Friday, November 11, 2011

Human Rights Watch Report on Chinese-Owned Mines in Zambia

Zambian Miners                     Salim Henry: Reuters
I'm currently doing fieldwork in Ethiopia (where, by the way, internet blocking, if it exists, has not stopped me from accessing my blog). I've been getting a lot of emails about Human Rights Watch's new report on China Non-Ferrous Mining Corporation (CNMC)'s copper mines in Zambia

The report details a climate of systematic violation of Zambian labor regulations, particularly regarding safety. Some people have noted that I am credited as having read a draft and "provided helpful suggestions". What do I think about the report?

First, I have a lot of respect for Human Rights Watch and their methodology: it is a deep, participant-observation, research-oriented approach to improving the human rights situation worldwide. The researcher for this report, Matt Wells, is an incredibly talented, conscientious, and careful researcher who triangulated his findings and went back again and again to check and double-check. This was not a quick and dirty job. HRW also published the response of the Chinese parent company CNMC -- the large Chinese company that owns and runs four copper mines -- which was defensive, but took the report seriously.

Here are some of my comments to HRW on the draft:
This is an excellent piece of work, obvious due diligence and care taken to get facts right, and to provide a comparative perspective with other employers in the Zambian copper mines. It’s a harrowing catalog of poor safety practices, endemic suspicion on all sides, cutting corners and wasteful, short-sighted approaches to worker relations.
The paper leaves a bit of a feeling that the rest of the mining sector is far better run and organized than CNMC’s part. No doubt that’s generally true, but workers have also complained of “serious human rights violations” at KCM (see the article below), with wildcat strikes, people being fired, and a general “chaotic” labor situation in the mines in general.
The fatality figures also suggest that the Chinese are by no means the only mines with safety problems. Matt hasn’t put fatality figures in – they are dated, but some do exist (see my blog post on The Economist article for a link to these figures.
I think the paper would be/would have been even more powerful with more direct comparisons. Chinese factories have been able to raise their standards to US standards in South Carolina (problematic as those may be from some perspectives) and Chinese mines should be able to meet Zambian standards! Dan Haglund has pointed out that the short-term mentality of a lot of the Chinese managers meant they weren't invested in the long-term relationships, training, safety, good labor relations that would be a win for everyone.
There is some context missing from the report. I didn't think it showed that Zambian copper mines are in general places with a lot of labor relations problems and where workers do not trust management to promote their interests. I sent along a link to a story of wildcat strikes at KCM, another of the large (non-Chinese) mines, which provides...
...further evidence of the chaotic nature of labour relations in Zambia's copper mines. It seems barely a single pay round can proceed without a wildcat strike, police intervention and a round of contested sackings of rank and file workers operating beyond the control of trade union leaders. The latest trouble has been at Vedanta Resources' Konkola Copper Mines, the largest of all Zambia's mining companies, and the pacesetter for all other pay settlements. Negotiations seem finally to have concluded with the two mining unions with management enforcing a15% deal after a wildcat strike and protests sufficiently serious to close the plant temporarily and lead to the deployment of riot police as workers refused to trust their own union representatives, let alone management.

In another demonstration of the reliance of the companies on the physical force of the Zambian state to maintain order, Miners were temporarily excluded from the plant and their gate passes confiscated. Police officers then picked a number of workers up from their homes at midnight. They were taken to the plant, where they were interrogated. [Twelve workers were fired.] ... KCM spokesperson Sam Equamo claimed the workers were disciplined because they disrupted operations without giving chance to their union leaders to brief them on what had been negotiated with KCM management. The workers themselves described their treatment as a serious violation of their human rights and urged the government to intervene.
In responding to me, Matt Wells acknowledged worker complaints at the other companies but said that his research still shows pretty conclusively that CNMC is consistently the worst of what can be a pretty bad bunch. A lot of the miners working for CNMC had been laid off from other mines during the global financial crisis, and were in a position to make specific comparisons on safety issues.

CNFC is actually viewed by Chinese  leaders and officials as a model company (for China), and many aspects of its work in Zambia reflect this: the decision not to let workers go during the global downturn; the decision to purchase other risky mines that had gone bankrupt, even, as Dan Haglund has pointed out, their improvements since the early years of running Chambishi mines. Their prompt written response to HRW's criticisms, while formulaic, also shows that they want to be seen as a responsible actor. 

With Michael Sata elected, it is possible (though not guaranteed) that Zambia may start to put money into its mines inspections and safety departments, that the abuses laid out in HRW's report will become exceptions rather than daily violations, and that there will be accountability in this dangerous and lucrative sector. I'm sure there will be multiple points of view on this, however, and I welcome a discussion here.
 

9 comments:

  1. I think you touch on a key point regarding western media and politics towards china. Even if report is accurate, it misses the bigger picture: that abuses happen at all companies and investors in an industry like this. If report were to compare the violations with western and african run mines, it would be more useful. Without that, it's just more demonization of China. If the industry as a whole is not compared, then why should china be singled out and why should china be kept to a higher standard when the western companies hypocritically do their bad deeds. This report is a case of truth in facts, not truth in reporting because it ignores the bigger picture and ends up given a biased and unfair view. It's exactly the kind of report that runs along the lines of propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  2. China's involvement with African countries is increasing like no other country, however. This is an important report. It's important to understand these abuses so international groups and Zambian officials can act accordingly, and so they aren't replicated in other countries.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks to Anonymous and Jenson71. While villifying China is unhelpful, it is also not helpful to overlook specific violations of local laws. Chinese companies have pledged to follow local laws and regulations and state-owned companies like China Non-ferrous Metals Corporation especially should be vigilant about this. At the same time, without comparative data, we don't know how "bad" CNMC is compared with other copper miners, or other Chinese companies. Clearly we are at the beginning of research on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ms. Brautigam,

    I was largely inspired by your work to write a Note for my law school's journal, Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems. I just completed my first draft, and I would be thrilled if you gave it a quick look over and had some comments for me. You are cited several times in my Note. I realize you are very busy, so no offense taken if you decline!

    ReplyDelete
  5. As I think I pointed out some time ago in this blog, this just shows how specific attention to China's companies in Africa may raise awareness about broader problems, like conditions in labour markets. One just hopes that HRW and other organizations bother to look at labour rights, working conditions and violations of labour laws across companies and sectors. Therefore, your comments to the report were spot-on. Working conditions tend to be quite poor even in 'formal' sectors and large companies let alone among small and informal employers.

    ReplyDelete
  6. it is possible (though not guaranteed) that Zambia may start to put money into its mines inspections and safety departments, that the abuses laid out in HRW's report will become exceptions rather than daily violations, and that there will be accountability in this dangerous and lucrative sector. nike kobe

    ReplyDelete
  7. Very interesting article, thank you for clearing up some of the anomalies from articles in The Economist. Do you know whether the UK and China suffered a break in diplomatic relations because of issues over Zambia?

    ReplyDelete
  8. ?? I don't think the UK and China have suffered any break in diplomatic relations since they were established. And if this were to happen, why would it happen over Zambia?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "With Michael Sata elected, it is possible (though not guaranteed) that Zambia may start to put money into its mines inspections and safety departments, that the abuses laid out in HRW's report will become exceptions rather than daily violations"

    In other words, the previous pro-Beijing incumbent was happy to turn a blind eye to violations in return for kickbacks. Zambian workers and business owners can't possibly be any worse off under his leadership.

    Chinese firms are profit-oriented and workers' rights and working conditions will not be a feature of any Chinese company unless local laws compel that they be so. Why do you think Chinese firms the world over always want Chinese workers shipped in?

    ReplyDelete