The high street represents the realm of the female.
Steely-faced mannequins ooze attitude, mimicking the throngs of self-made style queens passing below. Fashionistas, Super Mums, high-powered businesswomen, savvy hipsters, you name it – even the retail brand directors and global buyers are women. Across the 8 years of my career as a buyer I never worked on a floor with more than 10% of employees being male.
And amongst the hordes of relentless, image-hungry consumers, flitter the next generation. These ever-younger females seek to emulate the mass of images broadcast at them every day – suggesting that to be a success is to be a beauty. To be a beauty one MUST have style. To have style one MUST shop. And what does any woman worth her salt know better than to shop?
Yep us ladies sure rule the high street. This is today’s modern society, where to be female is to communicate power and freedom through our personal interpretation of the trends of our ever-deepening jungle. We pick our tribe and represent it daily through the clothes we choose to wear. We support our faltering economy with feverous solidarity. Queens of the shops, rulers of our domain; we walk to the beat of our own drum.
But there is an irony that escapes us on an almost daily basis. There is a glaring inequality that has been born almost entirely out of the female pursuit of equality over the past 100 years.
The irony that a huge proportion of the garment workers involved in the 46 billion pound a year British fashion industry are, in fact, women. Underpaid, exploited, harassed, and discriminated against, women. They suffer unspeakable violations of their human rights, making products that will be bought religiously on the other side of the hemisphere, by other women.
The cruel truth is that very few people actually benefit from this anxiety provoking 21st Century condition. The economy appreciates the increased purchasing fundamentals and the government enjoys its now increased rate of 20% VAT from each transaction. The business owners and shareholders of the largest retailers can find themselves in the top percentile of rich lists, although the industry is so notoriously fickle even they are running into hard times.
But what of the individual consumers like you and me? Weighing down our precious wardrobes with burdensome items that are incredibly hard to dispose of, but often never worn after the season in which they were bought. For myself these purchases have often made up for 80% of my closet. Do I feel better when I buy them - yes. Does the feeling last, contributing to an increase in my quality of life - sadly, no.
And what of the individual producers like Moni, a woman the same age as myself?
Moni and I share some similarities. We are both women in our early thirties. We enjoy spending time with our family and friends. We often wonder what life would be like had circumstances been different. We feel nostalgic about our distant youth. We aspire to be greater than we are…
Moni started supporting her family at the age of 14. I spend my money as I choose. The longest day I ever worked was 13hours, usually 9. Moni works 18hour shifts regularly and begins her day at 5am. Maternity leave is standard in my workplace. Moni was not entitled to maternity leave. Instead her managers would shout obscenities at her or threaten to fire her for needing the bathroom. I receive a living wage directly into my bank the last day of each month. Moni has no guarantee she will receive her wage if business has been slow. Moni and her family’s only shelter is a fragile shack in a slum that is often flooded, where one toilet is shared between 90 people. My tiny one bed in Tufnell Park is warm and cosy.
A Cambodian garment worker is carried to an ambulance after fainting at a factory in Phnom Penh. Photograph: Samrang Pring/Reuters
OK you get the picture. But it’s not a comparative thing as my beloved boyfriend often tries to tell me. It’s true that Moni is more resilient than I am due to her circumstances. She is undoubtedly capable of working longer hours than I am. She can survive on much less money than I can and would be far more stunned by luxurious clothes, cars or restaurants. But even Moni is aware that the conditions in which she works and lives ARE disgraceful. Not just by our standards, but by hers also. Bangladeshi workers have been revolting against their humanitarian hardship since 2006. Even in their comparable standard of living – this is totally unacceptable.
So why are women funding this frenzy? Why are we comfortable exploiting vulnerable women; women suffering the same discrimination we faced ourselves in this country only 100 years ago?
When we pull on your jeans/ jeggings/ treggings tomorrow, let’s spare a second thought to the worker who stitched them, who, like Moni, works so hard to create the clothes we desire so badly. And let’s hope that for all her hard work and dedication, she’ll be able to feed her family tonight.
Add your name below to hear more about how you can take action to promote more ethical purchasing decisions.
Last year, following on from the replenishment meeting in New York we brought you the sad new that the Global Leaders had failed the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
Together, the 40+ countries, the European Commission, faith-based organizations, private foundations, and corporations pledged just $11.7 billion, short of the $13 billion the Fund needed just to continue their work at the same level they were currently and well short of the $20 billion needed to scale up their work in a way that would enable us to hit the millennium development goal targets for HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis.
Yesterday we saw the fall out from this failure. At a board meeting of the Global Fund in Accra, Ghana, the next round of grant-making from the Fund was effectively cancelled. This represents a very real and very dangerous threat to the progress that has been made over the past few years in fighting these major infectious diseases and will put the lives of millions of people at serious risk.
We know that with the right funding, the Global Fund and others can make sure that all children in the world are born HIV free by 2015, and by 2015 we want to achieve the UN target of near zero deaths from malaria. We have the medicines, skills and awareness to help end these diseases... and we have the manpower too. We know that small things can make big changes, like expanding the provision of bed nets to protect against malaria or providing basic skin tests for TB among high-risk communities.
To break it down to a few key facts:
Since 2002, the Global Fund has saved an estimated 7.7 million lives in 150 countries. It has signed grant agreements to invest $22 billion fighting poverty and delivering better health care across the developing world.
With Global Fund resources, 3,600 lives are saved every day.
Two thirds of all international funding to fight tuberculosis and malaria, and almost one quarter of the money used to fight AIDS is channelled through the Global Fund
Exceptionally low overhead costs mean that virtually all funds are delivered to the people who need them. The Fund esti¬mates that 97 pence of every pound raised goes directly to grants.
The Fund has been recognised for its leadership in transparency and accountability – all proposals, applications, grant agreements and progress reports are published on the Global Fund’s website.
DFID conducted a review of the Global Fund which found that was “very good value for money” and “critical to the delivery of the health related MDGs.”
And yet the shortage of funds that has been created through governments’ unwillingness to provide extra funding, leaves the progress that can, and indeed already has been made against major infectious diseases at risk of being destroyed. As UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon stated at the replenishment meeting last year:
If we lose the ground we have gained, we will be back to square one – all that effort and investment, lost.
We cannot allow that to happen, which is why, over the past months, we have been campaigning hard in the UK with our partners, Malaria No More UK, for the government to Fund the Fund.
Now it is more urgent than ever that we make our voices loud and clear and tell our governments that we cannot turn our backs on the worlds poorest, we cannot close the door on the progress that has been made, we cannot ignore our obligations to stand up against the injustice of poverty.
You can join our call in the UK by signing the petition on the right and sending a letter to your MP telling them of your support for the Global Fund and asking them to join you in calling for the UK to set an example for the rest of the world to follow by doubling their commitment to the Global Fund.
If the Global Fund has the extra money it needs, it will get us a long way towards saving 3 million children’s lives from malaria by 2015. Not to mention the millions more that will be helped by the Global Fund’s work on TB and HIV, so please add your name to the petition.
Any movie that makes education seem like a luxury is a film every child should see.
Every child — and for that matter, every grown-up — should see The First Grader, because in watching one human being struggle to rise from the dust of illiteracy with resolve and dedication, we not only learn to appreciate the preciousness of our access to education, we feel the profound emotional impact of realized potential.
The First Grader tells the tale of Kimani N'gan'ga Maruge (Oliver Litondo).
Maruge wants to go to school and learn to read and write. The good news is that it's 2003 and even in the remote village where Maruge lives, the Kenyan government is proclaiming education a right for all. After decades of violent strife and the casting off of British rule, education is coming to the land of the Mau Mau uprising. The only obstacle for Maruge is that he is an 84 year-old Kikuyu tribesman.
Even though Maruge can’t read, he believes he has a right to education.
When Maruge shows up to register for classes at the new village school, the head teacher, Jane (Naomie Harris), at first tells him it's impossible. The man has a thirst for learning, but the local school is already over-crowded with kids. They have no place for an old man but Maruge, himself a Mau Mau who was imprisoned and tortured for years after defying British rule, keeps dragging his stooped body back to the school grounds.
When she tells him he needs a pencil and paper, he returns the next day with supplies. When she tells him he needs a school uniform, he sits down to sew up a pair of short pants and a cardigan. Eventually she relents and Maruge — who doesn't even know how to hold his new pencil — is admitted to the school and settles into a small desk alongside people half his size.
But his fight for the right of education is far from over. The district superintendent battles Teacher Jane over Maruge's right to be there. The superintendent wants Maruge to attend a big-city adult school that is filled with rowdy teens who ignore their teachers, but Maruge wants to stay in the village school. Then the villagers turn against the old man, fearing he's taking resources from their own children.
On the one hand, Maruge is the perfect poster octogenarian for education. On the other, he's rocking the boat of opportunity by taking a seat a child might otherwise occupy and the audience is forced to weigh the sacrifices of one generation against the rights of another.
The film evolves into a story of new hope fighting to survive against instantly entrenched bureaucracy, prejudice — there are still plenty of tribal resentments — and, obviously, ageism.
Though Maruge eventually settles in at school the film doesn’t end on a typical Hollywood style happy ending. Maruge brain still burns at times with post-traumatic stress syndrome and he flashes back to the brutal treatment that caused the young Maruge to rise up in rebellion.
This isn't "The King's Speech", the British overlords are absolutely monstrous and it really hits home that the injustices in Africa are not over. Yes, it's a stand-up-and-cheer movie, but it's also a film that considers what the cheering is all about.
‘Land Grab: the purchase or lease of vast tracts of land from poor, developing countries by wealthier, food-insecure nations and private investors in order to produce crops for export.' – The Oakland Institute
The acquisition of lands in developing countries particularly in Africa but also in South America, Central and Southeast Asia has in recent times become worrisome.
The 2008 surge in oil prices which led to food shortages and consequently volatile prices in food forced vulnerable developing countries to seek foreign investments. This resulted in renewed interests in the agriculture sector by western investors and eventually to intense land acquisitions or land grab depending on who you speak to.
Thus, what started as a measure to control food prices and produce more food has turned into something of a nightmare for rural farmers and residents. They have not only lost their means of food security and livelihoods but in many instances have been forced from their ancestral homes – land is big deal in Africa as it gets passed on from one generation to the next.
We should of course not ignore the role foreign investment can play in reforming agricultural practices, stimulating economic growth and increasing global food availability. However, often it’s at the detriment of those whose voices cannot be heard because they are poor, particularly when their government or local private investors are unconscientiously handing their birth right – their culture- to foreign investors who may or may not value the role land plays in their culture. Something’s not right and measures must be put in place to ensure peoples’ rights are not being trampled upon.
A 2010 report by the observer revealed that in Ethiopia, for instance, hectares of land are being leased to rich businessmen whose sole aim is to cultivate these lands and export the produce to their countries. The report went on to question the Ethiopian governments’ sensibility – in a country with over 2 million hungry people, how can its government justify giving choice lands to rich foreign investors and countries who grow foods to feed their own populations?
According to Oxfam, large parcels of land the size of West Europe – about 227 million hectares in total – have been leased, sold or licensed in Africa to foreign investors since 2001. Although these lands are claimed by governments and others to be for growing more food for the poor and for biofuel production, Oxfam obviously isn’t fooled as the organisation found that several of the land transactions are actually land grabs. This is primarily because the rights and needs of the ‘little people’, if you will, are not being protected. In many instances these people don’t have a clue what is happening till they’re driven off their lands.
The Oakland Institute revealed in 2011 that the involvement of countries such as China and others in the Middle East in land grabs is being facilitated, knowingly or not, by two international institutions – the International Financial Corporation (IFC) and the Foreign Investment Advisory Service; both sectors of the World Bank Group. The former finances private investment in developing countries and promotes policy reforms to reduce bureaucracies that inhibit foreign investments while the latter improves investment conditions in developing countries so as to enable private investment.
‘The role of these institutions in promoting and facilitating land grabs has received little attention. However, the response of these organisations to the global food crisis is directly related to rapidly growing demand in land markets.’ – Oakland Institute
The report also went further to dismiss the idea being propagated by major players including research institutions, donor governments and international governance agencies, including the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO ) and other UN agencies that land deals are ‘win-win’ for those involved. Essentially because, excessive focus of potential benefits could mask risks and consequences that may arise, further ensuring that opposing voices are unheard.
The report finally concludes that food security is a very real problem for millions of people in the world – the 1.02 billion people who are chronically hungry.
‘These people are the rural poor, the subsistence farmers—the 1.5 billion small producers who each farm less than 2 hectares of land. These people, who are suffering most, are not the ones benefiting from land market investment.’- Oakland Institute
I think policies and regulations should be put in place and upheld without bias by institutions and other intergovernmental agencies to ensure land acquisition favours all parties involved - the investors, and the developing countries with particular attention paid to rural residents.
Water usage, climate change, environment pollution, land stress, civil unrest and increasing hunger in developing countries are all factors to consider and plan for as donor governments unwittingly lease and/ or sell out lands to foreign investors.
Developing nations particularly those in Africa should realise the potential detrimental effect indiscriminate selling off of land can have in the long term. History should not be allowed to repeat itself; diamond, gold, coal, oil, now land – we cannot allow the trend that has been seen in history to happen again. This is the very reason initiatives such as Fairtrade should be supported and endorsed.
The NUS Student Activism Conference this Saturday, 19th November will be the UK’s biggest ever student activism conference. Student Activism 2011 “aims to bring together student activists from across the political spectrum to learn, share and inspire a generation of campaigners.”
There are 1.4 billion reasons why the Global Poverty Project is excited to participate in this conference this year.
1.4 billion people around the world live on less than £1 a day. That's a figure adjusted to purchasing power - so it actually means people living in extreme poverty can at most afford enough rice, vegetables and cooking fuel to make two basic meals. No meat, no frills, nothing fancy - just two basic meals.
Then there's 7p left over for everything else in life - housing, transportation, education, clothes, healthcare.
That 1.4 billion figure is frightening - impossible to comprehend. That could stop us in our tracks - the challenge is too big, the mountain too great to climb. But there are two things when we talk about extreme poverty that are key realisations: the first is that it is about personal and individual stories; and second that it is entirely about choices and decisions.
The personal and individual stories of extreme poverty
Extreme poverty is about Joel Wiza, someone we met in Zimbabwe, who digs roots for a living. He celebrates the days he earns $2, so that he can put food on the table and maybe even buy something nice for his wife. Joel worries constantly about his three children contracting cholera, which has been sweeping through the community, because he doesn't have the money or access to adequate healthcare he needs to ensure they survive.
But when we talk about people living in extreme poverty, not all of their stories are filled with sadness.
As there are stories of Joel and many individuals like him, there are also thousands upon thousands of stories of people like Tukaeje. Tukaeje, from Tanzania, used to be so poor that she used to go to school barefoot. With the support of a great organisation, Camfed, today she is a businesswoman and a leader in her community who distributes the money she earns selling clothes to ensure that dozens of struggling children will one day have the opportunities that she now has. You can watch her amazing story below.
And that's where choice comes in.
It's a matter of choice
People living in extreme poverty have no power to exercise choice, to make decisions and have control over their own lives. I mean just imagine if you were responsible for that £1 a day for your family and a member of your family became ill? Would you pay for them to go to the doctor or would you pay to feed your family? If you pay for the doctor, then your family goes hungry. If you feed your family, you can only hope that your brother, your sister, your mother or father – whoever it is – gets better.
I couldn't make that choice.
But luckily we never really have to. We have the power to make decisions about what we do, the actions we take. Our choices can be positive - about hope, opportunity and the future. Our motivations and individual stories of extreme poverty will be unique, but we can make one choice that is the same: to join the movement to end extreme poverty.
The actions can be small or they can be massive. They all move us forward.
The Global Poverty Project is going to be at the Student Activism Conference this weekend presenting attendees with two simple ways to make a real tangible difference: to help write more stories like Tukaeje's.
Last year, following on from the replenishment meeting in New York we brought you the sad new that the 
‘Land Grab: the purchase or lease of vast tracts of land from poor, developing countries by wealthier, food-insecure nations and private investors in order to produce crops for export.' – The Oakland Institute
