Domingo Tamupsis works as a harvester on a Guatemalan sugar plantation for a firm that exports bioethanol to fill the fuel tanks of cars in the US. He works 10 to 12 hours a day, six days a week, in a country that is a leading producer of food for global markets.
His settlement in the fertile Pacific coastal area is surrounded by industrial farms, but he earns so little his family cannot afford to eat every day. Some days he survives his shift of hard physical labor on nothing but the mangoes that drop from trees by the roadside.
His wife, Marina, is 23 but so slight she might be mistaken for a girl. She has two daughters, Yeimi, aged six and Jessica, two. Jessica is the size of the average European one-year-old, her distended stomach a sign of chronic malnutrition. When she smiles, hollow creases form in her cheeks, betraying her semi-permanent state of hunger.
Last year Marina gave birth in the eighth month of pregnancy to a stillborn child. She had been ill and hungry throughout, then felt severe pains one day at breakfast time. When she finally reached the nearest medical help, a hospital 45 minutes away by bus, staff told her the baby was dead. They returned the body to her, but she and Domingo had no cash for the return fare.
A doctor gave them the fare, and a friend in town lent money for a coffin. So it was that their third child, Marvin Orlando, a brother for their two little girls, came home to be buried.
Guatemala is a prime example, according to a report by Oxfam, of how the global food system is failing. The organization predicts that the average price of staple foods will double by 2030.
“Spiraling food prices, climate chaos, rising demand on top of a collapsing resource base and markets rigged against the many in favor of the few” are, the charity warns, taking us into a new era of crisis in which more and more people are going hungry.
Its new research predicts that the international prices of key staples will more than double in the next 20 years, raising “the prospect of a wholesale reversal in human development.”
The world’s poorest people spend up to 80 percent of their income on food and will be hit the hardest. The global food system is broken and its power structures must be overhauled, it says.
MALNOURISHED
Developing countries such as Guatemala are on the front line. Half of all the nation’s children under five are malnourished — one of the highest rates of malnutrition in the world. Yet the country has food in abundance. It is the fifth largest exporter of sugar, coffee and bananas. Its rural areas are witnessing a palm-oil rush as international traders seek to cash in on demand for biofuels created by US and EU mandates and subsidies. Yet despite being a leading agro-exporter, half of Guatemala’s 14 million people live in extreme poverty, on less than US$2 a day. And the indicators are getting worse. The money to be made from the food chain here, as in most poor countries, has been captured by elites and transnational corporations, leaving half the population excluded.
Tamupsis sees no way out of his dilemma.
“The money I make is not enough to feed us,” he says. “We feed the children first because the girls cry so much when they are hungry, but it’s not enough and I think that’s why they get ill and don’t thrive. I don’t know where to get more money: I can’t work any harder and I can’t steal because they shoot you if you steal.”
With a little land he’d grow food, but the promised government redistribution of unproductive land, which drew him to the area, never took place.
“The food is here but the main problem is distribution. Land is concentrated in very few hands. The big companies pay very little tax. Labor conditions on plantations are appalling. It’s a classic case of how a very productive country with high rates of exclusion, especially among the indigenous population, cannot feed its own people,” says Aida Pesquera, Oxfam director for Guatemala.
The economic policies favored by the international financial institutions in the last few decades have here, as in so many developing countries, weakened food security.
In the 1980s a structural adjustment program imposed by the IMF on the debt-laden nation led to the slashing of technical assistance provided by the agriculture ministry to small farmers. Guatemala, which had been self-sufficient in grain, was encouraged to pursue growth through agricultural exports. Local production of staples declined.
Although the government disputes it, Oxfam believes that CAFTA, the free-trade agreement between the US and Central American states approved in 2005, has undermined farmers further as subsidized US grains have poured in. (Industrialized areas, including the US and the EU, subsidize their farmers to the tune of US$252 billion a year, making it impossible for small farmers in developing countries to compete.)
So Guatemala is now dependent on imports of staple foods, mostly from the US, and it is at the mercy of increasingly volatile food prices internationally.
The average poor rural family here spends 80 percent of its income on food, so when world prices rise sharply families simply can’t eat. When a food price spike occurred in 2008, the price of corn locally was 240 percent higher than the year before.
The government is now distributing food rations to about 90,000 families. The program is led by Sandra Torres, who neatly sidestepped the law barring spouses of presidents from standing to succeed; she divorced her husband, the president, Alvaro Colom. However, critics say money for the handout is being diverted from other vital government services, and that what is needed is fundamental structural reform.
More than two-thirds of productive land is in the hands of 2 percent to 3 percent of the population. Colom’s social democratic government drafted legislation to promote rural development, including some land reallocation, but it was blocked by congress after fierce lobbying from agribusinesses.
Land reform is a subject freighted with violence in Guatemala. In 1950, on being elected president, the leftwing Jacobo Arbenz began a program of expropriating the unused land of big exporters. A large chunk of territory owned by the American United Fruit Company (UFCO) was included. Arbenz said compensation for the land would be based on valuations calculated from declared taxable profits. UFCO said this was a fraction of what they were really worth. Arbenz was labeled a communist by US president Dwight Eisenhower, who, with encouragment from UFCO, authorized the CIA to sponsor a “liberation army.” The army invaded in 1954 and led a coup against Arbenz. A return to repressive rule followed, marking the start of decades of civil war and agrarian conflict.
Guatemalan Minster of Agriculture Juan Alfonso de Leon Garcia is not optimistic that serious land reform is achievable.
“Agriculture is the engine of our economy, but we have to recognize that Guatemala has a very complicated agricultural structure that is very unequal. We have big owners who have the best land, and the majority have a very small percentage of the fertile land. Food security is a serious problem. We have to talk about land distribution, but it’s not easy. In the 1950s we tried to have agricultural reform but that promoted the fall of the government and marked the beginning of armed conflict [over] 36 years,” he says.
However, he still hopes some unused land can be acquired for reallocation to smallholders. Meanwhile his government has increased technical assistance for small farmers to help improve yields.
The theory of the agro-export model of development is that growth stimulated by increased foreign revenues will trickle down to the rest of the population. However, most of the profits made from Guatemalan resources have so far gone untaxed. Total tax revenue amounts to less than 12 percent of GDP (roughly less than half that of rich countries).
“We have very low rates of taxation, and we cannot even determine whether the agro-exporters pay even that. But it’s not just big business that avoids tax here, all taxpayers do,” De Leon Garcia says.
The global food system in the last two decades has seen a dramatic flight of capital, with transnationals making use of offshore subsidiaries to minimize the tax they pay in the countries where they produce food and where they sell it.
VIOLENCE
UN trade data, analyzed by Christian Aid, shows that Guatemala received an average export price of just US$0.18 a kilogram for its bananas in 2006. By the time those bananas got to their destination (the importing countries), the average price was US$0.46, suggesting costs were added offshore by transnationals trading with their own subsidiaries in other jurisdictions. Christian Aid estimates that, because of this, more than US$50 million a year could have been lost by Guatemala in 2006 and 2007.
In theory, growth led by agro-exports benefits the rural poor, enabling them to move from subsistence farming to waged labor. In Guatemala, though, the minimum wage is so low it does not meet most basic needs. The pattern is repeated in many developing countries relying on agricultural exports.
Labor relations in Guatemala are also characterized by extreme repression and violence. This month, Idar Hernandez Godoy, one of the secretaries of Sitrabi, the banana workers’ union, was shot several times by assailants on a motorbike while on his way to union headquarters in the Atlantic region. His death brought to five the number of banana union leaders killed since 2007.
Trying to organize workers or demand better conditions is likely to bring death threats. Luis Fuentes, Guatemalan representative of the union 3F, which is based in Denmark, describes typical conditions on the plantations, whether banana, sugar or palm, as “inhuman.” He too has received many death threats.
In the sugar sector, unions were effectively dismantled in the 1970s, when leaders were persecuted and killed. All the national producers in Guatemala and the transnational firms working there say they respect labor rights and the environment, and have in place corporate social responsibility policies. However, the Guardian interviewed several current and former plantation workers from the sugar, palm and banana sectors this month. Many were afraid to speak out. A consistent account emerged: many worked with no proper contract, most reported being set impossible targets by middle managers then given warnings or having pay deducted if they failed to meet them.
Many were working, often without protective clothing, with highly toxic agrochemicals, including paraquat, now banned in Europe. Several reported chronic health problems from chemical exposure.
Typically they earned 1,500 quetzales to 1,800 quetzales (US$192 to US$230) a month, whereas the National Statistics Institute, a Guatemalan government organization, calculates that a minimum of 4,100 quetzales a month is needed to feed the average family.
Without exception, the workers said that joining a union was an offense that warrants dismissal and would lead to blacklisting. Even where top management tried to put in place contracts — usually under pressure from outside buyers — managers in the field, they said, abused workers. When auditors arrived, workers were told what to say and got protective clothing for the day. Allegations also emerged of workers being given or taking stimulant drugs to get through the shifts.
Workers who have access to land grow their own food. Those without can be driven to migrate illegally to the US. In the week of our visit, two US-bound tractor-trailers packed with illegal migrants were stopped by the Mexican border authorities. The 513 men on board were half dead from suffocation. Most were Guatemalan.
One told reporters: “We have no choice. There is not enough food for us at home.”
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs