The planet needs a silver-bullet solution, but Rio wasn’t it

CI’s Luis Flores reflects on the results of the Rio+20 Summit and what they mean for consumers.

Trying to solve the world’s most pressing and complex environmental and social problems by convening the very governments stuck in gridlock the last 20 years was never going to be a silver-bullet solution.

And after Rio+20 it is clear that an old-style UN conference with member countries negotiating a ‘consensus’ agreement is no longer the ideal medium for change.

However, despite the initial dismay over the results of the Summit, there was cause for at least a somewhat sedated celebration for the consumer rights movement.

First, sustainable consumption and production (SCP) was acknowledged as a fundamental issue. The so-called 'ten year framework of programmes' that will support governments developing national and regional programmes on SCP was also endorsed by governments on a voluntary basis.

It will be further developed in this year's negotiations at the UN General Assembly. The Rio agreement also specifically links sustainable consumption to the Sustainable Development Goals which will be the subject of more work under the UN framework.

Determined to avoid another Copenhagen and an evident failure of the environmental multilateral system, the government negotiators at Rio+20 wanted above all to be able to come out with a completed agreement and that is exactly what they did at the end of the process.

But, given the results and the lack of ambition of the official outcome document, which had been negotiated over the last nine months and finalised just before the start of the Summit, many were unhappy.

It is not necessary to understand the economics of development in great detail to have a view on the case for urgent action. Sustainability is needed now.

The question is no longer whether unsustainable growth is contributing to the global crisis or not, but how vast and irreversible the damages are going to be.

In the coming years, the entire world will have to step into a transition stage leading to real sustainable development; therefore, joint and coordinated action is necessary.

Isolated initiatives will not be enough, and neither will the sustainable purchasing decisions of the enlightened few. Governments will need to act; and companies will need to stop hiding behind perceived consumer inertia as an excuse for inaction.

International cooperation will have to put less emphasis on what a fair distribution of responsibilities should be, and more stress on the actions that – if undertaken as a joint endeavour – will neutralize negative effects on people’s lives and livelihood.

All of the public awareness that we have experienced recently should give us enough hope to continue with our efforts. Indeed, when surveyed, an increasing number of consumers express a desire to consume ‘green’ – but lack the access to do so.

For our part, CI is currently reviewing our work on sustainable consumption in order to identify where we, as a network of more than 240 consumer organisations in 115 countries, can best contribute to this global challenge. We hope to have the results in time for a renewed effort at the start of 2013.

Supermarket investigation reveals a false choice

Zoya Sheftalovich and Elise Dalley of CHOICE, Australia, discuss the pressure that big supermarkets place on their suppliers – and what this means for consumers. 

Australia has a highly-concentrated supermarket sector. Our two big players, Coles and Woolworths, control more than 70% of the market. 

Anecdotally, CHOICE had been hearing for a while that relationships between the supermarkets and their suppliers and manufacturers were strained. People were ringing us to complain of their favourite products disappearing from supermarkets, and we became aware of a trend – seemingly successful product lines were being squeezed off the shelves by home brand products.

As a consumer watchdog, there was some reticence in the office about us looking into these reports – surely supermarkets increasing their home brand product lines would be beneficial to consumers, as long as these cheaper products provided good value and quality for consumers. But our members were increasingly upset, and we knew we had to investigate.

Extreme tactics

After asking our members to tell us about products they had noticed disappearing off the shelves, we compiled a list of dozens. We then got on the phone, calling manufacturers for several days.

We heard the same story again and again: yes, product lines had been deleted, with little or no notice, and for seemingly no reason. Yes, tactics leading up to the deletion had been extreme. No, I won’t go on the record. No, I can’t talk to you in more detail. No, you can’t use my name. I need the supermarkets, and I cannot afford to antagonise them.

And it was not just small manufacturers that were feeling the pain. Several large-scale operators spoke obliquely about the harsh Australian grocery market, but clammed up when it came to giving details.

But perseverance paid off, and several sources finally agreed to tell us their stories off the record. One even agreed to have his name put to his allegations.

What we heard was terrible in its implications for manufacturers and suppliers, but was also detrimental to consumers – the supermarkets seemingly had no qualms about using their buying power to push suppliers to the brink, and the number of people we spoke to who were either on the precipice of losing their businesses, or had already done so, was frightening. The competition from the supermarkets was wiping out the competition altogether.

Worrying signs

From demanding hundreds of thousands of dollars for marketing, to setting unrealistic sales targets, to hiding products behind vertical columns in store and releasing their own, home brand products in deceptively similar packaging, the tactics used by the supermarkets were worrying.

Was this what consumers wanted? We didn’t think so.

When we published our series of investigations looking at the situation on the shelves, the copycat tactics of home brand products, and the emerging issue of incognito home brand wine, the response was resounding. We received messages of support from a huge number of our members.

And over a thousand people voted in our poll for the best (or is it worst?) copycat product. The winner?  Coles home brand sunscreen, which came in a tube that looked uncannily like the one put out by Australia’s national cancer NGO, the Cancer Council, the proceeds of which go to cancer research.

