Uruguay:
Labour conditions in two FSC certified tree nurseries
For years now WRM has been documenting
the social and environmental impacts of monoculture tree plantations.
However, so far we had no information on the starting point in
this chain: the nurseries where millions of plants intended for
plantation are produced. Recently research has just been concluded
on the labour conditions and use of agrochemicals in the nurseries
of the two main forestry companies in Uruguay certified by the
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC): Eufores (Ence-Spain) and FOSA
(Metsa Botnia-Finland). (1)
Both companies’ nurseries use the most
advanced technology in this area and basically produce eucalyptus
clones. Cloning is done from branches of the so-called “mother-plants”
using them to produce cuttings, small stalks with a pair of leaves.
This production is carried out using specialized equipment and
once the saplings are produced they remain in the nursery until
they are well rooted, subsequently to be moved outdoors for weathering
for the plantations.
Although the technology for plant production
is “advanced” (including modern irrigation installations, greenhouses
and a broad agrochemical package), it is not quite so “advanced”
regarding labour conditions.
The first thing to draw attention is
outsourcing. Approximately 80 percent of both companies’ workforce,
occupying 50-70 people (Eufores) and 130 people (FOSA), work under
this system. Outsourcing is an externalization of labour
that implies breaking the direct labour relationship with the
company that takes on production. In this “triangular labour relationship”
people are hired by a company (contracting company) but in fact
work for another company, on their premises, under their direction
and discipline, thus diluting the figure of the real employer.
According to the workers, “outsourcing
is a way of avoiding possible problems with the union and with
the workers in general” as it divides them, both regarding benefits
and labour projection, thus conspiring against the possibility
of worker organization. Insofar as outsourcing condemns those
hired to seasonal work, labour insecurity and functional tenure
– they will always be “unskilled workers” and paid as such although
they may be carrying out specialized tasks such as cloning eucalyptus
– among the workers the illusion persists that they will become
direct employees. On occasions this leads to their withdrawal
from trade union activities for fear of being “pinpointed.”
Union organization has been difficult
in both companies. At Eufores, the union was only established
four years ago, in spite of company opposition. However, once
established, Eufores unleashed its persecution against the trade
union leader, who reported that he felt “personally victimized.”
Even so, Eufores was certified. It has only been during the past
year that the company seems to have accepted the fact and the
leader reinstated to his normal workstation.
In FOSA the creation of the trade union
is very recent (August 2006), but its members are almost all workers
from the contractor company. However pressure is felt and
some do not join for fear of being considered as “trouble-makers”
by the company and that this might eventually prevent them from
becoming direct FOSA employees. In spite of this situation, this
company was also certified.
Another aspect showing the companies’
lack of social responsibility is that, as a principle, the health
of the eucalyptus plants comes before people’s health. In order
to avoid the saplings from becoming infected by pests and diseases,
a very high amount of agrochemicals is applied. In Eufores, two
products banned by FSC are applied: Fundazol (Benomil, an endocrine
disruptor, producing genetic mutations, which is probably carcinogenic
for humans) and Flonex (Mancozeb, banned because it is carcinogenic).
Both nurseries use Captan, a fungicide banned in Finland in August
2001 because it is extremely toxic: it is considered to be carcinogenic,
produces contamination of soil and groundwater table, and is very
toxic to fish, also affecting frogs, birds and water fowl.
The workers are continually exposed
to agrochemicals in a closed environment impregnated with such
products. Furthermore, the water from washing out the backpacks
or other implements used for spraying agrochemicals is spilled
out in the same place. Because they are unable to take a shower
before going home as the restrooms have no showers, the workers
spread contamination to their family insofar as they go home with
the same clothes they worked in. In this regard, workers
reported that over 90 percent of the children of women working
in the nursery suffer from allergies, spasms and asthma.
As for medical checkups, these are nonexistent
in FOSA. Eufores does do some, but the workers do not trust the
results and are trying to get monitoring done by an organization
that is independent from the company, such as the Ministry of
Public Health.
Some noteworthy labour conditions in
the Eufores and FOSA nurseries are: the isolation of the location
– preventing displacement during the lunch break that, in the
case of FOSA is not paid – the difficult access to the restrooms
– they are distant from the workplace – and their capacity is
totally inadequate in addition to the above mentioned lack of
showers; the absence of extractors in enclosed places – only the
plants have air-conditioning – and the high temperatures there,
in addition to the omission – on the part of FOSA – of providing
articles necessary for the job, such as latex gloves – the company
only provides rubber gloves as they are cheaper, but this hinders
manipulation.
Cases of skin, eye, hand and neck allergies
and allergies in other parts of the body, with rashes, itching
and swelling, are frequent in workers exposed to toxic products
such as fungicides, insecticides, hormones and chlorine.
The issue of female labour warrants
special mention. The forestry companies emphasize the generation
of jobs for women, but the jobs they offer are mostly for unskilled
labourers which, as we have seen, are outsourced with no prospects
for betterment. There are some administrative posts, but few women
hold managerial positions – they are generally clerks.
Maternity is hard to sustain under the
nurseries’ labour regime. There are no day-care centres and the
distance and lack of transport lead to very long working hours
away from the children. During pregnancy these harsh working conditions
prevent workers from reaching the authorized term for leave –
7 and a half months pregnancy – even though they prefer to work
as long as possible because prenatal leave implies much lower
income. However, the prevailing conditions – temperatures that
can rise above 40ºC and long working hours either sitting or standing
– oblige them to take prenatal leave at between months 4 and 6
of their pregnancy.
It is interesting to note that the certification
of these two companies had already been questioned in an investigation
carried out by WRM (2). Now this investigation on these companies’
nurseries is added to such questioning. In fact, in her
summary on the issue, the researcher concludes that “these two
certified companies in no way show themselves to be ‘environmentally
responsible, socially beneficial and economically viable’ (as
defined in the FSC mandate). On the contrary, they enjoy this
seal at the cost of the work and health of their workers and of
the environment of all Uruguayans.
(1)"Labour conditions and use of
agrochemicals in two tree nurseries”, August 2007, RAPAL-Uruguay
(only in Spanish)
http://www.guayubira.org.uy/trabajo/viveros.pdf
(2)“Greenwash. Critical analysis of
FSC certification of industrial tree monocultures in Uruguay”,
April 2006, World Rainforest Movement,
http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Uruguay/book.html
