sewlyn labor process gcc

Journal of Agrarian Change, Vol. 7 No. 4, October 2007, pp. 526–553.

© 2007 The Author.Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Henry Bernstein and Terence J. Byres.

Blackwell Publishing LtdOxford, UKJOACJournal of Agrarian Change1471-0358© The Author. Journal compilation © Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Henry Bernstein and Terence J. Byres.XXXOriginal ArticlesLabour Process and Workers’ Bargaining Power in Export Grape Production

Ben Selwyn

Labour Process and Workers’ Bargaining Power in Export Grape Production, North

East Brazil

BEN SELWYN

This article uses the Global Commodity Chain (GCC) framework to investigatelabour regimes in export grape production in the São Francisco (SF) valley,North East Brazil. A combination of strict northern retailer requirements andproducers’ ability to target export windows leads to an increasingly complexlabour process. Whilst much GCC literature focusing on export agricultureconcludes that labour is relatively powerless, this article presents a ratherdifferent case. The need to upgrade production continually in response toretailers’ demands gives workers strategic leverage which, together with astrong and continuing tradition of rural trade union organization, means thatthey have been able to extract significant concessions from exporting farms.

Keywords

: agricultural labour, global commodity chains, grapeproduction, North East Brazil

INTRODUCTION

This article investigates how changes in the organization of northern horticulturalmarkets impact upon producers, local level development and capital-labourrelations. It does so by charting the formation and functioning of the São Francisco(SF) grape branch, in particular its export segment, located in North East Brazil,and by examining its evolving labour process.

1

It draws on the global commodity(or value) chain framework (Kaplinsky and Morris 2001) and attempts to con-tribute to it by investigating and theorizing the position, role and power oflabour within the chain.

Ben Selwyn, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Southampton,Southampton, SO17 1BJ. e-mail: [email protected]

The article is based on fieldwork carried out in 2002 and 2003 for a PhD at SOAS under thesupervision of Henry Bernstein, whose advice also helped in the writing of this paper. During thisperiod I conducted research on 26 farms in the SF valley using the participant observation methodologyas formulated by Jorgensen (1989). I carried out semi-structured interviews with farm managers,owners and workers. I also carried out off-farm interviews and collected data from developmentagency staff, producer cooperatives and marketing boards, rural trade unions and the local office ofthe Ministry of Labour. I presented an earlier version of this paper to the Historical MaterialismWorld Development Research Seminar in London, December 2006.

1

I use the term branch in accordance with the convention of conceptually dividing the economyinto sectors (for example, industry and agriculture) and branches (specific activities within eachsector, for example grape vs grain production within the agricultural sector).

Labour Process and Workers’ Bargaining Power

527

© 2007 The Author.Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Henry Bernstein and Terence J. Byres.Journal of Agrarian Change, Vol. 7 No. 4, October 2007, pp. 526–553.

Over the last three decades or so, the trading of fresh fruits and vegetables,often referred to as Non-Traditional Agricultural Exports (NTAXs) hasbecome one of the fastest growing branches of world trade (McMichael 1997).Barham et al. (1992, 43) propose that the term ‘non-traditional’ refers to a product(commodity) that has not been produced in a particular country (or region)before, to a product that was previously produced for domestic consumption butis now exported, or to traditional products produced to meet the needs of newmarkets. The expansion of global NTAX production has gone hand in handwith the rise of global retail (supermarket) corporations which play a central rolein transforming food production and sourcing. In addition to falling transportcosts, technological innovations in the cool chain such as new transportation andrefrigeration techniques have made possible the production of highly perishableNTAXs in regions that were previously too far from northern markets. Newagricultural zones have been established analogous in many ways to the openingup of frontiers for grains and cattle during the nineteenth century (Friedmann 1993;Schwartz 2000). The rise of NTAX production and the integrating role ofglobal supermarkets in commodity chain ‘governance’ is a central feature ofcontemporary globalization. The formation and integration of the São Franciscogrape branch into the circuits of global NTAX production is one case of thisbroader phenomenon.

The Global Commodity Chain (GCC) approach initiated by Gereffi andKorzeniewicz (1994) has become well established.

2

It enables the researcherconceptually to connect actors involved in the production, distribution andmarketing of the same commodity even though they may be geographicallydispersed over great distances (Kaplinsky and Morris 2001). It requires a detailedfocus on the commodity’s specific characteristics and production conditions.The GCC approach facilitates an analysis of power relations along the chain, byshowing which actors make strategic decisions and which actors have to respondto them. By identifying such connections the approach enables tracing howtransformations in one part of the world impact on transformations anddevelopments in other parts of the world.

Until recently the study of labour was largely excluded from GCC analysis.Henderson et al. note that ‘hardly any work has been done, on . . . the reproductionof labour power within the GCC’s perspective’ (2002, 459). In addition, ‘In sofar as “workers” are present in this literature they appear as passive victims . . . ascapital seeks cheap labour’ (Smith et al. 2002, 47). However, recently, severaluseful studies have incorporated labour into the GCC framework (Collins 2000;Barrientos and Kritzinger 2004; Dolan and Sutherland 2002), and this articlefollows their lead in order to illuminate the conditions and practices of labour inone branch of export horticulture.

GCC-inspired research has mostly arrived at pessimistic conclusions regardinglabour’s conditions in NTAX sectors. Kritzinger et al. (2004) find that horticultural

2

See the useful collection of articles at http://www.globalvaluechains.org/

528

Ben Selwyn


farms in South Africa supplying large northern retailers are subject to pressuresof increased domestic liberalization, competition and increased quality-relatedbuyer requirements, and are subject to the insecurities of price fluctuations fortheir produce. In these circumstances, they shed permanent labour, replacing itwith contract labour, with significant adverse effects for conditions of employmentand pay. Similarly, Korovkin (1992) and Gwynne (1999) show that the expansionof export grape production in Chile resulted overwhelmingly in the displacementof permanent workers by especially women temporary workers.

Writing about the Chilean and South African deciduous fruit sectors, Barrientosargued that ‘the only group remaining at the base of the value chain, onto whomthe growers themselves can offload some of the risk, is the fruit labour force,and particularly the more flexible seasonal workers, where the highest levels offemale employment are found’ (2001, 88). More recently however, Barrientosand Kritzinger (2004) have found that increasing buyer quality requirementshave led to some fruit exporting farms seeking to improve the skill levels ofsome of their workforce, with cases of employers preferring permanentlyemployed over temporarily contracted labour. This latter observation isimportant, showing that GCC research is able to illuminate how changes inglobal markets, commodity chains and local conditions can, under certainconditions, lead to gains for workers.

The following investigation of labour-capital relations is informed by ErikOlin Wright’s (2000) distinction between workers’ structural and associationalpower. Whilst the former refers to workers’ position within the productionprocess, the latter refers to workers’ collective organization. The distinction isuseful because it facilitates a focus on the changing context within which workersfind themselves, via, for example, new production techniques, and their abilityto respond and to improve their position in processes of production andaccumulation.

The following sections sketch the emergence of the SF grape branch and itscomposition. I then highlight northern retailer strategies and SF producerresponses, and their effects for gains by labour. I locate those gains in a broadertheoretical discussion of the determinants of labour’s bargaining power, and thendraw some conclusions.

THE EMERGENCE OF EXPORT GRAPE PRODUCTION IN NORTH EAST BRAZIL

The focus of this paper is the grape branch located in the São Francisco rivervalley in the interior of North East Brazil (see map). This region, commonlyreferred to as the Sertão, is perhaps best known for its regular and crushingdroughts as its name suggests (Hall 1978; Davis 2001). However, from the 1960sonwards the then military dictatorship and subsequent civilian governments inBrazil began to invest heavily in irrigation in the region in order to stimulateeconomic development there. In 1960 the North East as a whole had approxi-mately 52,000 hectares of publicly irrigated land, 11.4 per cent of the national


529


Map 1 The São Francisco Valley in Brazil

Source: Nilo Coelho Irrigation District (2002).

530

Ben Selwyn


total. This increased to 261,000 hectares (17.6 per cent) in 1980 and 619,000hectares (22 per cent) in 1988 (Ramos 1990, 483). By the late 1990s in the SãoFrancisco valley alone there were over 40,000 hectares of publicly irrigated landand an additional 60,000 hectares of privately irrigated land (Selwyn 2007, 86).

The valley experienced the emergence and expansion of a major fruiticulturesector and within that a thriving grape branch. In 1991, of the total area of allcrops planted on public irrigation projects, fruiticulture accounted for 5,293hectares (14 per cent) and by 1997 for 17,336 hectares (47 per cent) (Correia andMarinozzi 1999). By 2001, the major fruiticulture crops grown in the regionwere, approximately, in hectares: mango 16,500, coconut 10,000, banana 5,500,and grape 4,500 (VALEXPORT 2002). Between 1997 and 2001, foreignexchange earnings from grape sales increased from US$4.7 million to US$20.4million (VALEXPORT 2002, 16). Between 1991 and 2000 grape export volumesincreased from approximately 1,050 tons to 13,300 tons (VALEXPORT 2002).

The principal grape-producing regions of Brazil are in the South and SouthEast whose growing seasons are mostly confined to the period between Decemberand March due to excessive rain during the rest of the year. The SF valleyaccounts for over 90 per cent of Brazilian grape exports (VALEXPORT 2002)because it is able to organize production to take advantage of periods of lowsupply in Europe, so-called export windows (see Figure 1).

COMPOSITION OF THE GRAPE BRANCH

In 2001 there were 1,407 grape farms in the SF valley comprising approximately4,500 hectares of vineyards.

3

The branch is divided between large, medium andsmall farms as follows. There were 81 large farms, above 10 hectares, comprising5.7 per cent of all grape farms with around 46 per cent of all vines cultivated.There were 201 medium farms, of between 3 and 9.9 hectares, 14.4 per cent ofthe total with 24 per cent of vines. Small farms, below 3 hectares, numbered1,125, 79.9 per cent with less than 30 per cent of all vines.

The valley’s farms sell their grapes to four main markets. These are, in orderof most stringent buyer requirements and highest prices received: UK, mainlandEuropean, top-end domestic and bottom-end domestic markets. The UK marketconsists primarily of giant (corporate) retail chains such as Tesco’s and Sainsbury’s;the mainland European market of a mix of wholesale markets and demandingcorporate retailers such as Carrefour; and the top-end Brazilian market primarilyof large supermarket chains such as Bom Preço (Dutch owned) and Pão deAçúcar (part French owned) and Carrefour (French). The bottom-end Brazilianmarket is made up of large wholesale markets, small local open-air markets andsmall fruit and vegetable outlets catering to lower-income consumers. Up to 10per cent of farms sell onto the UK market, up to 36 per cent sell onto themainland EU and top-end Brazilian markets, and up to 69 per cent sell onto the

3

This and the following data are derived from the

Censo Fruticultura 2001 do Vale do São Francisco

produced in CD format by CODEVASF, the latest available.


531


bottom-end domestic market (author’s calculation; Selwyn 2007). These figuresexceed 100 per cent as some farms sell onto more than one market. For example,some farms targeting export markets sell to both the UK and mainland EU, andalso sell produce that does not reach export standard on the top-end domesticmarket. Most large farms export. Medium farms are divided between those thataim to export exclusively, those that produce for both export and top-enddomestic markets, and those producing for the bottom-end domestic market.The majority of small farms sell onto the bottom-end domestic market.

Farms vary in their ownership structure, social origins and organization aswell as size, and scale of grape production. The majority of large farms originatefrom international and national industrial and commercial capital. For example,the French retail giant Carrefour owns three large export grape farms in theregion. Brazilian capital in large-scale export grape production include chemicalfirms from the South of Brazil and engineering firms from the North East. Somelarge farms originated in earlier agricultural cooperatives, in particular theJuazeiro Agricultural Cooperative (Cooperativa Agricola do Juazeiro – CAJ).CAJ is the biggest grape cooperative in the SF valley. In 2003 it had 45 memberswith approximately 300 hectares in grape production ( just over 6 per cent of thetotal area). Medium farms are divided mainly between private investors who

Figure 1 Major grape sales in Europe: source of origin and month of supply

Source: Information provided by UK importers and Kolla Hamburg.

532

Ben Selwyn


have entered grape production quite recently, including those from agriculturalbackgrounds such as agronomists, as well as those coming from non-agriculturalbackgrounds and members of the CAJ. The majority of small farms in the valleyare owned and managed by

colonos

: family farmers who were able to access landand settle on public irrigation schemes.

Many exporting farms, including those belonging to the CAJ, are membersof the Brazilian Grape Marketing Board (BGMB). BGMB has a quality controlteam that communicates and assists its members to produce and package exportstandard grapes. It provides packaging material and facilities, and most crucially,coordinates marketing in the UK and mainland Europe. A second significantexport channel for producers is to sell their grapes to large valley-wide marketingfirms that purchase grapes from mostly medium-sized farms for export to themainland EU market. They assist their suppliers in order to guarantee the pro-duction of export quality grapes. The majority of farms producing for the domesticmarket are not organized in such ways for marketing their produce.

Estimates of the number of workers in fruiticulture branches in the SF valleyvary. One suggests that approximately 40,000 wage workers across the valleywere involved in irrigated agricultural production in the mid to late 1990s (Damiani1999, 14). According to Daimiani, 29,000 worked in the grape and mangobranches, these being the principal export crops. In the mid 1990s, Bloch (1996,49) estimated approximately 20,000 workers employed in the grape branch alone(but did not explain the basis of his estimate). Rural trade unions and the localMinistry of Labour provide similar estimates, although accuracy of their data isdifficult to assess.

Data for individual farms suggest significant variations in labour densityaccording to farm size and market orientation. Large exporting farms employmore workers per hectare per production cycle than other farms. For example,Special Fruit farm cultivated 140 hectares of grapes in 2003 and employed 680workers in grape production (an average of 4.8 workers per hectare); Brasil Uvascultivated 100 hectares with 516 workers (5.1 per hectare); and Vale das Uvas153 hectares with 700 workers (4.6 per hectare). Of the farms I surveyed,the average on large specialized export farms was 4.7 workers per hectare percultivation cycle. These figures contrast to labour densities for medium farmsselling onto the bottom end domestic market which average 2.5 workers perhectare. Small,

colono

farms selling onto the bottom end domestic market relypredominantly on family labour and employ labour on short-term (often daily)temporary bases.

NORTHERN SUPERMARKETS AND SÃO FRANCISCO SUPPLIERS

The sourcing and retail sale of fruit and vegetables in mainland Europe andparticularly the UK has undergone a major transformation over the last threedecades. One indication of this is the concentration of retailer market share. Inthe UK the total grocery market increased from a value of £45.5 billion in 1987to £93.3 billion in 1998. Supermarkets increased their market share of fresh fruit


533


and vegetable sales from around 22 per cent in 1975 to 48 per cent in 1985, 78per cent in 1995 and approximately 80 per cent in 1999 (Rabobank 2002, 14).Across the rest of Europe large retailers’ food market share is highly concentrated– in Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland, France and Belgium, thetop three retail chains have a market share of over 60 per cent, and in Germany,Ireland and Portugal over 50 per cent (Rabobank 2002, 25).

Retailers have tightened their control over the procurement of their supply ina number of ways. Whilst in the early 1980s UK retailers procured most fruitand vegetables from wholesale markets, by the late 1990s they collaborated withimporters to procure directly from producers (Dolan and Humphrey 2000, 2004;Blythman 2004). Part of the reason for this was increasing public awarenessabout the risks of food production and marketing, leading to the UK 1990 FoodAct which requires retailers to demonstrate ‘due diligence’ in their sourcing andsales of produce (Marsden and Wrigley 1995).

Retailers’ greater market share and their sourcing directly from producersenable them to impose strict requirements on the latter. As Dolan and Humphrey(2004) note, producers are not only expected to supply a physical commodity,but also numerous additional services. In these ways, what was once a solidlyprice-driven commodity chain has evolved into an increasingly quality-drivencommodity chain. The large UK retailers just mentioned source grapes on thebasis that they meet well-defined quality standards such as bunch and berry size,berry colour, sugar levels; that they are consistent (including that grapes of the samevariety sourced from different growing regions/countries are indistinguishable);and that supply is reliable, enabling them to sell grapes 52 weeks a year. Largeretailers increasingly source produce from a list of approved suppliers thatconform to their company standards. Typically these standards cover uses ofpesticides, fertilizers and manures; pollution prevention and protection of humanhealth.

In response to these rising market entry requirements, producers in the SFvalley have transformed the production process, making it increasingly scientific,and have formulated and implemented a product and process upgrading strategyalong a number of fronts. From the mid 1990s the main exporting association(and employers organization VALEXPORT (Associacão dos Produtores deHortigranjerios e Derivados do Vale do São Francisco, São Francisco HorticultureExporters Association) – in collaboration with the state development agencyCODEVASF (Commisão do Vale do São Francisco, São Francisco River BasinCommission) and some large farms – implemented a project to introduce seedlessgrapes into the SF valley in line with northern retail market demands. Thisproject entailed research in other grape-producing regions around the world andattempts to adapt its findings to SF conditions. Whilst the processes of research,learning and adoption were initially difficult, by the early 2000s all large farmsand increasing numbers of medium farms were producing export quality seedlessgrapes.

A second important area of innovation and improvement in product qualityis evidenced by the ability of SF farms to produce larger and higher quality

534

Ben Selwyn


grapes. According to agronomists in the region, in the early 1990s farms wereproducing grapes with a 17 mm diameter. By the early 2000s UK retailers wererequiring grapes with a diameter of up to 25 mm. SF producers have been ableto enlarge grapes through rigorously scientific production methods. For example,producer organizations have quality control teams run by experienced agronomiststhat instruct members on the preferable number of bunches per vine, and berriesper bunch, as well as training them in shoot, soil and leaf analysis which contributeto raising plant productivity. Other areas of upgrading pursued by SF producersinclude market diversification (selling onto different export markets, andusing different brand names to sell to different buyers within the same markets),sourcing of cheaper inputs, and the establishment of, and training in, productionmethods required by corporate supermarkets such as meeting Eurepgapstandards,

4

and export standard packing houses.

THE ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION

The above shows that the production of export quality grapes is increasinglydemanding. How do farm owners and managers in the SF valley respondeffectively to these demands, and, more specifically, how do they organizelabour and production processes in order to produce the grapes required bynorthern retailers? This section outlines how farms design and implementproduction calendars, and how they attempt to raise productivity in variousways. By investigating how production is organized, it is possible to illuminatethe sources of workers’ structural power in the export grape branch.

Production Calendars and Export Windows

The SF valley benefits from a climate that provides conditions for year-roundproduction. An annual average temperature of 28

°

C, over a narrow range of25–30

°

C; low rates of average annual rainfall of about 540 mm; high sunshineintensity of about 3,000 hours per year; relatively dry air, discouraging theproliferation of pests and diseases; and a ready and controlled water supplythrough irrigation, enable farmers to produce all year round (EMBRAPA 2000).Consequently, they are able to produce and export to Europe when they choose,as opposed to other world market grape regions constrained by less advantageousclimatic conditions. The two principal exporting periods (windows) for SFfarms are May–June and November to mid January (Figure 1 above). To targetthese export windows, SF farms use detailed production calendars and require amanagerial cadre and workforce capable of organizing work and workingaccording to strict timetables. The following provides a stylized account ofproduction and delivery-to-market timetables.

4

For Eurepgap see http://www.eurepgap.org/Languages/English/index_html and Rabobank (2001).


535


First Window: May–June

: During this period global grape supply is sporadic.South Africa and Chile (and, for smaller quantities, India) supply the Europeanmarket between January and April and by May exports from these countries arewaning. The USA begins to export grapes to Europe from mid-June onwards,and Italy only begins supplying the European market in June before reaching itssupply peak between July and October.

Second Window: November–December

: Italian grape supply declines inNovember. Spain supplies northern Europe in October and November, and theUSA and India export some grapes to Europe during November and Decemberrespectively. South Africa and Chile begin exporting to Europe from lateDecember through to May.

SF grape farmers have a competitive advantage during the two seasonalwindows in the annual calendar of global production and supply to Europeanmarkets. Tables 1a and 1b show the two ‘typical’ exporting farm production

Table 1a. Production calendar for exporting farms: May–June window

Start date Harvest date Arrival in Europe

16 Dec 15 April 1 May23 Dec 22 April 8 May30 Dec 1 May 15 May7 Jan 8 May 22 May14 Jan 15 May 1 June21 Jan 22 May 7 June28 Jan 1 June 15 June4 Feb 8 June 22 June

Source: Interviews with farm managers.

Table 1b. Production calendar for exporting farms: November–December window

Start date Harvest date Arrival in Europe

5 July 1 Nov 15 Nov12 Jul 8 Nov 22 Nov19 Jul 15 Nov 1 Dec26 Jul 22 Nov 8 Dec2 Aug 1 Dec 15 Dec9 Aug 8 Dec 22 Dec16 Aug 15 Dec 1 Jan23 Aug 22 Dec 8 Jan

Source: Interviews with farm managers.

536

Ben Selwyn


calendars.

5

Production takes approximately 17 weeks from initial fertilizerapplication to harvest. The average time between harvest and arrival in Europeansupermarkets is approximately two weeks.

On farms that export during all eight weeks of the window, vineyards areusually divided into eight sections with one harvested each week. Cultivation ofthe first section begins in the first week of the calendar, and a further section isbrought into production each subsequent week.

Production Operations and Timing of the Cultivation Cycle

Grape production has become more complex over the last two decades becauseof the rising buyer requirements detailed above. An indication of the complexityis the relatively high number of operations involved in the cultivation cycle.Table 2 shows the operations necessary to meet the standards for the four mainmarket destinations. In the table, dark horizontal stripes denote operationsalways carried out, dark grey denote operations sometimes but not alwaysperformed, and those not shaded denote operations not performed. Column tworefers to the timing of operations with numbers signifying weeks before, duringor after the major cutting back of branches.

Table 2 shows that the number of operations per cultivation cycle that areperformed is determined primarily by export destination. Farms producing for thetop-end UK market usually require up to 34 operations per cultivation cycle,grapes destined for mainland Europe require up to 31, top-end domestic requireup to 25 and bottom end domestic up to 13 operations. Not carrying out oper-ations on time, or without sufficient attention, results in lower quality fruit. Afarm owner explained that ‘a bad pruning delays the whole cycle, leaves bunchestoo tight and can spoil the whole bunch. Also, with bunch thinning the berriesmay be touched too much by the workers, which leaves them with stains lateron, and you have lower quality berries’.

6

A high and increasing level of scientific plant management is thus required forexport production. Whilst farms have detailed production calendars, variationsin each plant cycle, depending on climatic conditions, mean that agronomistsand managers must continually monitor plant, berry and bunch growth in orderto ensure the operations are carried out at the optimal moment of the cycle.

In contrast to exporting farms,

colonos

selling on to the bottom end domesticmarket do not have access to agronomists or strict production calendars, oftenfind it difficult to recruit more skilled labour at the right time, and regularly findthemselves lacking inputs such as fertilizers and agro-toxins at the necessarymoment. As one explained ‘to produce quality fruit you need the right conditionsand those require money. We don’t have enough to invest properly and so

5

I write ‘typical’ because not all farms export throughout the full eight-week window. Someconcentrate their production and exports earlier or later in the cycle in partnership with their importers.

6

Interview with Kashaki Kabaka, CAJ, 2003.


537


Table 2. Operations and timing of the cultivation cycle according to market destination

Operation Timing ofoperations

Market destination

UK MainlandEurope

Top-end Brazilian

Bottom-endBrazilian

1. Soil analysis −12. Soil aeration −13. Chemical fertilization −14. Organic fertilization −15. Major cutting back of branches 16. Painting shoot stubs 27. Collecting the branches 28. Breaking branches 29. Agro-toxin application 210. Dry-tying 211. Dry-tying 312. Cutting back shoots 413. Application of Giberelic acid 414. Tying back shoots 515. Application of Giberelic acid 516. Cutting back shoots 517. Leaf analysis 518. De-leafing/freeing bunches 519. Application of Giberelic acid 620. Cutting back of shoots 621. Re-tying of shoots 722. Application of Giberelic acid 723. Thinning young berries 724. Application of Giberelic acid 825. Freeing the bunches + selection 826. Cutting back shoots 927. Application of Giberelic acid 928. Pruning 929. Chinese hat 1130. Cutting back shoots 1131. Repeat major bunch pruning 1232. Pre-harvest cleaning 1533. Brix (sugar level) analysis 1634. Harvest 16

Key:always performed

sometimesperformed

never performed

Source: Observations and interviews from different farms.

538

Ben Selwyn


cannot do things at the right time. Sometimes we know what we need to do butare not able to do so at the time, for example, a soil analysis which then demandsfertilizer’.

7

Hence, even when they do know how to produce high quality grapes,

colonos

often lack the resources to do so.

Raising Productivity

Farms in increasingly quality-driven chains supplying higher value markets thusrequire considerable investment in upgrading while also subject to the effects ofcompetition. The latter include some decreases in farm gate prices since the early2000s. Hence, managers need to reduce costs, including unit labour costs, whilstraising the quality, productivity and effectiveness of labour in order both to meetretailer requirements and to maintain profitability. They seek to do so througha number of productivity incentive schemes (Table 3).

Daily task targets

: The daily task target (DTT) productivity scheme wherefarms specify a daily number of tasks required of workers is most widely usedon

colonos

farms. Once workers complete these they can stop work. On farmsdistant from their homes, workers stop and usually rest until their transportarrives. Where farms are close to their homes, workers often leave once theyhave completed the operations. The DTT scheme operates better on farmswhere the workers live nearby, for reasons discussed below, and is used mostby

colonos

, albeit less precisely than on other farms.

Daily task targets plus piece rates

: The daily task target scheme is declining inpopularity on exporting farms. Instead they are using a task target plus piece ratesystem (DTT+PR) because it enables them to utilize workers’ labour for a fulleight hours per day. Workers are required to complete a given number of tasktargets daily, and after achieving this target, continue working on a piece rate.

7

Interview with Antonio Jose de Almeida, August 2003.

Table 3. Incentive schemes according to farm size and market orientation

Farm size and type Type of incentive scheme Number of operations covered by scheme

Impact on workerproductivity

Large/medium, exporting Daily task target and piece rate (DTT+PR) plus bonus and gifts

Most High

Medium/small, domestically orientated

Daily task target (DTT)

Few Low

Source: Interviews with farm managers and owners.


539


At the time of this research, export farms required their workers to perform thefollowing numbers of operations per day, before qualifying for bonus pay:cutting back shoots 100 plants, branch pruning 80 plants, tying back branches 80plants, bunch pruning 500 bunches. Many farm managers regard this system aspreferable to the daily task target system because having workers stop early oftencauses problems:

We found out that this system [DTT] was no good since it left manyworkers with nothing to do for part of the day, and they would hangaround on the farm, sometimes interfering with the work of others. Withthe new system the worker can achieve the number of operations that arerequired per day, and then continues working, and earns extra on top.

8

Choosing Productivity and Incentive Schemes

How do farm managers create, decide upon, and implement productivity andincentive schemes? Many have close relationships with each other. There areplenty of opportunities for interaction between them through inter-farm visits,and through meeting at producer organization lectures. As a manager explained,‘we speak with

technicos

(agricultural technicians) and agronomists on otherfarms and so we all know what the best productivity rates are in the valley . . .then we try to reach these rates on our farm . . . there are not many secrets here.’

9

In these ways common standards for productivity schemes spread across thevalley:

We know that a good

podadore

[pruner] can work on at least 80 plants perday, so we pay him the basic salary and then for every extra plant he workson he gets an extra so-many centavos . . . we know that this is the numberthat a good worker can achieve in the São Francisco valley, so we makesure that our workers are doing the same.

10

Improving the Quality of Work

Managers are not only concerned with increasing the quantity of operationsperformed by workers, but also the quality of their labour. Improving qualitymeans training workers to avoid waste and inefficiency, and to perform newtasks that contribute to the production of higher quality fruit. For example,pruning vines at the start of the cultivation cycle is necessary in order to producehealthy vine shoots and high quality fruit. The operation itself is physicallydemanding and designated as a job for male workers, as opposed to ‘moredexterous’ female workers (Collins 1993). However, the job increasinglyrequires a close knowledge of vines. On exporting farms it is increasingly

8

Manager, Brasil Uvas, Juazeiro, July, 2003.

9

Interview with manager, JMM, Petrolina, May 2002.

10

Interview with manager, Frutivit, Petrolina, May 2002.

540

Ben Selwyn


common for managers to carry out a shoot analysis to assess whether they arefertile or not. They then tell workers which shoots to cut off, and which toleave. A good vine pruning leaves more fertile branches from which better qualitygrapes can be grown. Prior to this emphasis on raising the quality of labour itwas common practice during pruning for workers to leave the same number ofbranches per plant. The new approach facilitates higher vine productivity, asfertile stems are identified through laboratory-based shoot analysis beforepruning. More sophisticated technology goes hand in hand with raisingworker skill levels as they are trained to understand how vines react to differentactivities.

It is also increasingly the case that workers are taught about the consequencesof the tasks they perform, rather than being told to simply carry out any particularoperation. A manager explained:

Today what is more important is their heads, rather than their strength . . .The workers need to understand which branches they need to cut back,which they need to leave, which

vara

[the shoot from which the grapebunches will emerge during the current cycle] and which

osporao

[the shootthat the grape bunches will emerge from during the following harvestcycle] they need to leave for the following harvest cycle. They are toldbefore pruning which branches to cut back and leave based on the shootanalysis.

11

Improving work quality involves greater expenditure by the farms in trainingand management costs. However, through increasing efficiency, this improvesboth the quality and the yields of the crop. It also reduces the necessity for thefurther application of labour later in the production process. Dolan and Sutherlandwrite with reference to the Kenyan horticultural chain ‘While upgrading to moresophisticated processing has increased the demand for labour in developingcountries (particularly in pack houses) this growth does not appear to be associatedwith an attendant demand for skilled labour’ (2002, 20). Whilst it is difficult todraw a precise distinction between skilled and unskilled labour, the presentresearch suggests that in export grape production integration into more quality-driven chains leads to a greater demand for relatively higher skilled workers.

Displacing Labour through New Technology

As noted above, more highly capitalized exporting farms employ more workersper hectare than less capitalized farms. However, over the last decade or so grapefarms have been able to reduce the numbers of workers they hire per hectare perannum. While comparative data from ten years ago for the farms studied in thisresearch is not available, a number of studies from the mid 1990s estimated thataverage numbers of workers per hectare on exporting farms was higher than it

11

Interview with Edwardo Shagawa, Curaca, March 2002.


541


is today. Research carried out by the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture in the mid1990s estimated that one hectare of grape production required 5.4 workers peryear (Ministerio da Agricultura e Abastecimento 1997, cited in EMBRAPA2000). Damiani estimates that ‘growers of table grapes of [high quality] employan average of . . . six workers per hectare’ (1999, 178). There is also local anecdotalevidence to suggest that there has been a general tendency on exporting farmsfor a reduction in the number of workers employed per hectare.

Whilst new technology is often used to displace labour across differentindustries there are a number of limits to this option in the SF grape branch.Operations that comprise the cycle of production are based mainly on theapplication of direct human labour: pruning branches or bunches, cutting awayflowers and young berries from the bunch or tying back and directing branches.These operations cannot be mechanized due to their complexity. As one managersaid, ‘Grapes are a very old culture, so everyone knows how to produce them.There are not many new ways of mechanising the process.’

12

Nevertheless thereare two areas where farms are introducing labour-saving/displacing methods.

Table 4 shows how a number of tasks are being mechanized or rationalized.For example, the practice of workers walking up and down vineyards sprayingvines in order to eliminate pests is less common than previously. Instead fly-netsare placed between vines to trap flies, thereby reducing labour requirements.Reducing levels of pesticide application also helps meet production processstandards now increasingly required by northern retailers.

Displacing Labour through New Methods of Vine Cultivation

A second method of displacing labour is to alter the methods of vine cultivation.The most common trellis system used is where vines are directed along the trellisabout 2 metres above the ground. At the time of research a new ‘Y’ trellis systemwas being introduced on exporting farms. Increased productivity is derived fromeliminating various difficulties workers experienced in the previous overheadsystem. Previously they had to look upwards continually, often through thevines and towards the sun, reducing their quality of vision, often leading to eyedamage, and resulting in neck and back muscle injuries. Because bunches wereabove their heads workers only saw them from the bottom up, necessitatingmore work in the packing house to get them into the shape required by retailers.In tasks such as bunch pruning, shorter workers often stood on metal stools toreach bunches and had to move them from plant to plant, in the process wastingtime. The stools were not very stable because of uneven ground and often causedaccidents when workers fell off them, or led to reduced levels of concentrationwhen standing on them due to fear of falling. The new trellis is about 180 cmhigh. Grape bunches grow down the side of the trellis rather than overhead.Bunches are never above shoulder height, making the use of stools unnecessary.

12

Interview with manager, Special Fruit, June 2003.

542

Ben Selwyn


Workers have a better sight of grape bunches, can concentrate on pruning andmove from bunch to bunch more quickly. One manager estimated that thissystem (Table 5) has reduced the farm’s labour requirements from roughly 5.5to 4 workers per hectare.

The previous analysis shows how increasing northern retailer power manifestsitself through ever-stricter product and process demands, which in turn pushfarms to increase the complexity of production methods whilst simultaneouslyrationalizing production. For farms to respond successfully they requireincreasingly skilled workers. Managers are keen to stress how workers must notonly be able to carry out various tasks well, but must be able to understand howthe tasks they perform fit into the overall process of grape production. Greaterbuyer demands, more complex production processes and farms’ demand for anincreasingly skilled workforce enhance workers’ structural power, because evenshort work stoppages can disrupt the entire harvest calendar and prevent farmsproducing export standard grapes. However, this structural power of workersin the labour process is realized through associational power, via trade union

Table 4. Labour saving technologies

Operation Old system New system How labour is saved

Agro-toxin application

General application Application according to integrated fruit production methods

Monitoring of pests/diseases allows a targeted application of agro-toxins:reduces quantity of agro-toxins and labour necessary

Eliminatingpests

Agro-toxin application Fly nets Fly nets trap pests, reduce their numbers and allow managers to identify which pests are present to target them

Applying fertilizers

Manual chemical fertilizer application

Ferti-irrigation Fertilizers applied via drip irrigation: reduces labour, increases specification of quantities and timing of application

Cutting grass Manually Mechanically Grass cut by mower attached to tractor

Soil preparation Manual digging of 1.5 m holes to apply fertilizers (deep fertilizing)

Mechanically The 1.5 m holes are dug by machines saving time and labour

Source: Interviews with farm managers and author’s observations.


543


organization and representation which gives them notable bargaining power asis shown next.

GAINS MADE BY LABOUR13

The main trade union representing workers in the SF grape branch is the STRor Sindicato de Trabalhadores Rurais, originally formed in 1963 to representsmall-scale farmers in the SF region. The 1964 military coup and subsequent21 years of military rule not only disabled much rural trade union activity untilthe abertura (political opening) in the early 1980s (Cammack 1991), but alsoinfluenced the content of trade union activity.

Prior to the coup, the STR and other rural trade unions’ main objectives hadbeen distributive land reform to benefit small-scale family farmers. An importantobjective of the military government was to remove the question of agrarianreform from the political agenda, thus limiting possibilities of rural-based revoltsand even revolution, as the 1959 Cuban revolution loomed large in the thinkingof the military’s leadership (Cammack 1991). The military coup, whilst effectivelykilling off the question of agrarian reform for a generation, contributed to a shiftin rural trade union activities towards wage and welfare issues (Perreira 1997,1999). In the early 1970s the government established limited but significantdental, medical and retirement funds for rural workers and family farmers to beorganized and distributed by rural trade unions, thus creating an importantmaterial incentive for their expansion. Brazilian rural trade unions increasedfrom 266 to 2,144 between the end of 1963 and 1980 (Perreira 1999, 10). Theissue of agrarian reform has been taken up again since the political opening, onlythis time by the Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem-Terra (LandlessWorkers’ Movement, or MST). Rural trade unions in the Brazilian North Easttend to focus on wages, work conditions and welfare issues.

From the 1970s onwards, therefore, the SF valley’s STR activities centred onproviding welfare to dryland family farmers. By the early 1980s however, andwith the expansion of the irrigation districts, the majority of the STR membership

13 See also Damiani (1999).

Table 5. Daily (task target) productivity rates according to trellis type per worker

Operation Traditional trellis Y-shaped trellis

Cutting back shoots 100–110 (vines) 150–160 (vines)Major pruning 80 (vines) 150 (vines)Tying back stems 80 (vines) 110–120 (vines)Pruning 500 (bunches) 650 (bunches)

Source: Interviews with managers on Vale das Uvas and Brasil Uvas.

544 Ben Selwyn


and leadership comprised colonos based on them. Its main activities thus shiftedtowards securing land on irrigation districts both for farmers attempting to re-settle in the region, who had been provided with small amounts of compensationafter their displacement by the state during its construction of the irrigationprojects from the late 1960s onwards (see Collins and Krippner 1999), and assistingcolonos already settled on the irrigation districts. The STR did this throughhelping them with their applications for land (many of them were illiterate),with gaining access to credit and with negotiating lower water fees and moreflexible payment times with CODEVASF. The STR’s activities then shiftedagain with the continued expansion of fruiticulture production, the emergenceof an export agriculture sector employing significant numbers of workers onpermanent contracts, and the political opening. These processes contributed tothe STR reorienting its principal activities towards improving the wages andwork conditions of workers in the irrigated agriculture sector.

The shift was greatly facilitated, and to an extent guided by the PernambucoRural Workers Federation, FETAPE (Federação de Trabalhadores Agricolas dePernambuco). Not only did FETAPE assist in the general strategic shift towardssupporting rural workers, it also played an important part in formulating theSTR’s tactical approach of focusing specifically on larger export farms (seebelow). In assisting the STR in this way, FETAPE brought its own experienceof organizing workers in struggles for higher wages and improved conditions inPernambuco’s coastal sugar zone. Damiani notes:

FETAPE had become one of the strongest rural unions in Brazil since thelate 1970s, having a large membership, a capable leadership, and experiencewith organising wage workers and negotiating with tough employers . . .FETAPE had organised the first strike in rural Brazil in 1978 (i.e. duringthe repressive conditions of the military government), [and] it had negotiatedwith growers agreements that increased wages. (1999, 185–6)

At the time of research the STR and FETAPE were both affiliated to the WorkersParty PT (Partido dos Trabalhadores).