When two supermarkets control such a large share of the grocery market, no product is safe, and the consumer is not always king.

You can read the full details of our supermarket investigation here: http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/food-and-health/food-and-drink/supermarkets

Global economic crisis deniers?

CI’s Jeremy Malcolm reports from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development where the world’s leading industrialised economies are attempting to re-write history.

The financial crisis that struck in 2008 ushered in the first contraction in the global economy since the 1930s. Its effects spread very rapidly and widely. The world’s poorest economies were not spared. Despite the policy efforts of leading economies, both developed and developing, the global economy remains fragile.
 
None of the above seems very controversial, does it?  The paragraph could well have been taken from Wikipedia or from a report in a respected newspaper or magazine.
 
As a matter of fact, it is an almost exact quotation from the draft negotiating text for the 13th Quadrennial Conference of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in Doha, Qatar this week.
 
Yet UN members can't agree on it. In fact, shockingly, the world's leading industrialised economies want to erase each and every reference to the global economic and financial crisis from the text - as if making believe that it never happened.
 
The same rich countries are also refusing to agree to include references to:

• Energy price volatility and access to renewable energy;
• Access to medicine at affordable prices;
• Environmentally-compatible patterns of production and consumption that safeguard the biosphere;
• Adequate regulation and supervision of financial markets; and
• That foreign investors should comply with the domestic legislative framework of host countries, such as consumer protection law.

Perhaps even worse, they are seeking to restrict UNCTAD, with its unique development perspective, from dealing with these issues, claiming that such issues should instead be reserved for the pro-globalisation organs such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
 
This prompted an unprecedented open letter of protest from 49 former UNCTAD staff members earlier this month, and has created an atmosphere of high tension in the intergovernmental negotiations which are ongoing this week.
 
In partnership with other civil society groups from around the world, CI is in Doha to fight back against this shameful intransigence of the world's rich economies.
 
We are doing this in two ways: first, by talking to the delegates themselves, and pointing out how their denial of the world's food, energy, climate, financial and development crises is a slap in the face of the world's most disadvantaged consumers.
 
Second, resigned to the fact that the intergovernmental text may end up as a weak compromise, civil society groups including CI have drafted their own Civil Society Declaration and are presenting it this week.
 
In that declaration, CI confronts head-on the issues that are too difficult for governments to face. The declaration includes the following paragraph on the topic of consumer protection (for which UNCTAD is the lead agency within the UN system):
 
UNCTAD should promote consumer rights as part of its mandate over competition and consumer protection issues. Consumers have rights to the satisfaction of basic needs, to safety, to choice, to redress, to information, to consumer education, to representation, and to a healthy environment. It should lead the revision of the United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection in light of recent trends including the increased exposure of consumers to new products and marketing strategies, increased cross-border commerce in consumer products, and technological changes that affect consumers. 

UNCTAD and CI have a long record of working together to advance the rights of consumers, and this will continue despite the attacks from rich countries that UNCTAD is currently enduring.

 

Its mission to maximise the trade, investment and development opportunities of poor countries fits in well with CI's mission to advance the rights of consumers worldwide. In particular, we will be participating in an UNCTAD meeting to discuss the revision of the UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection this July.

 

To find out the ultimate outcome of the negotiations in Doha, or for more information on CI's work at UNCTAD, you can follow CI delegate Jeremy Malcolm's private Twitter account, @qirtaiba, or email him at jeremy@ciroap.org.

As Rio+20 approaches, governments weigh the benefits of two paths to sustainability

CI’s Luis Flores, who coordinates our role as Organising Partner for NGOs within the Rio+20 process, looks at potential outcomes of the complex debate on sustainable consumption

There is general agreement among governments of the urgent need to address the current unsustainable patterns of development. However, as the international negotiation processcontinues towards the Rio+20 Earth Summit, there is little agreement on how to do it.

In terms of sustainable consumption and production (SCP) – the issues that most concern consumer rights groups – the Rio+20 negotiations are currently considering two approaches, but neither of them is sufficiently compelling at present.

First is the  ten-year framework of programmes(10YFP) on SCP.  This already has backing at the UN and could well lead to the creation of a specific international process to deliver sustainable consumption. It currently commands an explicit reference (paragraph 97) within the draft Rio agreement: ‘The Future We Want’.

Second is a ‘global pact’ on SCP. This would promote dialogue and collaboration in the exchange of information, knowledge and skills in support of a range of initiatives to accelerate SCP, including the UN Environment Programme’s regional work on SCP.

A ‘global pact’ sounds good, but it’s likely to be more of a political statement that – at this stage – still lacks specific content.

CI supports the adoption of the 10YFP at Rio, but inclusion in the final text alone will not guarantee its implementation.

So, what to do?

This was CI’s key question as governments resumed negotiations on the outcome document for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD or Rio+20) during meetings at the UN Headquarters in New York in March.

