Social Protection for Migrant Labour In the Ghanaian Pineapple Sector

Abstract

The expansion of export production for global supermarkets has generated new employment channels for internal rural-rural migrant workers in Africa. Yet analysis of migrant labour in the global economy tends to focus on rural-urban migration or the movement of workers across international borders. Internal migrant labourers work at the interface of the advancing commercialisation of global agriculture and of more traditional forms of rural livelihood generation. Agro-export production involves inherent risks, particularly from commercial shocks as consumer trends change. How the benefits and risks affect migrant workers is little understood. To what extent do migrant workers gain from incorporation into agro-exports? What are the avenues for protection of migrant workers in a rapidly changing global economy? How can strategies be enhanced to reduce the impact of negative shocks on migrant labour? This paper examines these questions based on a study of the pineapple export sector in Ghana. This is a new and growing export crop, contributing to the role of agro-exports in reducing poverty within Ghana. Ghana‟s pineapple export sector has grown rapidly between 1986 and 2002, with production increasing from 2,600 to 42,000 metric tons. Production for export is based mainly in the Eastern Region, in locations north of Accra. The main export destinations are in Europe (particularly Germany and the UK), where supermarket retailing is becoming the dominant retail outlet. Supermarkets have increasingly required compliance with standards relating to agricultural practice (eg. Eurep-gap) and social compliance. More recently there has been a move by some producer and exporter groups to become Fairtrade and Organic accredited. Pineapple production is labour intensive, and case studies indicate that approximately one third of workers are migrants from other regions within Ghana, particularly the Volta and Central Regions. The aim of the project was to assess the comparative risks and vulnerabilities faced by internal migrant workers in pineapple exports, what channels for social protection are open to them, and how they can be made more effective for migrant workers. The risks these workers face were highlighted in 2002-4 when a sudden switch by global supermarkets took place from the traditional pineapple variety grown in Ghana to a new variety (MD2). Much of the production of Sweet Cayenne went unsold and exporters failed to meet payment obligations. Small-scale producers were least able to cope or make the switch. Many migrant workers were made unemployed or went unpaid. Children were withdrawn from school as the crisis hit household incomes. This highlights the importance of protection for migrant workers in a sector subject to commercial shocks. 4 The project draws on an analysis of global production networks (GPNs), whereby linkages between production, distribution and consumption are coordinated through lead buyers or supermarkets. GPN analysis facilitates exploration of the interaction between the commercial dynamics of the sector, and the social context of employment, which combined generate both potential risks and channels of protection for migrant workers. The intersection between global production networks and social protection was unpacked through a case study in the pineapple export sector. Key informant interviews were carried out with over 20 government, NGO, trade and commercial organisations. Four key pineapple growing locations were identified in which exporters, large farms, out-growers (small-scale farmers selling direct to the same exporters or larger farms) and independent producers were selected. These were selected as a purposive not a representative cross-section of the pineapple sector. Interviews took place with farm managers/owners and a total of 282 workers using both a survey and focus group discussions. A stakeholder workshop was held in Accra in the latter part of the study to discuss provisional findings. Two different value chains were identified at producer level: Category 1 exporters and large farms and their outgrowers who directly supply supermarkets and are expected to comply with technical and social standards; and Category 2 medium-sized and smaller independent farms indirectly exporting through agents who did not have to comply with technical or social standards. Two groups of migrant workers were identified on the pineapple farms: (i) those who have independently migrated in search of work, and whose current location is different from their „hometown‟ of origin – primary migrants; and (ii) those who were born to migrants or migrated as children with family, and whose current location is separate from the „hometown‟ to which they remain affiliated – secondary migrants. In this paper, we explore the extent to which the employment benefits, risks and protection needs of these two groups are likely to differ based on their employment position within the pineapple export sector. The study found that primary migrants were on average older, better educated/skilled, and more concentrated on larger farms. They tended to benefit from greater employment security, better health and safety provision, and levels of employment protection. Secondary migrants were younger, with lower education levels and skill, and more concentrated on smaller farms. They had less employment security, health and safety provision, and employment protection. Regardless of migrant status, on average 55 percent of the respondents were permanent workers (although primary migrants were slightly over the average). Amongst the non-permanent workers there was a clear 5 difference according to migrant status - 14 percent of primary migrants were temporary workers and 28 percent casual.1 A much higher percentage of secondary migrants were casual workers. However, despite the overall high percentage of casual workers, a large majority - 97 percent of primary and 91 percent of secondary casual migrants - said that they worked throughout the year. Their actual work is thus often not reflected in their formal employment status – less than a third of all migrants had written employment contracts -, which means they are less able to access their legal employment rights or employment-related benefits. Overall, primary migrants said that they were better off than they would have been if they had not migrated. However, primary migrants were more dependent on pineapple employment with less alternative sources of income, and more vulnerable in the case of employment shocks. Secondary migrants were more likely to have alternative sources of income and access to land or small-scale plots. Their risks were therefore diversified and, to this extent, they were less vulnerable to sudden shocks arising from changes in the export sector - such as the sudden switch from Sweet Cayenne to MD2 as the pineapple for export. Social protection acts as a buffer against the risks and vulnerability faced by migrant workers and their households. The migrant labourers in this study could access social protection through three channels.2 Each one of these channels contributes to a differing extent to the form of social protection available, and different actors that may be involved in protection provision. Reciprocity Regimes refer to the cross-cutting informal family and community networks and institutions, and might include informal savings clubs and funeral societies. Many migrants in focus group discussions indicated that they often migrate to pineapple areas because they know others from their family or hometown in those places (these individuals are usually those who inform new migrants about employment opportunities in the pineapple sector). The study found that family members are ranked highest as the people migrant workers will turn to in times of need (56-57% of both primary and secondary migrants). A lower proportion indicated that they would turn to friends, and even less to their communities (9% of primary and 12% of secondary migrants). Being older, primary migrants were more likely to shoulder greater responsibilities than secondary migrants. If they had dependent family in the place of origin, there was greater expectation on them to remit than their 1 Temporary workers were employed for more than six months but less than twelve months per year, casual workers for less than six months on the same farm. 2 Adapted from Sabates-Wheeler and Waite (2003), here we differentiate between the three channels prevalent in the context of GPNs. 6 younger counterparts, especially where parents were still living in their home towns. Secondary migrants felt they were often unable to meet expectations of hometown support, and were therefore less likely to be able to turn to their hometown for protection later in life. This raises the question as to whether commercialisation through larger export farming is contributing to greater individualisation and a decline in more traditional community-based rural social networks. Family networks, especially of primary migrants also employed in the same sector, appear to have little hope of addressing covariant risks that might arise, such as commercial instability in the level of exports. Further research would be needed comparing new and traditional agro-export sectors to investigate this issue in more depth. Public Regimes refer to social assistance and insurance arrangements to mitigate risk either through direct state benefits funded from taxation, such as state allowances, or private schemes or through employer-based funds, such as pension and health insurance. Government social assistance and insurance and employer benevolence go part of the way to addressing risk and vulnerability by supporting the protection of workers in the event of idiosyncratic and covariant risks. The main government-based scheme in Ghana is through the Social Security National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) which provides a formal social protection mechanism. However, levels of coverage through SSNIT are on average low with only 41% of primary and 33% of secondary migrants contributing. Workers on Category 1 farms were more likely to benefit from coverage, but even here 45% remained uncovered. Therefore enforcement of public regimes of reciprocity in the pineapple sector is at best patchy. The fact that a large number of casual workers were in effect working all year round means they were not able to access their full employment entitlements. Private Regimes are dependent on employer benevolence, corporate social responsibility, and translate into an extension of labour rights to migrant workers. The study found that workers rank their employer as the second most likely person after family that they would approach in times of need, even though many are unsure as to whether they would receive help. A new dimension to social protection for workers in pineapple exports is through the implementation of standards and corporate social responsibility by large buyers (particularly European supermarkets) in their global production networks. On the basis of anecdotal information it appears that these standards have begun to address issues of worker rights, which could contribute to enhancing their social protection. Given primary migrants are more likely to be employed as permanent workers and on category 1 farms, they are more likely to benefit than 7 secondary migrants. To the extent that standards and social responsiblity enhance the security of producers within the value chain (eg. Eurepgap), or promote social justice (eg. Codes of labour practice and Fairtrade) it could be argued that they have the potential to promote greater social protection. But these improvements still only reach a limited section of the workforce, rarely benefitting temporary and casual workers.