FETAPE sent representatives and lawyers to the SF region to assist the STRin organizing the expanding rural wage labour force. During this period pay andconditions of work in fruiticulture were determined on an ad-hoc, farm by farmbasis. FETAPE representatives suggested the STR aim to introduce collectivebargaining to the SF valley based on a framework established in the sugar zone.They also assisted the STR in organizing regular broadcasts by the local church-based radio station to provide information about workers’ conditions and rightsin the valley. The STR cooperated with the local branch of the Ministry ofLabour and began holding meetings among SF workers. A former STR presidentexplained:

Throughout 1992 and 1993 we held many meetings with rural workersexplaining why we wanted collective bargaining and how we wanted towin a convensão colletiva [collective agreement] for our members. In January

Labour Process and Workers’ Bargaining Power 545


1994 we convened a mass meeting with 500 workers, and later that monthwe were able to get the bosses [organised within VALEXPORT] to sitdown with us and discuss the contents of the agreement. In February 1994we were able to sign the first collective agreement.14

The gains made by rural trade unions in the SF valley are notable when comparedto the conditions presently faced by workers across the rest of the fruiticulturesector, and to conditions on export grape farms before the implementation ofthe collective agreement between trade unions and the employers’ organizationVALEXPORT (see below). Between the establishment of the first irrigationproject in the late 1960s and the late 1980s, much of the fruiticulture sector,including grapes, was characterized by the use of child labour, harsh labourconditions and no employment security for workers.

Workers also suffered from unsafe transport to work. The labour force in thegrape branch is composed of workers native to the SF valley, and migrants fromother poorer regions in the interior. In the valley, farms hire workers from thecities of Petrolina and Juazeiro, their surrounding suburbs, and to a lesser extentfrom small villages across the irrigated agriculture region. They also hire workerswho live on agricultural settlements within the irrigation projects. Prior to theestablishment of the collective agreement, workers reached grape farms in avariety of ways. Those who lived more closely often cycled to work. Workerswho lived in the cities or in relatively distant villages or settlements faced numerousproblems in reaching grape farms, including unreliable public transport (buses),and private transport (so-called Combis – vans and mini-buses driven by oftenun-regulated drivers). Some farms provided transport for workers, but often ofpoor and unsafe quality.

As a lawyer from the STR described it:

Before we had the collective agreement, working on grape farms could bevery dangerous. Workers were transported to the farms on top of lorries,they had to apply insecticides without using protective clothing, theymight hurt themselves at work and not be able to continue working, andthen the boss would sack them. Lunch breaks were not specified, withworkers sometimes being forced to work throughout the day without abreak, and safe drinking water was not provided.15

By comparison, the conditions established in the annually-negotiated collectiveagreement are impressive. Some of the most noteworthy guarantees of the 2002agreement (signed after the 2001 strike, described below) included:

1. A minimum wage 10 per cent higher than the national legal minimum wage.2. An overtime wage established at 50 per cent higher than the hourly rate for

extra work after normal hours and 70 per cent higher for work duringholidays and weekends.

14 Interview with Francisco Pascal, Petrolina, July 2003. 15 Interview with Sidrone da Silva Neto, Petrolina, July 2002.

546 Ben Selwyn


3. A 25 per cent higher wage and provision of protective clothing and masks toworkers applying or working with pesticides.

4. Provision of crèche facilities, a paid day per month for women workers tovisit doctors, and the right for women with babies in the crèche to breastfeedfor an hour per day, over and above the lunch hour.

5. A three-month period of paid maternity leave, with the right to return toemployment following such leave.

6. The provision of clean drinking water on farms and in packing houses.7. The provision of free and safe transport to and from work (usually in buses).8. The guarantee of at least one hour for a lunch break.9. The rights of trade union officials to enter farms during lunch breaks to meet

with workers.10. The right of workers on farms to elect trade union representatives, and

protection of these representatives against unfair dismissal.

The significance of these gains is highlighted when labour market conditions inthe North East more generally are considered. Singer (1997) reports that in 1990for Brazil as a whole, for urban areas in the North East, and for rural areas inthe North East, the percentages of the economically active population outsidethe formal employment sector were approximately 48 per cent, 62 per cent and89 per cent respectively. He also notes that the figures are higher for the NorthEast as a whole because of the higher unemployment rates there compared tothe rest of Brazil, and for the rural North East because its economically activepopulation is disproportionately engaged in family agriculture compared to therest of Brazil.16

A sizeable percentage of workers in the grape branch are employed per-manently. On exporting farms permanently employed labour constitutes at leasthalf and often an outright majority of the labour force. This is in significantcontrast to other regions of export grape production, such as Chile, wherepermanent workers accounted for around 17 per cent in 1993 and South Africa,where they were 36 per cent of the total workforce in 1994 (Barrientos 2001,86; see also Barrientos et al. 1999; Kritzinger and Vorster 1995, 1996). Thisdifference can be explained primarily by SF farms’ production of more than oneharvest per year and thus lower seasonal variation in labour demand comparedto regions producing a single annual crop.

Gains made for women workers are also considerable, especially compared toother regions of export grape production and the rest of the SF fruiticulturesector generally. There are two broad and interlinked reasons for this. First,farms in the SF valley not only employ higher proportions of permanent workersthan other regions of grape production, but also a significantly higher percentageof women on permanent contracts. As Collins (2000) shows, managers considerwomen to be ‘nimble fingered’ and thus especially well qualified for carrying out

16 Available at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inst/papers/1997/dp94.



precise tasks such as bunch pruning.17 According to managers on export farms,women often comprise up to 50 per cent of the permanent labour force, andunder pressure to upgrade continuously, they are particularly keen to maintainthe employment of relatively skilled workers. Second, there are a number ofwomen in the STR leadership, including a women’s officer, both as a result ofthe employment patterns noted, and also because of the trade union’s strongcommitment to improve women workers’ conditions. Early in its campaign torepresent rural workers, the STR leadership understood that improvingwomen’s conditions was an integral part of its strategy to organize workers inthe export grape farms.

Trade Union Strategies

The gains made by rural trade unions in the SF valley were achieved throughrelatively militant tactics. A FETAPE official explained how they brought theiralready successful strategy from Pernambuco’s coastal sugar zone to the SF valley:

We developed a strategy of making demands on the farm owners [in thecoastal sugar zone], and if they didn’t meet them we would go on strikeon the same day . . . So we already had a strategy of fighting for betterconditions for rural workers when we confronted the need to improve theSão Francisco collective agreement.18

The STR adapted this strategy to the conditions of the SF valley, and concentrateson organizing workers on larger export farms, for several reasons. First, significantnumbers of workers are concentrated on these farms. Second, export farms aremuch more vulnerable to strike action than farms selling onto the bottom enddomestic market as grape quality requirements rely to a very significant degreeon detailed and well-timed applications of labour. Third, under the collectiveagreement farms are required to allow a worker to act as a union representativeonce they employ more than ten workers. Fourth, under the collective agreementfarms are required to register all their permanently employed workers with thelocal branch of the Ministry of Labour (although they are not required to registertheir temporary day workers). This provides the STR with important informa-tion about which farms have a large permanently employed labour force. Allthese factors make organizing labour on larger export farms easier for the STR,and also fits better the strategy inherited from its interaction with FETAPE. Asthe STR lawyer explained ‘We have limited resources, so it is much more usefulfor us to target the large farms, where we know the workers are, than to try andorganize workers on small farms when we don’t even know that they arethere’.19 There is another important reason why the STR avoids mobilizingworkers employed on colonos’ farms. Whilst the STR has shifted its emphasis

17 But see also Selwyn (2007) for some important recent changes in managers’ perceptions.18 Interview with Joao Griba da Silva, Petrolina, July 2003.19 Interview with Sidrone da Silva Neto, Petrolina, July 2002.

548 Ben Selwyn


to organizing agricultural workers, it still represents colonos in the activitiesmentioned above, and some of its staff are former colonos. Hence, if the STRwere to mobilize temporary workers it would create tensions and even splitswithin its own structure.20

The first strike in the SF valley was in 1997, and the biggest strike so far in2001. It lasted 10 days, during which ‘We blocked the roads with rocks and firesto stop the buses taking the workers to the farms, and we blocked the entrancesto the farms.’21 The 2001 strike centred around two issues. First, employersattempted to increase the basic wage only in line with the national minimumwage, rather than, as with previous collective agreements, at a rate 10 per centhigher. Whilst the minimum wage plus 10 per cent is an object of regularbargaining between trade unions and employers, so far it has been defendedeffectively by the former. The second issue relates to the organization andpayment of overtime, and remains a much more difficult area for the STR todefend.

A system called the ‘hour bank’ – banco das horas – had been introducedto the collective agreement in 1999, but was then withdrawn before beingreintroduced in 2002. The system allows workers to work extra hours withoutearning overtime rates, and instead to put the extra hours into a ‘bank’ to taketime off at a later date. The STR leadership was vehemently against the scheme.As one worker from the STR explained:

We do the extra hours and do not get payment for them. Then when wewant to take the days off we have to plan with the managers when we cantake them. We work extra when they want, but when we want to get thedays off it is more difficult. If you are sick, and you have hours in the bank,the patron will deduct these hours from the bank, rather than accept thefact that you were sick.22

The banco das horas is but one method used by farms to try to reduce numbersof workers hired on permanent contract, and will probably remain an area ofcontention between employers and trade unions for the foreseeable future.According to employers interviewed, they were prepared to drop the scheme inexchange for the STR’s acceptance of lower overtime rates. Hence, over the lastfive years or so the content of the collective agreement has remained similar insome areas such as the minimum wage plus 10 per cent, but has fluctuated overquestions of overtime (see also Selwyn 2007).

20 Indeed, in 1995 another organization, the Agricultural Workers Union or SINTAGRO (Sindicatodos Trabalhadores na Agricultura), established itself in the valley, claiming that it could better representthe agricultural workers of the region because the STR was compromised by its concern with colonos’interests. In 2003 SINTAGRO was representing workers in Juazeiro, Curaçá, Casa Nova and Sento-Se, but was clearly much less influential than the STR. Further research is necessary to ascertain therelative and changing influence of the two trade unions in the valley. 21 Interview with Francisco Pascal, former STR leader, Petrolina, July 2003.22 Interview with STR member, Petrolina, July 2003.



Explaining Workers’ Bargaining Power: The Bullwhip Effect

The term ‘bullwhip effect’ has emerged in the business literature to refer to howa small disruption at one point in a supply chain becomes increasingly magnifiedfurther up or down the chain.23 As shown above, the precision required toproduce export quality grapes means that even the shortest delays can reducefruit quality substantially and leave farms with below-export quality produce. Inaddition, negotiations between trade unions and VALEXPORT take place at thestart of the year in January and February (during production for the first exportwindow), adding to the unions’ capacity to disrupt production. Erik OlinWright’s (2000) distinction between workers’ associational and structural powerhelps illuminate the position of labour in the SF grape branch. The former is aproduct of workers’ collective (usually trade union and political party) organization,comprising ‘the various forms of power that result from the formation ofcollective organization of workers’ (ibid., 962). By contrast, structural poweraccrues to workers on the basis of their position in the economic system, that is,the specific power conferred on them derived from their position in the productionprocess, and their ability to disrupt it. Silver (2003, 13, 14) following Wright,divides structural power into two sub-categories: marketplace bargaining powerarises ‘directly from tight labour markets’, while workplace bargaining powerresults from ‘the strategic location of a particular group of workers within a keyindustrial sector’. She notes that marketplace bargaining power can take a varietyof forms, including possession of scarce skills in demand by employers, relativelyhigh levels of employment and tight labour markets, and the ability of workersto exit the labour market and survive on non-wage income sources. By contrast,workplace bargaining power arises from workers’ roles in tightly integratedproduction processes, where small disruptions can have disproportionateimpacts (as above).

Workers on export grape farms in the SF Valley exercise a particular com-bination of associational and structural (both marketplace and workplacebargaining) power. They benefit from their membership in relatively well-organized trade unions, in a branch of production with an increasing demand forrelatively skilled labour. In order to recruit and retain workers, the grape farms,banded in an employers’ organization, have been prepared to provide significantconcessions both to trade union negotiators and directly to their own employers(Selwyn 2007).

CONCLUSIONS

The formation, rapid expansion and integration into global markets of the SãoFrancisco grape branch is one example among many of the growth of global

23 See Alan Beattie, ‘Unchained Malady: business is becoming ever more exposed to supplierproblems’ in the Financial Times (London), 28 August, 2005.

550 Ben Selwyn


NTAX complexes and chains, associated with and partly driven by corporate,and globalizing, northern retailer power. As part of their competitive strategy,and their attempts to ensure their supply base meets their requirements, retailershave systematically transformed the conditions under which they source and sellfruit and vegetables. One plank in this strategy is to require suppliers to meet anincreasing range of standards governing production and packaging processes, aswell as demanding better product quality in the sense of larger, more uniform,relatively un-blemished and more ‘perfectly’ shaped fruit.

In response, suppliers have introduced increasingly detailed and scientific pro-duction schedules and processes of grape production and have sought to improvethe quality of their produce in line with retailer requirements. A significantpercentage of SF farms are able to produce export quality fruit to relatively highprice markets. This has contributed to the expansion of the SF grape branch asestablished farms re-invest profits, expand production and reap the rewards ofexporting, and new investors are attracted to the horticultural branches of the SFregion. At the same time, many farms that sell to the top-end domestic marketaim to upgrade to export quality grapes. The incentives associated with exportinghave stimulated the formation of numerous producer organizations that aim toassist their members to meet export standards.

The impacts of this boom on labour are contradictory (as ever). On the onehand, labour conditions and remuneration in the export grape branch aresignificantly better than at the beginning of its expansion. Whilst in the late1980s and early 1990s workers were not organized in trade unions and sufferedfrom extremely harsh labour conditions and remuneration determined solely byfarms, at present workers enjoy both representation and significant improvementsin their pay and conditions. Similarly, it is recognized by workers and managerswithin the wider fruiticulture sector that only grape farms hire significantnumbers of workers on permanent contracts. Most workers on farms producingother fruit (mostly for the domestic market) are employed on temporary, ofteninformal contracts.

On the other hand, workers are also subject to a high degree of scientificmanagement with managers attempting to raise productivity across the morehighly capitalized grape farms and succeeding in doing so. Management methodsinclude closer supervision of workers, and introduction of new technologies andtechniques to reduce labour requirements. Workers and rural trade unionsrecognize that whilst employment in export grape farms is highly sought afterin the SF valley, it is also tough and exhausting. Whilst welfare conditions ofwork have undoubtedly improved on export farms, so too has the pace andintensity of work.

Whilst it is not particularly surprising that workers are subject to scientificmanagement techniques in a highly dynamic export branch, it is worthwhilecomparing and reflecting upon SF workers’ gains compared to workers elsewherein the global non-traditional agriculture complex, as mentioned in the introduction.The production of two grape harvests per annum contributes to exporting farmsemploying relatively large percentages of workers on permanent contracts.



Rising buyer requirements have increased farms’ demand for more skilledlabour, and workers, organized in rural trade unions, have been able to takeadvantage of both their skill levels (marketplace bargaining power) and positionin the production process (workplace bargaining power) to wrest significantconcessions from employers.

