I have heard that slave labour is still being used to produce cotton in Uzbekistan. Why is this allowed to continue?
If you have an ethical dilemma, email Lucy at lucy.siegle@observer.co.uk
The annual Uzbek cotton fair in Tashkent is a big deal. Last week traders from all over the world scurried there in order to do what they do best – trade 3m tonnes of Uzbek cotton (this year's spoils) while ignoring the truth: that around 1 million people, including children and young adults, were forced out into the fields and exposed to terrible conditions and in many cases intimidation and violence in order to harvest it.
Overall, world cotton production is in decline – worsening weather conditions have affected harvests in Asia, while in the US less is being planted. Meanwhile the average westerner gets through 14.2kg of cotton a year, in everything from underwear to pillow covers to medical dressings. The value of Uzbek cotton is rising. It already brings in an estimated $1bn a year to Islam Karimov's dictatorship.
What have we done to stop this? In the UK the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) has been dogged in exposing the scandal (not easy given the Uzbek approach to "dissenting" journalists), collecting evidence bravely provided by those out in the field. Since 2011 the Responsible Sourcing Network's coalition of brands and retailers pledging to purge their supply chains of Uzbek cotton has made big gains. It claims that the 136 companies now part of the agreement (the latest signatories include Ikea and M&S) have, by taking their business elsewhere, effectively lost Uzbekistan $1tn.
But back at the cotton fair, Bangladesh and Beijing were apparently vying to buy up 83% of this year's harvest, and the ready-made garment industry (of which the UK is an enthusiastic consumer) is therefore hand in glove with Uzbek cotton. While a modicum of reassurance is provided by the fact that retailers have signed up to the pledge and to cottoncampaign.org – boycott if not – inevitably Uzbek cotton finds its way into the nation's knicker drawers and linen cupboards.
Support the human rights organisations determined to shut down every avenue by which the regime can legitimise itself. The Asian Development Bank has pumped $220m into the country for irrigation systems – irrigation that will enable the cotton industry – and you can add your voice to those lobbying to prevent it. "Follow the money" is old advice, but in this case you can take it literally. Let's revive the EJF's campaign to prohibit Uzbek cotton in our bank notes.
Green crushThis is a very personal crush. Ever since I watched the documentary Blood in the Mobile, tracing components of our mobile phone to the Congo and other hell holes, I've lusted after a phone with a transparent supply chain in an industry that consistently turns a blind eye. That means I'm a sitting duck to join 18,000 people who "have already pre-ordered a phone that doesn't yet exist from a company that's never made a phone before", as Fairphone founder Bas van Abel puts it. But for that your phone is made from raw materials from conflict-free mines, with a breakdown of where the money goes and an open-source operating system. The phone costs €325 and will be delivered in December. Hurry – they're only making 25,000… For details go to fairphone.com
Greenspeak: Bin blight {bīn blait} nounIncreasing in usage as the number of bins grows. But for the regressive few, multiple bins do not enable cleaner, more effective recycling. They are simply an eyesore, a trip hazard and a pox on society.
If you have an ethical dilemma, email Lucy at lucy.siegle@observer.co.uk
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário