Modern Slavery: A Green Issue?
by Treehugger Interns on 02. 4.07
Monday sees the launch of Not For Sale, a high-profile campaign to eradicate modern slavery. The campaign organizers claim there are as many as 27 million slaves world-wide, and 50% of these are children. In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I have been personally involved in this as part of my work with The Change, a company specializing in design and brand strategy for good-for-the-world businesses and non-profits. One of the questions we have been asking ourselves is this – is slavery an environmental issue? How could we actively engage the environmental community in the fight against slavery? While many environmentalists care about human rights and fair trade issues, they are still seen by many as ‘human concerns’ – and therefore removed from strictly environmental issues. On the other hand, however, it can be argued that if we are to move towards sustainability, we must recognize ourselves as part of the natural systems we inhabit – and accord each other the same respect that we are advocating for the natural world. Either way, this is a fairly abstract argument. Digging a little deeper, however, we discovered evidence of what we suspected anyway, that there is a very real, very contemporary link between the abuse of natural resources and the abuse of our fellow humans. The link? Deforestation of the Amazon.
As most Treehuggers will be only to keenly aware, corporations such as Cargill, ADM and Bunge have long been accused of involvement in the destruction of the Amazon for soy cultivation (apparently now the leading cause of deforestation). According to a recent Greenpeace report, many of the farms that Cargill and others buy their soy beans from have been proven to practice debt-bondage, often enslaving the very same indigenous people whose lands have been grabbed by the farmer:
“On the 370,000 acre Roncador Farm in Querencia, Mato Grosso, where more than twice the legal limit of forest cover has been cleared, government inspectors freed 215 slave laborers between 1998 and 2004. Working 16 hour days, seven days a week, workers were forced to live in plastic shanties without beds or sanitation. Water for drinking, cooking and bathing was drawn from a cattle watering hole and stored in barrels once used for diesel oil and lubricants. Unable to leave the farm, and forced to buy food at extortionate prices, workers were held in debt bondage until the government intervened. Even as the farm owners are being prosecuted, Roncador continues to grow the soy market.”
There are some signs of hope. The Brazilian government has been encouraging major companies to support its anti-slavery efforts, but ADM, Bunge and Cargill have all refused to sign Brazil’s National Pact for the Eradication of Slave Labor.
It seems then, that environmentalists and abolitionists have more in common than some may think. In fact, this may always have been the case. Way back in the 1800s when the struggle against slavery was hotting up in the US, one out-spoken critic of slavery was none-other than Henry David Thoreau. The following is from an address given to an anti-slavery gathering, protesting the forced return of a fugitive slave from Massachusetts into bondage:
"Slavery and servility have produced no sweet-scented flower annually, to charm the senses of men, for they have no real life: they are merely a decaying and a death, offensive to all healthy nostrils. We do not complain that they live, but that they do not get buried. Let the living bury them; even they are good for manure."
Maybe now, over 150 years after these words were spoken, the world will finally take heed and bury this abomination for good.
Sami Grover is Director of Sustainability for The Change, a company that is working on the media strategy for the Not For Sale campaign.
[Written by: Sami Grover]
It is so critical that the relationship between sustainability and slavery is being drawn. How people can separate the two is beyond comprehension. My partner and I launched www.thegroovymind.com, an organic, Fair Trade and eco-friendly online store to address this relationship. We are always asked, particularly by the media, which one is more important--sustainability or fair labor practices? We always say one is dependent on the other and that they are equally important. As humans, we have to consider the horrific conditions of slavery, the high social cost of what it takes to get a cup of morning coffee or tea, or to enjoy a delicious chocolate bar-- something we all take for granted. Conventional sources are the worst offenders and we have to start demanding accountability from the companies that buy the raw materials and the manufacturers who make them. No slave labor is tantamount to a healthy environment and organically grown produce and fruit is critical to the health and welfare of indigenous people who are often the ones who are enslaved and pay the highest price. So if we, as consumers, ask for goods that have been grown in a balanced eco system and farmed and harvested by people who work for a fair wage and receive basic benefits like healthcare, child care and education, true sustainability will be realized and the world will be a better place.
Yes, human issues are certainly sustainability and green issues. I think the line drawn in the sand between "us" and "the environment" is harmful, and distorts the more holistic reality...
How do you feel about North Korea?
People who are struggling for survival are (literally) the last ones to engage in behaviors that are good for the planet.
This is true in Africa, it's true slums of any American city.
There is NO WAY we are going to solve global warming, deforestation, overpopulation or any major environmental issue unless we break the cycle of poverty in the developing world.
That seems to be the underlying connection to me.
(DISCLOSURE I WORK WITH SAMI AT THE CHANGE)
How would you break the cycle of poverty in North Korea?
Sustainability is a three-legged stool - some l ike "environment, equity, and economics" while others prefer "people, planet, and profit." Without all three, the stool is unstable. Treehugger is clearly promoting the planet/profit - environment/economics legs, acknowledging that the planet can be cool, desirable, profitable, worth consumers' money. Unfortunately, Treehugger often neglects to make the connection to people-equity. And, without that connection, people won't understand that ensuring ALL people have reasonably quality of life is key to full protection of the planet.
i'm just wondering why the question about north korea? or perhaps, is it critical now that this is addressed? i'd like to know your thoughts. clearly the government isn't thinking sustainably so how best to reach out to the people?
I don't think breaking the cycle in DPRK is possible without overthrowing the regime in place right now. Considering how well South Korea is doing (economically), it is obvious that change is possible. The trouble it, look what happened last time the US tried to break a regime. In fact, looking back on can see things like this are very difficult and complex.
Anonymous asks:
"How would you break the cycle of poverty in North Korea?"
If the question is addressed to me personally, I'm afraid that I have no easy answer to that one. Ensuring human rights, equity and freedom must be a key aspect of struggling for sustainability in my opinion. HOwever, when it comes to nations that are controlled by a dictatorship, such as North Korea, and who have comparatively little diplomatic contact with the outside world, it is extremely difficult to bring about change.
One of the first steps must be rigorous scrutiny and awareness raising that human rights abuses and slavery exists, followed by intense public and diplomatic pressure on those countries, and corporations, that are sanctioning these abuses. That is where campaigns such as Not For Sale can play an extremely important role. However, I suspect this will be much more effective in countries like Brazil that are actively engaged in the global economy and diplomatic process, versus more 'closed' countries such as North Korea. The experience in Iraq would tend to suggest that millitary action is not always the best cause of action either.
So, I'm afraid my answer is 'I don't know'. What would you do to break the cycle of povery in North Korea?
t