The ability of workers to realize their structural power rests on their associationalpower, via their ability to formulate clear demands backed by a coherent strategy(potential and actual withdrawal of labour) through relatively militant rural tradeunions. Clearly then, analysis of the impacts of export NTAX production onlabour remuneration and conditions must consider crop characteristics, thedynamics of retailer–supplier relations through the commodity chain, and theability of labour to appropriate gains from participation in profitable exportchains – which is shaped by prior experiences of organization and struggle. Thefuture conditions of labour in the SF valley thus depend to an important degreeon the dynamics of the world grape market, including both global supply andthe (in)ability of other regions to produce during the São Francisco valley’s exportwindows; the ability of SF farms to keep up with northern retailer requirements;the (un)availability of pools of workers skilled in grape production in the SFregion; and the ability of rural trade unions to continue to represent theirmembers interests’ through collective bargaining backed up by the capacity toorganize effective strike action.

REFERENCES

Barham, Bradford, Mary Clark, Elizabeth Katz and Rachel Schurman, 1992. ‘Non-traditional Agricultural Exports in Latin America’. Latin American Research Review, 27(2): 43–82.

Barrientos, Stephanie, 2001. ‘Gender, Flexibility and Global Value Chains’. IDS Bulletin,32 (3): 83–93.

Barrientos, Stephanie and Andrienetta Kritzinger, 2004. ‘Squaring the Circle – GlobalProduction and the Informalisation of Work in South African Fruit Exports’. Journalof International Development, 16 (1): 81–92.

Barrientos, Stephanie, Stephanie McClenaghan and Liz Orton, 1999. Gender and Codes ofConduct: A Case Study from Horticulture in South Africa. London: Christian Aid.

Bloch, Didier, 1996. As Frutas Amargas Do Velho Chico: Irrigacão E Desenvolvimento NoVale Do São Francisco. São Paulo: Livros da Terra, Oxfam.

Blythman, Joanna, 2004. Shopped: The Shocking Power of British Supermarkets. London:Fourth Estate.

Cammack, Paul, 1991. ‘Brazil: The Long March to the New Republic’. New Left Review,(190): 21–58.

CODEVASF, 2001. Censo Fruticultura 2001 do Vale do São Francisco. Brasilia:CODEVASF.

Collins, Jane, 1993. ‘Gender, Contracts and Wage Work: Agricultural Restructuring inBrazil Sao-Francisco Valley’. Development and Change, 24 (1): 53–82.

Collins, Jane, 2000. ‘Tracing Social Relations in Commodity Chains: The Case of Grapesin Brazil’. In Commodities and Globalization, eds A. Angelique Haugerud, M. PriscillaStone and Peter Little, 97–112. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

552 Ben Selwyn


Collins, Jane and Gretta Krippner, 1999. ‘Permanent Labor Contracts in Agriculture:Flexibility and Subordination in a New Export Crop’. Comparative Studies in Societyand History, 41 (3): 510–34.

Correia, R. and G. Marinozzi, 1999. Dinamicas da Agricultura Irrigada no Polo Juazeiro/Petrolina. Petrolina: EMBRAPA.

Damiani, Octavio, 1999. ‘Beyond Market Failures: Irrigation, the State and Non-Traditional Agriculture in Northeast Brazil’. PhD Thesis, MIT.

Davis, Mike, 2001. Late Victorian Holocaust: El Nino Famines and the Making of the ThirdWorld. London: Verso.

Dolan, Catherine and John Humphrey, 2000. ‘Governance and Trade in Fresh Vegetables:The Impact of UK Supermarkets on the African Horticulture Industry’. Journal ofDevelopment Studies, 37 (2): 147–76.

Dolan, Catherine and John Humphrey, 2004. ‘Changing Governance Patterns in theTrade in Fresh Vegetables between Africa and the United Kingdom’. Environment andPlanning A, 36 (3): 491–509.

Dolan, Catherine and Kirsty Sutherland, 2002. ‘Gender and Employment in the KenyaHorticulture Value Chain’. http://www.gapresearch.org/production/FinalDraft.pdf.

EMBRAPA, 2000. A Viticultura no Semi-Arido Brasileiro. Petrolina: EMBRAPA.Friedmann, Harriet, 1993. ‘The Political Economy of Food: A Global Crisis’. New Left

Review, (197): 29–57.Gereffi, Gary and Michael Korzeniewicz, eds, 1994. Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism.

Westport, CT: Praeger.Gwynne, Robert, 1999. ‘Globalisation, Commodity Chains and Fruit Exporting Regions

in Chile’. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 90 (2): 211–25.Hall, Anthony, 1978. Drought and Irrigation in North-East Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Henderson, Jeffrey, Peter Dicken, Martin Hess, Neil Coe and Henry Wai-Chung Yeung,

2002. ‘Global Production Networks and the Analysis of Economic Development’.Review of International Political Economy, 9 (3): 436–64.

Jorgensen, Danny, 1989. Participant Observation: A Methodology for Human Studies.London: Sage.

Kaplinsky, Raphael and Mike Morris, 2001. A Handbook for Value Chain Research,http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/global/.

Korovkin, Tanya, 1992. ‘Peasants, Grapes and Corporations – the Growth of ContractFarming in a Chilean Community’. Journal of Peasant Studies, 19 (2): 228–54.

Kritzinger, Andrienetta and Jan Vorster, 1995. The Labour Situation in the South AfricanDeciduous Fruit Industry. Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch.

Kritzinger, Andrienetta and Jan Vorster, 1996. ‘Women Farm Workers on South AfricanDeciduous Fruit Farms: Gender Relations and the Structuring of Work’. Journal ofRural Studies, 12 (4): 339–51.

Kritzinger, Andrienetta, Stephanie Barrientos and Hester Rossouw, 2004. ‘GlobalProduction and Flexible Employment in South African Horticulture: Experiences ofContract Workers in Fruit Exports’. Sociologia Ruralis, 44 (1): 17–39.

Marsden, Terry and Neil Wrigley, 1995. ‘Regulation, Retailing, and Consumption’.Environment and Planning A, 27 (12): 1899–912.

McMichael, Phillip, 1997. ‘Rethinking Globalization: The Agrarian Question Revisited’.Review of International Political Economy, 4 (4): 630–62.

Ministerio da Agricultura e do Abastecimento, 1997. Programa de Apoio e Desenvolvimentoda Fruticultura Irrigada do Nordeste. Brasilia.



Nilo Coelho Irrigation District, 2002. Internal Report. Petrolina.Pereira, Anthony W., 1997. The End of the Peasantry: The Rural Labour Movement in

Northeast Brazil, 1961–1988. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Pereira, Anthony W., 1999. ‘God, the Devil, and Development in North East Brazil’.

Praxis: The Fletcher Journal of Development Studies, 15: 1–18.Rabobank, 2001. Fruit Traders in Trouble. Utrecht: Rabobank.Rabobank, 2002. The World of Fresh Fruit Traders. Utrecht: Rabobank.Ramos de Souza, Hermino, 1990. ‘O Impacto Da Irrigacao Sobre o Desenvolvimento do

Semi-Arido Nordestino: Situacão Atual e Perspectivas’. Revista Economica do Nordeste, 21(3/4): 481–517.

Schwartz, Herman, 2000. States Versus Markets: The Emergence of a Global Economy.Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Selwyn, Ben, 2007. ‘Export Grape Production and Development in North East Brazil’.PhD Thesis. London: University of London.

Silver, Beverly, 2003. Forces of Labour: Workers Movements and Globalization Since 1870.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Singer, Paulo, 1997. Social Exclusion in Brazil. International Labour Organisation. Availableat http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inst/papers/1997/dp94/index.htm.

Smith, Adrian, Al Rainnie, Mick Dunford, Jane Hardy, Ray Hudson and David Sadler,2002. ‘Networks of Value, Commodities and Regions: Reworking Divisions ofLabour in Macro-Regional Economies’. Progress in Human Geography, 26 (1): 41–63.

VALEXPORT, 2002. Valexport e a Fruiticultura no Vale do São Francisco. Petrolina.Wright, Erik Olin, 2000. ‘Working-Class Power, Capitalist-Class Interests, and Class

Compromise’. American Journal of Sociology, 105 (4): 957–1002.

sewlyn labor process gcc

Documents