
4.3.2.2 All workers are employed under legally binding labour contracts.
4.3.2.3 The organisation works towards all permanent workers having the benefits of a provident
fund or pension scheme.
4.3.2.4 An adequate sick leave regulation is put in place.
4.3.2.5 A working hours and overtime regulation is put in place.
4.3.2.6 Salaries are gradually increased to levels above the regional average and official minimum.
4.3.2.7 Differences in the conditions of employment for casual, seasonal and permanent workers are
progressively diminished.
4.4
Occupational Health & Safety
FLO follows ILO Convention 155 which aims “to prevent accidents and injury to health arising out of,
linked with or occurring in the course of work, by minimising, so far as is reasonably practicable, the
causes of hazards inherent in the working environment.”
4.4.1
Minimum requirements
4.4.1.1 Workplaces, machinery and equipment are safe and without risk to health. FLO may require
that an inspection is carried out by a competent authority or independent inspection agency.
4.4.1.2 The following persons are not allowed to work with the application of pesticides: persons
younger than 18 years, pregnant or nursing women, persons with incapacitated mental
conditions; persons with chronic, hepatic or renal diseases, and persons with diseases in the
respiratory ways.
4.4.2
Progress requirements
4.4.2.1 Among the workers’ representatives, a person must be nominated who can be consulted and
who can address health and safety issues with the organisation.
Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Farmers’ Organisations
Version January 2003
7
4.4.2.2 Those who are handling agrochemicals are adequately trained in storage, application and
disposal of these. They are actively informed of all relevant information on the product they
are handling by the producer organisation. This information is provided in the local language.
4.4.2.3 Adequate personal protective equipment of good quality is available and appropriate,
especially for the use of agrochemicals. Workers handling agrochemicals must use it.
4.4.2.4 Workers’ capability and awareness of the chemicals they are using, relevant health protection
and first aid are improved through training.
4.4.2.5 Establishment of a occupational health and safety committee with the participation of
workers.
4.4.2.6 Collective risk assessments are carried out regularly.
Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Farmers’ Organisations
Version January 2003
8
PART B Product Specific Standards for Cocoa
1 Social Development
There are no additional social standards specific to coffee producers.
2 Economic Development
There are no additional economic standards specific to coffee producers.
3 Environmental Development
There are no additional environmental standards specific to coffee producers.
Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Farmers’ Organisations
Version January 2003
9
PART C Trade Standards for Cocoa
3.1 Product Description
Commercially the term refers to the whole seed of the cocoa tree (Theobroma cocoa) which has been
fermented and dried.
3.2 Qualities
Quality requirements and procedure for quality control have to be agreed upon in the buying contract
according to normal trade practice.
Fair Trade cocoa should fulfil the CAL (Cocoa Association of London) quality standards.
For example in Westafrica good fermented quality is, max. 5% (five per cent) slaty and max. 5% (five
per cent) defective (infested, mould, shrivelled) beans, a bean size of basis 100 g/100 beans and a
max. humidity of 7.5%.
3.3 International Customary Conditions
All international customary conditions apply unless overruled by any of the special FLO conditions as
specified in the FLO criteria.
3.4 Procure a Long Term and Stable Relationship
In order to allow both sides a better planning and preparation of all business agreed upon buyers and
sellers will procure to establish a long term and stable relationship in which the rights and interests of
both are mutually respected. These long term agreements should be confirmed by the exchange of
binding Letters of Intent not later than three months prior to harvesting time. Annual renewals should
be confirmed at least three months prior to the expiry of the previous Letter of Intent.
3.5 Prefinancing / Credit
On request of the seller, the buyer shall make available up to 60 % of the minimum value of the
contract in credit facilities in favour of the seller upon the signing of a Letter of Intent, or at any date
thereafter at the wishes of the seller, however at least six weeks prior to shipment. The corresponding
interest charges shall be covered by the seller at current commercial interest rates (or better) in the
country of destination.
