Clothing industry in Ethiopia, slavery or a great opportunity?

In the Ethiopian highlands, the fertile parts of Ethiopia, landholding size is around a hectare per household. Assuming an average household size of about 6 persons in rural areas, then this would suggest about 600 persons per square kilometer. Even if this number seems at the upper edge, it is undeniable that population pressure is huge, and agricultural productivity (agricultural output/person) is low. Though several opposing theories exist, one suggests that countries should heavily invest into the secondary sector, so that people move out of the rural areas to work in the emerging industries. Because less people are working on the field agricultural productivity would automatically improve.

Ethiopia is a country that is trying this strategy. Lately, even Swiss free newspaper were announcing that H&M would start producing low cost cloth in Ethiopia. Having seen horrible images from Bangladesh, where cloth production is just modern slavery, I am wondering if the industrialization strategy is a “winner’s curse” ? is Ethiopia becoming a new Bangladesh? Is it really slavery?

I recently found this movie on internet showing how shoes and shirts are produced in Ethiopia, by Chinese and Turkish. The movie is entitled modern slavery, a title I would like to challenge…

L'Ethiopie casse les prix - Escalave moderne par kersanti

In the movie, we see well-built factories with quite good working conditions. Nothing to compare to the overcrowded badly build factories in Bangladesh. Ok, we see some women who do not use the right protecting cloth when gluing shoes, yes it is bad, but “self-employed” smallholders producing onions also use chemicals without protection. It is bad, but the understanding of the importance of correct protecting material has not yet reached Ethiopia, and I would even believe the Chinese bosses who say why should I oblige them, they would not use it anyway.

Let’s now look at the benefit schemes a worker gets. The lady that is hired to fold the Aldi t-shirt is earning 50 cent an hour. So let me make some computation, if she works for 8 hours, she gets 4 dollars. Then she also gets a free meal, and a free service bus bringing her home (ILRI where I worked abolished the services bus). Ok, this is not a lot and ok she pays half of her wage to say in a small room without water and electricity. But looking at my former’s driver wife. She is running her own small burger place on a road side near to some condominiums. On good days she makes double than the girl who folds shirts in the factory, but she does not get a free meal, and 20% of her earnings goes into transportation, she had to invest money and bares risk. Also my cleaning lady was not earning much more per day than the girl folding Aldi shirts, but her days were shorter and she had many more benefits...

My former driver's wife running her burger place

So is it really modern slavery, or is cheap labor just the comparative advantage of Ethiopia to industrialize and move more and more people out of poverty? I understand, for us it is a moral question if it is fair that the Tommy Hilfiger shoes that we pay more than 200 usd are produced in Ethiopia only for 8 USD. But the clothing industry in Ethiopia is just paying local wages that by the way are more than double than in the commercial farming sector (a worker that picks the roses you buy in your supermarkets gets less than a dollar a day). And workers could walk out of the factories and go back to their rural homes, yet they stay, because there are no other jobs for uneducated people that pays as much as the clothing industry. Slavery starts there where people have no choice than working for low wages (for example because their passport has been taken away and can’t leave), I don’t think that is (yet) the case in Ethiopia. Ok these worker might have no choice because they can’t find any other job, but this applies to many many many other people in the developed world too. Lack of education and poverty makes them slaves.

I definitely feel that the emerging clothing industry is a great opportunity for Ethiopia to develop, to lift people out of poverty so that they are freer in future. Remember that the developed world did not get rich by preserving nature and human rights. But a critical eye should be kept on this industry to make sure that we are not getting a second Bangladesh…

Despite of all this, we should not look away from how things we eat and use are produced. Though, conditions are ok in local terms, it is a moral issue. Could working conditions not be improved in such a way that they contribute to a faster positive change for the Ethiopian society? For example by letting the industry invest in education and health care? In the end, it is you as a consumer who decides!

the magics of the washing machine

This is one of my favorite TED talks... and it fits pretty well on a Monday morning after having spent part of my week-end hand washing. (I am so grateful to have a cleaning lady that does the additional wash for me today).



In rural areas in developing countries, washing cloth takes a tremendous amount of time. Women need to carry water home for washing or carry all the wash to the water point. It is laborious work, which is also pretty bad for the back. As Hans Rosling mentions, women emancipation can only come if they get more time by doing household work more efficiently. He also mentions that this efficiency gain that all women around the world wish to have will create more pressure on the environment.

Some months ago i found this article http://www.gizmag.com/giradora-pedail-power-washer/23548/ about a pedal powered washing machine that could have similar effects described in Hans Rosling's TED talk, namely giving women more freedom and time for the children, without using more electricity, without additional pressure on the environment!

Convince yourself! 


It is definitely a technology worth to look at!

What went wrong with the Swiss agricultural policy?

Last week has been a hot week in the Swiss parliament. The agricultural policy revision was on the agenda.
There is no doubt, the agricultural sector Europe wide has been liberalized despite of the still very high level of subsidies (in Switzerland more then 60% of the farmer's income comes through subsidies) Milk quotas have been abolished, barriers to trade are continuously decreased. What is the effect of this market liberalization? Farmers faced low prices and therefore started to produce more pushing prices even lower. Today Switzerland produces more milk and sugar beets then ever.
On the top of this, Swiss agricultural policies are still based the idea of industrialization of agriculture (a policy that emerged after World War II to insure food security) and gives incentives to farmers to produce even more.
Today's debate is about making agricultural policies that do not support industrialization anymore and that focus on much more sustainable production. The total amount paid to the agricultural sector should remain at the same level, but the distribution of the money will become different. The subsidy per animal for example should be abolished.

In principle a low input agriculture would allow to produce high quality food for the Swiss and European market. This type of agriculture would be much more sustainable. 





The farmer in this movie explains how he organized his low input system. He makes use of nature and his animals to reduce mechanization. His cows are grazing on the meadow. Compared to an intensive system, he does not need to carry the grass to the farm nor to bring the manure back saving on fuel for the tractor and reducing the CO2 emission. Thanks to grazing land management, he has the right amount and quality of grass when needed, and his cows produce about 30 liters of milk per day which within the average without using soya (that is one of the major reason for deforestation) or other fodder than produced on his farm.
He also has a small amount of pigs he feeds with input produced on his farm at zero cost. The stable is organized in such a way that animal warmth stays within and no electricity for heating is possible. Again saving money and improve sustainability.
When the new policy comes, he will be a winner, with his low input system, he will get more subsidies for his environmentally friendly production.

All in whole, the new policy setting incentives for more a more sustainable agriculture. It sets the incentive for a more traditional (opposed to industrialized production) which corresponds to what society wants. Less production will also restore normal prices allowing all farmers to benefit.

So why all these discussions for something that looks so optimal and urgent? Many "model farmers" who were praised years ago as innovative because they invested into a modern and industrialized agriculture are going to loose. They have invested in more machine, bigger stables and are today trapped. They need to pay back the credits that enabled them to mechanize and industrialize their production. It is understandable that those farmers that have followed the policies and strategy of the government now stand up and refuse to loose. Therefore, the change towards low input agriculture should be slow, allowing to farmers to adjust.

This movie is an interesting interview with the the president of the Swiss farmer organization, debating if the new policy will increase or decrease the farmers' income. For sure is only that the new subsidy scheme will change the distribution, and there will be losers and winners. 

Next week the debate will continue in the parliament. It's going to be a hot week in Bern !