BLIND TASTING? Confectioners are increasing traceability after being stung by claims of slavery on cocoa farms. But how effective can it be? Elaine Watson reports As you flick through this magazine, chocolate bar in hand, do you pause to consider the conditions under which its raw ingredients are produced? Probably not. Life's too short and besides, the big confectionery firms know where they get their coca from don't they? These illusions were shattered last September when a Channel 4 documentary alleged that migrants from countries bordering the Ivory Coast, the world's biggest cocoa producer, were working in conditions tantamount to slavery. Unicef claimed 200,000 children were trafficked across west and central African borders each year by smuggling rings preying on the hopes of parents for a better life for their offspring. The children, it alleges, were sold to coffee or cocoa farms, or into prostitution and domestic service. The confectionery industry responded quickly and responsibly. It commissioned the Natural Resources Institute to conduct an immediate investigation. The NRI reported "little concrete evidence of the systematic use of slave labour in cocoa", but proposed an extensive review into the socioeconomic dimensions of cocoa production in West Africa. Six months later, the chocolate barons were hauled up in front of the world's media again when a ship, thought to be heading for cocoa plantations with unaccompanied children on board, was discovered off the West African coast. However, no children were found on board. Once again, the confectioners stated they had not come across instances of forced labour in all the years of working with producers on the ground, but insisted theywere committed to combating slavery if it was discovered. Britain's foreign and Commonwealth minister Brian Wilson immediately called a meeting with the big guns from the chocolate industry, government officials from West Africa and aid organisations for talks. It was resolved to set up a task force to look at industry practices. No one is accusing chocolate manufacturers of endorsing slavery. Even organisations such as Anti Slavery International acknowledge that confectioners were genuinely surprised by the allegations from Unicef and Channel 4. And ethics aside, suspicions of chocolate bars produced as a result of the sweat and tears of child slaves doesn't do much for the corporate image. All sides agree that energies should be directed at tackling the causes of forced labour rather than engaging in a futile debate about whether the big boys in the industry are turning a blind eye to slavery to fill the corporate purse. But isn't there something profoundly wrong with a system whereby manufacturers can remain in ignorance about the conditions under which their primary raw ingredients are produced? Anti Slavery International spokeswoman Beth Herzfeld argues: "It is [the confectionery giants'] business to know where their products are sourced. "At the end of the day, manufacturers cannot give consumers a 100% assurance that their cocoa did not come through slave hands because, as things are done now, they have no way of knowing which particular farms it came from." Buy a chocolate bar from Oxfam, she says, and you know the producer received enough cash to cover the cost of production and ensure a basic standard of living. On top of that, the Fair Trade mark guarantees that no forced labour was used in its production and that the farm workers were able to participate in trade unions. However, traceability is all very well when you're buying a few tonnes of cocoa. If you're buying in the quantities required by the likes of Nestlé, Cadbury and Hershey, you've got to buy from the international commodity markets. Cocoa is not produced on huge industrial plantations with hundreds of labourers, but on thousands of family run farms. Up to 90% of these are smaller than 10 hectares. Farmers sell on to traders, who sell on to other traders, who sell on to middlemen, who sell on to exporters. "Just about the only thing you can know about the cocoa bought as a commodity is which country it comes from," explains Robin Dand at the Cocoa Association of London. John Newman, director of the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance, adds: "Cocoa is not a plantation crop and you simply wouldn't expect to find abuses of this kind. The Ivory Coast is nothing like the plantations of America's Deep South used to be. "We have been visiting the Ivory Coast for decades and working closely with many cocoa farmers. In all that time we have simply not come across such practices. We are confident that, while illegal practices may exist, this is on a very limited scale indeed and confined to certain areas." There are more than one million cocoa farms on the Ivory Coast. It is simply not possible to rigorously inspect every single one, he adds. "Unlike tea or fresh produce, the infrastructure for managing corporate social responsibility is, for the most part, absent in the cocoa chain," says the Natural Resources Institute. "Although some traders or manufacturers appear to be investing in long-term relationships with producers, and see the commercial advantage of getting closer to the point of production, this is not the norm." There is little demand to know the origin of cocoa other than its country; technical grading and quality control are largely delegated to third parties and there are not yet food safety requirements for cocoa that require producer to consumer traceability. FairTrade Foundation director Ian Bretman has no truck with such a fatalistic attitude towards the mechanics of cocoa production, however. "They [the big confectioners] don't have to go to a million small farms to buy cocoa and Fair Trade doesn't necessarily cost more. We work on a substantial scale in coffee. A very long chain with reams of middlemen is highly inefficient anyway." Ideally, he says, we should be able to source direct from a number of farmers' co-operatives representing perhaps a few hundred farms each. "Certainly, there are things that can be done. If we can get men on the moon, we can work out how to get cocoa out of the Ivory Coast in a decent manner." UN body the International Cocoa Organisation has run a series of pilot projects in recent years to encourage farmers to form co-operatives with the means to market themselves to national and international buyers. Their goods are independently quality assessed, weighed, stored in warehouses and issued with quality certificates. But there is little evidence that this smallscale activity is developing the momentum to effect the kind of wholesale changes to the structure of the industry required to provide traceability throughout the cocoa supply chain. One source with extensive experience of smallholder production in West Africa says the practice of buying from producer groups was "not widespread". Likewise, there is a general and understandable resistance to outside intervention from some traders in the Ivory Coast, especially after the recent allegations. "I have worked in the region for several years and seen absolutely no evidence of slavery," he adds. "The suggestion this is happening all over the place is utter rubbish. And I have no reason to protect the confectionery companies. But this has been a rude awakening for the industry, and some good may come of the allegations, even if they are false." The damage that allegations like these can have on the reputation of a brand are incalculable and manufacturers could face pressure from consumers to offer guarantees about their chocolate. And that means traceability. A buzzword in the food industry at the moment in the wake of BSE and foot and mouth disease, traceability is increasingly being demanded across the food chain, be it for food safety reasons or ethics. "Traceability is clearly a problem," says the BCCCA's Newman. "In the Ivory Coast in particular, the forces of liberalisation and the end of the central marketing board mean there is even less structure to the market, more travelling dealers, and chains of middlemen. But we are accelerating the drive for greater traceability and hopefully by the end of next year the whole structure of the market will mean buyers and sellers can communicate better. "You can be sure the matter won't go to sleep. We're certainly keen to keep the momentum going." Nestlé concurs: "Our business is based on openness, honesty and integrity and we will take whatever steps we can to ensure these principles are not compromised." But the Natural Resources Institute emphasises that true corporate social responsibility in the cocoa supply chain could only be achieved through fundamental changes to its infrastructure and a "considerable investment in the institutional capacity over a long period." More to the point, it would "require a willingness for someone to pay a higher price or reduce their profit share". In other words, dearer chocolate. Manufacturers have either to persuade consumers to pay extra for the reassurance that cocoa farmers are getting a fair deal, or take a cut in their profit margins. And the system can't be changed overnight. Indeed, all parties have warned that a boycott would only compound the problem in the short term, while axing producers if they are found to employ slaves would be likely to put the labourers in an even worse position. So is there a solution? The Fair Trade Foundation's position is clear. The big boys could offer their own fair trade mark chocolate but they need a mandate from consumers. The consumer is king, and where there's a will there's a way. There is no doubting the genuine motivations of the chocolate companies and the government to get to the bottom of the allegations. The suspicion is that, providing the industry is seen to be responding to the issue, consumers can tuck into their chocolate bars with a clear conscience ­ and little will change on the ground. {{FEAT. GENERAL }}

Topics