Payment and reimbursement of the loan as well as the interest rates shall be according to the terms
and conditions mutually agreed upon in the separate credit contract.
3.6 Pricing and Premium
All Fair Trade cocoa prices are calculated on world market price quotation plus respective Fair Trade
(FT) premiums.
The price fixed for any transaction of Cocoa under "FLO-International Conditions" can in no case be inferior to
the following fixed minimum prices.
3.6.1
Premium and Minimum price for Standard Fair Trade cocoa beans
Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Farmers’ Organisations
Version January 2003
10
3.6.1.a The Fair Trade premium for all standard qualities is US$ 150.--/MT. The minimum
price for FT standard quality cocoa beans inclusive premium is US$ 1'750.-- / MT FOB.
3.6.1.b If world market price for the specific origin or type of cocoa beans rises above the
basic price of 1'600.—US$ the prices will be fixed as follows:
World market price + Fair Trade premium = Fair Trade price
(for type of cocoa contracted) +
(US$ 150.--)
3.6.2
Premium and Minimum price for certified organic cocoa beans
The additional minimum Fair Trade premium for certified organic cocoa beans, which is sold as such,
is US$ 200.--/MT. The minimum price for FT organic cocoa beans inclusive premiums is US$
1'950.-- / MT FOB.
If market price for the specific origin or type of cocoa beans rises above US$ 1'600.-- the prices for
organic cocoa beans are calculated using the price scheme for standard qualities (3.6.1.b) incl. the
premium for organic quality (US$ 200)
3.6.3
Cocoa liquor, butter and powder produced in the country of origin
For the price of locally (in the country of origin) produced semi-processed FT cocoa products, butter,
powder and liquor, the basis of calculation is the FT minimum bean price. The example is worked out
for organic products, as in the actual practise (2002), this is what is traded. If non-organic semiprocessed products are traded, the calculation has to be based on the price for FT non-organic beans.
The Fair Trade price is based on real production yields in processing, and not on the butter ratio
determined by the market. This is to avoid a hidden bean price reduction to producers, when not the
complete output is purchased. The costs of processing and packing have to be met separately (see
3.6.5.).
3.6.3.a. For Fair Trade organic cocoa liquor:
(FT organic cocoa bean price) / (processing yield for liquor/100) = FT organic cocoa
liquor price
Example for Fair Trade organic cocoa liquor:
When processing yield for liquor is 75% of the beans, the minimum FT organic price is:
1.950 / (75/100) = 2.600 US$/MT plus costs of processing as under 3.6.5.
3.6.3.b. For Fair Trade organic cocoa butter and powder together:
(FT org. liquor price as under 3.6.3.a) / (processing yield for butter/100) = FT organic
price
Example for Fair Trade organic cocoa products:
When processing yield for butter from liquor is 45 %, the minimum FT organic price for the
two organic products together is: 2.600 / (45/100) = 5.417 US$/MT, plus costs of processing
as under 3.6.5.
If only the FT organic butter can be sold, the price will be 5.417 US$/MT, plus costs of
processing as under 3.6.5. If the outcoming powder is sold, the basic FT organic butter price
per MT can be decreased with: (powder price per MT x 1.22 )2.
Example:
2
Outcome of pressing liquor into butter and cake is 55% low-fat powder and 45 % butter= relation 1,22
Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Farmers’ Organisations
Version January 2003
11
If bulk powder can be sold at 1.200 US$/MT, the FT organic butter price can decrease with
1200 x 1,22 = 1.464 US$, resulting in a basic FT organic butter price of 3.953 US$/MT plus
all costs of processing as under 3.6.5.
Companies purchasing the semi-processed organic cocoa products butter or powder in origin,
are encouraged to take responsibility for the whole cocoa bean output, either by purchasing
both products or by finding a matching order for the surplus product, resulting in
advantageous price-setting for all parties. Producers are held to report yields, volume and
sales price of the complete output of processing.
3.6.3.b.1. If the market price for the specific semi-processed product liquor, butter or powder
from origin rises above the price calculated on the basis of processing yield and minimum FT
bean price, the FT price for that type of product will be fixed as follows:
For Standard FT cocoa products:
market price for cocoa liquor, butter or powder
+ FT premium US$ 150 / (yield/100)
= Fair Trade price
For FT organic cocoa products:
market price for cocoa liquor, butter or powder
+ (FT + organic premium = US$ 350) / (yield/100)
= Fair Trade organic price
3.6.4 All prices mentioned under 3.6.1 to 3.6.3 are per metric ton (MT) FOB sea port of the
producing country, or, in case of semi-processed products, in factory in country of origin.
3.6.5
Any additional processing/handling/packing, packing materials and additional labour costs for
processing and (retail) packing have to be met separately.
3.6.6
Unless other mutual agreement payment shall be net cash against a full set of documents on
first presentation (FOB), minus eventual advance payments
Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Farmers’ Organisations
Version January 2003
12
Appendix 1
Agrochemicals
Prohibited Pesticides
List
Aug 00
“Pesticides in WHO class 1 a+b, pesticides in the Pesticide Action Network’s “dirty dozen” list and
pesticides in FAO/UNEP's
Prior Informed Consent Procedure list cannot be used.
Pesticide name
A
Alachlor
Aldicarb
2,4,5-T
Aldrin
Arseniato de plomo
Azinphos-ethyl
Azinphos-methyl
B
Binapacryl
Blasticidin
Brodifacoum
Bromadiolone
Bromethalin
Butocarboxim
Butoxycarboxim
C
2,4-D
Trade name(s)
Alaclor, Alanex, Lasso, Lazo
Temik, Ambush 12, Aldicarb
Type
Herbicide
Nematicide, insecticide,
acarricide
Herbicide
2,4,5-T, Weedar, Weedone, Z,
Tor-mona, Transamine, Tributon,
Trinoxol
Aldrex, Al-tox
Arseniato de plomo
Insecticide, fungicide
Gusathion K forte, Gutex,
Insecticide, fungicide
Gusathion A
Azimil, Contnion-metil,
Insecticide
Gusagrex, Gusathion M, Guthion
Morocide
Bla-S
Brodifacoum, Klerat, Klerat
Pellet, Rata kill, Rat killer
Lanirat, Musal, Ramortal
Bromo-O-Gas,
Bromelmetabromo, Dowfume
MC2, Mebron, Metabromo, TerrO-Gas, Uniphos
Drawin, Plant Pin
WHO
class
1a&1b
class 1a
class 1a
class 1b
class 1b
class 1b
FAO/UNEP
(Prior Informed
"Dirty Dozen"
Consent List - PIC)
X
X
X
X
X
class 1b
Fungicide & acardicide
Fungicide
Rodendicide
class 1b
class 1a
X
Rodendicide
Multipurpose
class 1a
class 1a
Insecticide
class 1b
class 1b
Dichlorphenoxyacetic acid,
Herbicide
Chepeador, Esteron, Hedonal,
Herbazol, U-46 DF-720, 2,4-D
Amina 6, 2,4-D Aminacoop 4,
Aminamart 720, Cafesa 4, Cafesa
6, Crisamina 720, DMA 4, DMA
6, Erbitox 4, Eribitox 6,
Fernoxone, Formula 40, FQ 4,
FQ 6, Malexon 4D, Malexon 6D,
Superior 4, Superior 6, Davinil 4,
Davinil 6, Sacsa 2,4-D,
Hormonil, Rimaxil 48, RPA 2,4D, Dicopur fluid, Expro 2,4-D,
