Get the latest
Subscribe to our email newsletters and stay up to speed on ethical trade.
It was with a sense of great uneasiness that I read the Guardian’s recent expose about migrant workers facing extreme exploitation and abuse on fishing trawlers in Thailand. The article put Thailand’s migrant workers front and centre in the public’s attention, but unfortunately these shocking and deplorable stories are not new to people working on the labour rights agenda in international supply chains.
In recent years, media and NGOs have reported trafficking, forced labour, excessive working hours and discrimination within this industry. Particular concerns have been raised regarding the exploitation of workers at the lower tiers of the supply chain, such as those working in peeling sheds and on trawlers. Reports have highlighted deplorable practices adopted by local industry to recruit migrant workers from neighbouring countries including Myanmar (Burma) to work in vessels and the horrific conditions suffered by fishermen.
An inside look at the Thai farmed shrimp sector
Since 2012, ETI has been engaging with our members and partners to better understand these issues and identify opportunities for driving change. I was in Thailand just weeks before the Guardian story broke, as part of a series of key stakeholder meetings to address labour conditions within the country’s seafood sector. During my visit, I took part in a visit to a shrimp peeling shed. The facility employed 80 workers who were wearing personal protection equipment and were busy collecting shrimp from huge buckets where, every day, the product is transported in ice-cold water from shrimp farms. Their job involves peeling shrimp one by one, as fast as possible, to the specifications of food retailer customers. All shrimp must be peeled within the day. It’s evident that life is tough for migrants employed in this type of work. For 300 BHT a day (about £5), you stand all day in the cold, performing a repetitive task that is harsh on your hands. You shift considerable weight and are under pressure to complete the load assigned to you for that day. Yet I could not stop thinking that as hard this work appears, it must be nowhere near as hard as being at sea for months on end, under the conditions described in some reports.
The peeling shed owners explained that they have signed up for the Good Labour Practices (GLP) programme; created by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and endorsed by the Thai government. Under this programme, clear local labour law guidelines have been developed for all sections of the supply chain, including fishing trawlers. Industry managers are currently being trained to deepen their understanding of the application of the law within their business. The programme has been rolled out in the upper sections of the supply chain. It is unclear how and when it will be deployed for fishing trawlers. The peeling shed owner explained that since the training, many changes have been made including introducing machinery to enable workers to transport the weight more easily. So this was one positive example; the Thai government officials were keen to demonstrate to the international community that it is not all bad and that there are companies who apply employment laws and care for the workers.
Poor working conditions – contributing factors
But we must be clear – the analysis we conducted with our members presented a similar picture to that highlighted in the media and NGOs reports. The situation facing migrant workers in Thailand is underpinned by a range of deep-seated, wide spread and complex political, social and economic factors, impacting all local industries using migrant labour, not only the fishery sectors. These factors include chronic unavailability of legal labour due to a lack of an effective immigration policy, corruption of government and police officials, an unregulated recruitment sector involving informal and illegal brokers, a culture that discriminates against migrant workers and lack of transparency of the bottom layers of the supply chain. As the Guardian article outlines, illegal recruitment is more prevalent in supply chains involving fishing trawlers. Few people want to be employed at sea, so the demand for labour is high, while transparency is low as it is far more difficult to regulate an inherently mobile and informal industry. It’s a complex picture and there is another factor that exacerbates the situation; the Thai government’s concern with national security around migration and a series of laws that significantly reduce and restrict the rights of migrant workers. These laws effectively prevent migrant workers from changing employers or organising and unionising. Thailand remains one of the few countries that has not ratified the C087 ILO Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention.
Our own analysis showed that local and international industry has a significant role to play, both collaboratively and individually, in driving changes within their own supply chain. Industry-driven initiatives like the GLP can help to clarify requirements and drive improvements within specific workplaces, including recruitment practices. However, supply chain initiatives will have a limited impact if the institutional, social and cultural context in which Thai business operates does not change. It needs to be accompanied by genuine efforts by the Thai government to improve immigration policy, regulate the recruitment industry, invest in law enforcement, change the mindset set of government officials and, not least, eradicate corruption at all stages of the supply chain.
Our work to support sector-wide change
Since last year, we have been working with the ILO in Thailand to catalyse the international community’s coordinated action to engage with the Thai government and other Thai institutions. A key focus has been to clarify the role of each player in driving improvements in working conditions. This work culminated with the Multi-stakeholder Forum on Labour Conditions in the Fisheries Sector in Thailand, hosted by the Thai government and facilitated by the ILO in Bangkok on May 23. This meeting included representatives of the local fishery industry, international buyers, workers’ organisations and NGOs and focused on understanding progress and priorities moving forward.
The Thai government talked of positive change at some parts of the supply chain. Besides the support provided to the GLP programme (which will enhance enforcement of the law at factory level) other actions have been taken. The government claims to have made progress in increasing transparency within the peeling sheds – registering facilities, whilst also intensifying and improving the quality of facilities inspections. Seven job centres have also been set up in ports where both workers and trawlers are registered. These aim to reduce labour trafficking and give better visibility of what’s happening on fishing trawlers.
A framework of action is being drawn up following this meeting. Commitments have been made by the government in various areas including a longer-term coherent policy on migrant workers, access to services and the ability of migrant workers to change employers and strengthening oversight of recruitment agencies, brokers and payment of recruitment fees. There is no doubt that the government’s response to international pressure on this issue has slow. Many lament there is no real political will for change. We have seen that international pressure step up in recent days, with the United States downgrading Thailand to the lowest rank in the state department's Trafficking in Persons (TiP) report. Only time will tell whether those who have the biggest role in addressing labour conditions locally will make progress.
Nevertheless, the meeting represented an important step in establishing a dialogue between local and international stakeholders, which we hope will continue to exercise the necessary pressure for change. From our point of view, the work has also highlighted the increasing need for international buyers to collaborate with stakeholders to effectively engage with political institutions in sourcing countries. Companies also need regulatory support closer to home, in their efforts to address forced labour and exploitation in supply chains. That is why we are engaging with the UK government and other stakeholders over the development of the Modern Slavery Bill.
How can consumers engage?
Consumers are looking for guidance, following the Guardian’s Thai farmed shrimp expose. While I understand the motive behind calls for consumer boycotts, I firmly believe that boycotting is unlikely to achieve the desired outcome. Reducing an industry’s market will only end up impacting those workers we are trying to help, reducing job opportunities and worsening the economic benefits of the jobs in the industry. Boycotting might result in the supply chain being shifted to other countries, with no guarantee of better labour conditions.
There have also been calls for more audits and certifications. ETI’s position on this point is clear: while these represent one tool companies can use to address issues and improve conditions at factory level, in more complex situations like the one that is affecting migrants in Thailand, more sophisticated approaches are needed. These must be underpinned by coordinated and multi-layered efforts from all stakeholders. I hope that international buyers, and others that have a stake in Thailand’s fisheries sector, will continue to coordinate their actions and exercise pressure in the region so we can see genuine change for workers.