  

It is possible that both options could be adopted. But this would be a best-case scenario.

There is still a danger that the ‘global pact’ could turn in to a means for avoiding real institutional engagement around SCP and thus hamper the endorsement of the 10YFP at the Rio summit. 

At this stage there are still too many questions unresolved and too many issues to get a clear sense of which of these two alternatives would address SCP in a more effective manner, ensuring real and concrete sustainable solutions to the many problems that we face today. 

We will have to wait for a second round of negotiations, taking place at the UN in New York from 23 April to 4 May, in order to asses which will be the best way forward.

Either way, governments should be able to take a step forward on SCP at Rio. They need to deliver a clear and concrete framework for action for all stakeholders – be it the 10YFP or the ‘global pact’ on SCP. 

This could involve new work on the links between production and consumption and its impacts on people’s health and the environment; delivering more and better information for decision making.

All slow, but concrete actions towards sustainability. 

CI is a UN Organizing Partner for the major group of NGOS in the Rio+20 process. There are nine UN major groups in total: Women, Children and Youth, Indigenous People, Non-governmental Organizations, Local Authorities, Workers and Trade Unions, Business and Industry, Scientific and Technological Communities, Farmers and Small Forest Landowners. CI shares its role with The Northern Alliance for Sustainability and the World Alliance for Citizen Participation.

Consumers can make a difference to conditions in the banana trade

Eliana Guarnoni of CI’s Italian member organisation Altroconsumoexplores the production conditions behind the world’s most popular fruit.

Bananas are the world’s most popular and internationally-traded fruit. The industry is an important source of employment and income for millions of people in developing countries, but all too often is associated with negative economic, social and environmental impacts.

With more and more of us concerned about the story behind the food we buy, consumer rights groups are increasingly looking at the ethics of the tropical fruit trade.  CI recently examined conditions within the pineapplesupply chain, and this has led us to take a closer look at the altogether bigger banana trade.

The World Banana Forum (WBF) is the centre for action on this issue. It is a multi-stakeholder initiative that aims to improve conditions within the banana supply chain by bringing together producers, retailers, trade unions, NGOs, academics and exporters to share good practice and come up with solutions to the most urgent problems.

Working conditions

While attending the Second Conference of the WBF in Ecuador, I visited banana plantations in El Oro and Los Rios. It was particularly interesting to learn about the intensive use of chemicals in both the plantations and the packing areas.

Workers and the local communities surrounding the plantations have reported increasing levels of disease and believe that these chemicals are responsible.

Specifically, they say a lack of protective equipment and inadequate measures to prevent contamination in surrounding areas are to blame.

Discussing strategies to reduce the negative impact of chemicals on human beings and the environment is a top WBF priority, and in El Oro and Los Rios it was clear to see why.

But chemicals aren’t the only thing that poses a health risk on a banana plantation. The weight of a bunch of bananas is around 40 kilos. Workers in the packing area are required to move hundreds of banana boxes (each weighing 18 kilos) every day.

But workers are paid a piece-rate and in many cases they cannot earn enough to satisfy their family’s basic needs, even if they work 12 hours a day.

Women on the banana plantation

I also attended a meeting focusing specifically on conditions for female workers. Around 30 women from morethan 15 countries shared their views and experiences. It was striking to see how many of the issues facing women are common across borders.  

For example, women find it more difficult than men to get hired by banana producers – even though they could be easily employed in the washing area – and are often dismissed when they get pregnant. Challenges like this make it much harder for women in the major banana-exporting countries to make a significant contribution to their family’s livelihood.

The role of consumers

It was not uncommon to hear consumers used as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility for making real improvements to supply chain conditions.

One of the most recurrent arguments is that increased costs translate into higher prices for consumers, which, in turn, causes demand to decrease so that in the end nobody benefits.

But, in fact, studiesconducted in several EU countries show that a significant proportion of consumers are ready to pay more for more sustainable products.

In any case, the price increase is often negligible. It is estimated that plantation workers only receive around 3%-4% of the final retail price paid by consumers.

Raising this share to 5% would mean either asking consumers to pay 0.05 Euros more per kilo or requiring companies and supermarkets to decrease their profits by 1%.

Consumers as a key stakeholder

WBF demonstrated to me that taking part in multi-stakeholder initiatives can be a useful strategy for consumer organisations.

It is clear that the consumer voice – which is so often missing in platforms like this – is very much respected and appreciated by other stakeholders.

WBF also shows how multi-stakeholder initiatives can be a really effective way to focus on the most relevant and urgent issues in a specific sector and to improve the research methodologies used by consumer organisations.

It is also important to demonstrate to other key stakeholders – whether its producers, exporters, trade unions, supermarket chains, intergovernmental organisations, research institutions or NGOs –  that consumer groups are monitoring how products bought by consumers are produced.

This scrutiny can play a vital part in bringing about better conditions in production and trade, while at the same time fostering constructive partnerships between stakeholders to achieve common goals.