Fenoxal 720, Marman 24 de 4,
Expro D 4, Expro D-6, Fenoxal,
Actril DS, Banvel D,
Weedmaster, Fenoxal ES,
Formonal, Gesapax, Kuron,
Turdon
Rugby, Apache, Taredam
Nematicide, insecticide
class II
Fungicide & acardicide
class 1a
Nematicide, insecticide &
acaricide
class 1b
Insecticide & acaricide
class 1b
Cadusafos
Calcium cyanide [C]
Calcium arsenate
Camphechlor
Captafol
Cristofolatan, Difolatan, Ditafol,
Difosan, Fitocap, Folcid, Haipen,
Kenofol, Marpafol, Sanseal,
Pillartan
Furadan, Carbofuran, Curater,
Carbofuran
Crysfuran, Curator, Furacide,
Pillarfuran, Rimafuran,
Carbugran
Carbofention
Trithion, Degadip, Garrathion,
PAN (Pesticide
Action Network
X
class 1b
class 1a
class 1b
X
Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Farmers’ Organisations
Version January 2003
X
X
13
Chlorfenvinphos
Nephocarb
Estelaron, Apachlor, Birlane,
Haptarax, Sedanox, Steladone,
Supone
Insecticide, acaricide
3-Chloro-l,2propanediol
Chlorethoxyfos
Chlordane
Chlordimeform
Chlorobenzilate
Chlormephos
Chlorophacinone
Coumatetralyl
Coumaphos
D
DBCP
class 1b
class 1b
Chlordane, Chloro-tox, Niran,
Versicol, Clordano, Comejenol,
Octachlor, Formidane, Sydane
Bermat, Fundal, Fundex,
Galecrom, Spanone
Insecticide
class 1a
hazardous with skin contact
Class II
X
X
Insecticide, acaricide
Class II
X
Rodendicide
class 1a
class 1a
Rodenticide
Insecticide
class 1b
class 1a
X
X
Drat, Quick, Ramucide,
Rattidion, Tom cat
Racumin
Asuntol, Co-Ral, Perizin
Dibromocloropropane,
Nematicide
Fumazone, Nemanaz,
Nematocide, Nemagon,
Nemanax, Nemaset
DDT
Gesapon, Diameka, Digmar,
Insecticide
Hildit
Demafion
Pyracide, Atlasetox
Insecticide
class 1a
Demeton-S-methyl
Systox, Metasystox i, Metasystox Insecticide, acaricida
class 1b
55
Cypona, Detmolin, Devicol,
Insecticide & acaricida
class 1b
Dichlorvos
Duravos, Nogos, Nuvanex,
Phosvit, Unifos, Unitox, Atla,
DDVP, Dedevap, Denkavepon,
Divipan, Nuvan, Oko, Vapona,
Fluid
Dicrotophos
Bidrin, Carbicron
Insecticide
class 1b
Dieldrin
Alvit, Dieldrin, Dieldrex,
Insecticide
class 1b
Dieldrite
Difenacoum
Ratak
Rodenticide
class 1a
Difethialone
Rodilon
Rodenticide
class 1a
Diphacinone
Matex, Matex Rodenticida,
Rodendicide
class 1a
Ramix Pellet, Raticin
Dimefox
Dimefox, Pestrox XIV
Insecticide, acaricide
class 1a
Dinoseb and dinoseb Dynamite, Subitex, Nitropone,
Herbicide
salts
Gebutox, Dinitro, Caldon,
Premerge
Dinoterb
Nixone, Herbogil
Herbicide
class 1b
Disulfoton
Disyston, Solvirex, Dithiosystox, Insecticide, acaricide
class 1a
Frumin AL, Ekatin TD, Disyston
BA, Disyston R, Disyston O,
Doubledown, Ekanon, Knave,
Ethimeton, Twinspan
DNOC
Nitrador, Trifocide, Extar A,
Insecticide, acaricide, herbicide, class 1b
Sandolin A
fungicide
E
EDB (1,2Bromofume, Celmide, Nephis, Soulbrom, Nematosol, Granosan, Granovil 75,
dibromoethane)
Edasol, Edabrom EC
Edifenphos
Hinosan
Fungicide
class 1b
EPN
Asantox, EPN
Insecticide, acaricide
class 1a
Endosulfan
Endrin
Endrex, Hexadrin, Nendrin,
Insecticide
class 1b
Endrin
Esciliroside
Red squill, Silmine, Silmurin
Rodenticide
class 1a
Mocap, Ethoprop, etoprop
Nematicide, insecticide
class 1a
Ethoprophos
F
Famphur
class 1b
Nemacur
Nematicide
class 1a
Fenamiphos
Fensulfotion
Dasonit
Insecticide
class 1a
Cybolt, Cytrin, Pay-Off
Insecticide
class 1b
Flucythrinate
Flocoumafen
Storm, Stratagem
Rodenticide
class 1a
Fluoroacetamide
class 1b
Fonofos
Cudgel, Dyfonate, Fonofos
Insecticide
class 1a
Carzol, Dicarsol
Formetanate
Insecticide
class 1b
Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Farmers’ Organisations
Version January 2003
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
Fosfamidon
Fosfolan
Furathiocarb
H
Hexachlorobenzene
HCH/BHC - (mixed
isomers)
Heptachlor
Heptenophos
I
Isazofos
Isofenphos
L
Lead arsenate
Leptophos
Lindane
Dimecron, Phosron
Cylan, Cyolane,
Cyolan, Cylane
Promet
Insecticide, acaricide
Insecticide
class 1a
class 1a
Insecticide
class 1b
Anti-carie, Hexachlorobenzol
Gamma-Col, Gammalin,
Gammexane, Hexamil, Dolmix,
Benzex
Clorahep, Heptacloro,
Heptagran, Heptamul, Heptox,
Velsicol 104,Termid, Drinox
Fungicide
class 1a
Insecticide
X
X
X
X
X
X
class 1b
Isazofos, Miral
Amaze, Oftanol, Pryfon
Nematicide
Insecticide
class 1b
class 1b
Arsenato de plomo
MBCP, Phosvel, Abar
Lindamul, Inexit, Silvanol,
Gamma-DHC, Lidano,
Matacresa
Fungicide, insecticide
Insecticide
Insecticide
class 1b
class 1a
class II
M
Methamidophos - soluble liquid formulation soft the substance that exceed 600g active
ingredient/l)
class 1b
X -severly hazardous
pesticide formulation
Mefosfolan
Cytrolane
Insecticide, acaricide
class 1a
Mecarbam
Pestam, Murfotox
Insecticide, acaricide
class 1b
Mercuric oXide
class 1b
Mercury compounds - incl. Inorganic mercury cpds.,alkyl mercury cpds., mercury cpds., and alkyloxylalkyl and aryl
mercury cpds.
Mercuric chloride
Metamidodofos
Insecticide, acaricide
class 1a
class 1b
Insecticide, acaricide
Insecticide, acaricide
class 1b
class 1b
Fungicide
class 1b
Insecticide, acaricide
class 1a
Duraphos, Gesfid, Mevidrin,
Insecticide, acaricide
Phosdrin
Aimocron, Apadrin, Azodrin,
Insecticide, acaricide
Crotonox, Formudrin, K-drin,
Hilcron, Marmaphos, Monocron,
Monodrin, Novaphos, Nuvacron,
Pillardrin, Shevamoncron,
Vanuccop, Monocil 40,
Nuevacron, Bilobran, Crisodrin
class 1a
Amidor, Crysmaron, Damason,
Formutor, Hquimator, Medofos,
Mega, Metafos, Metafox,
Metamidofos, Monitor, MTD,
Pillaron, Tamaron
Methidathion
Supracid, Suprathion, Ultracide
Methornyl
Baboxin MX, Lannate, Metomil,
Pillarmate, Methavin, Hudrin,
Metomyl, Methomyl, Methomex
Monobromethane Methyl-Bromide, Haltox,
Bromo-O-Gas,
Bromelmetabromo, Dowfume
MC2, Mebron, Metabromo, TerrO-Gas, Uniphos, Metabromo
Methyl parathion
Agrometil, Bellotin, Biedol,
Folidol M, Invertox, Metacide,
Metil paration, Penncap M,
Folitox, Insecfos, Metacide,
Folidol Ultra, Folipolvo, Parafos,
Parathion metillico, Metagran,
Lirothion, Insectos, Fosmetile,
Paratox, Verflor
X
X
X - serverely hazardous
pesticide formulation
Mevinphos
Monocrotophos
class 1b
X - serverely hazardous
pesticide formulation
N
Nicotine
O
Omethoate
Oxamyl
Black Leaf 40
Folimat
Formunox, Oxamil, Vidate,
Vydate
Oxydemeton-methyl Metasystox R, Oxidemeton Metil
Insecticide
class 1b
Insecticide, acaricide
Nematicide, insecticide,
acaricide
Insecticide, acaricide
class 1b
class 1b
Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Farmers’ Organisations
Version January 2003
class 1b
15
P
Parathion
Bladan, Ethyl parathion, Niran,
Thiophos, Folidol,
Fosferno,Tamaron, Etilon,
Gemafos
Parathion-methyl (see"Methyl parathion")
Talent, Gramaxone, Gramocil,
Paraquat
Gramonol, Agroquat, Atila,
Cafesaquat, Casuku, Chepeador,
Daviquat, Escopeta, Exprone,
Fedexone, Formuquat, Fuego,
Gesapax, Gramecoop, Graminex,
Gramurón, Herbiquat,
Herboxone, Herquat, Inverquat,
Kayquat, K-quat, Malexon,
Pillarxone, Quatzone, Radex D,
Seraxone, Serquat, Ultragrass,
Gramuron
Paris green
pentachlorophenol
Block Penta, Chem-Tol, PCP,
Penchloral, Dowicide EC7,
Dowicide G, Dirotox, Fungifen,
Santobrite, Vitamadera,
Pentacon, Penwar, Penchlorol,
Soinituho
Phenylmercury
acetate
Phorate
Fostion
Phosphamidon
Dimecron, Phosron,
Phosphamidon, Pillarcon
Insecticide, acaricide
class 1a
X
X - serverely hazardous
Herbicide
class 1a
class II
X
X
pesticide formulation
X
X
class 1b
Insecticide, herbicide, fungicide class 1b
X
class 1a
Insecticide, herbicide, fungicide class 1a
Insecticide, herbicide, fungicide class 1a
X - serverely hazardous
pesticide formulation
Primicid
Pirimiphos-ethyl
Propaphos
Propetamphos
S
Sodium fluoroacetate Floricid
Sodium arsenite
Sodium cyanide
Strychnine
Sulfotep
Bladafume, Kilmite
T
Tebupirimfos
Toxaphene ( see
"camphechlor")
Tefluthrin
Terbufos
Thallium sulfate
Thiofanox
Thiometon
Triazophos
V
Vamidothion
W
Warfarin
Insecticide
class 1b
class 1b
class 1b
Insecticide
class 1a
class 1b
class 1b
class 1b
Insecticide, herbicide, fungicide class 1a
Toxon, Campophene
Insecticide
class 1a
hazardous by skin contact
X
Force 20 CS
Agrofos, Biosban, Counter,
Forater, K-Fos, Marmafos,
Pillarfox, Rimafos, Terbuter,
Terbugran, Terrafox, Yuenfa
Ratox, Zelio Pasta
Insecticide
Nematicide, insecticide
class 1b
class 1a
Ekatin, Thiotox
Hostation, hostathion
class 1b
class 1b
Insecticide
class 1b
Insecticide, acaricide, nematicide class 1b
Kilval, Vamidoate
Nematicide, insecticide
class 1b
Hawk, Rat control pellets,
Warfarina concentrado
Rodenticide
class 1b
Rodenticide
class 1b
class 1b
class 1b
Z
Zeta-cypermethrin Ib
Zinc phosphide Ib
Fosforo de Zinc, Phosvin
X
Rodenticide
Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Farmers’ Organisations
Version January 2003
16