Oxfam says the government has coordinated well with the National Institute of Disaster Management (INGC) in helping to evacuate more than 10,000 families in the central provinces of Tete, Sofala and Zambezia.

Around 72,000 people have so far been affected by the floods. At least 22,000 houses were submerged and an estimated 92,145 acres of crop land are affected by the floods. By far the worst affected area is Mutarara district in Tete province, where the INGC says that some 29,000 people were forced to flee their homes.

“The INGC’s search and rescue operations have been successful thus far,” said Michael Tizora, humanitarian coordinator of Oxfam International in Mozambique. “Most affected people have now been moved to resettlement sites. But with further rains forecasted throughout February many more people could still be at risk.”

For the second time in less than a year, tens of thousands of people have seen their crops destroyed. Oxfam is concerned about the long-term fate of these poor farmers.

“Donors need to be generous in the long-term, as well as with initial funding for the emergency response. People were only just beginning to re-build the little they had after the 2007 floods. They now have to start again,” Tizora said.

The flooding so far experienced in the Zambezi valley has exceeded last year's levels and some people fear it may well be worse than the 2000 and 2001 floods. However on Monday (Jan 14) the Cahora Bassa dam reduced its discharge from 6,600 to 5,500 cubic meters a second.

Oxfam is working in collaboration with the INGC and other local actors. Oxfam’s priority is to ensure that affected men and especially women and children have access to clean water and sanitation facilities in resettlement areas to avoid the risk of the spread of diseases such as cholera and diarrhea. Oxfam is currently gearing up to assist in the districts of Mutatara, Marromeu, Machanga, Govuro, and Tambara.

As part of its post-emergency program, Oxfam International is working in the resettlements centers from populations affected by 2007’s floods in Marromeu district to supply of safe water, adequate sanitation and public hygiene promotion. Oxfam is attending about 7,000 people in Chupanga, Amambos and Chiburiburi resettlement centers. Since early January 2008 another 2,500 people have sought shelter in these camps in face of the new floods.

The heavy rains and increased river levels have come earlier than usual. With several weeks of the traditional rainy season still to come, and more rain forecast for the Zambezi valley there is a risk of increased flooding. Oxfam is monitoring the situation and if flooding escalates is committed to respond. Rains have also displaced families in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

In a joint letter, the groups called on Secretary Schafer to foster a more just and equitable approach to US farm policy and volunteered to help him achieve this.

“It is difficult to defend a farm bill that perpetuates large payments to wealthy farmers, that encourages the production of crops in surplus, and that continues payments to individuals who no longer farm or never did,” the letter states. “Given current high commodity prices, it is especially difficult to support a system that promotes such inequities for farmers here and abroad.”

Congress is now pulling together conferees for the 2008 farm bill, which faces a veto threat by President Bush. The current farm bill is set to expire on March 15, 2008.

“It is critical to enact meaningful reform before the final farm bill is presented to President Bush,” said the groups in the letter. “We look forward to working with you to achieve this kind of real and meaningful reform in US farm programs.”

Signatories to Secretary Schafer’s letter include Bread for the World, Citizens Against Government Waste, Club for Growth, Environmental Working Group, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Illinois Stewardship Alliance, Initiative for Global Development, Kansas Rural Center, National Catholic Rural Life Conference, National Peace Corps Association, National Taxpayers Union, NETWORK, Oxfam America, Presbyterian Church (USA) Washington Office, Progressive National Baptist Convention, RESULTS, Sojourners, Taxpayers for Common Sense, The Minnesota Project, United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries, Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy, and the William C. Velasquez Institute.

"One part was washed out by the landslides," cooperative member Lucas Izapo told us. "Before Stan, the land was thick with coffee plants, everything was covered with coffee plants. When the landslide came, it took the coffee bushes with it. The hill was left bald, and covered in rock.

"Now I am fixing up my land, little by little. But it's not going to take a year to fix it, it'll take three, four, or more years before this part is back to normal. Because it isn't easy to build walls. This year I planted living fences with Yucca and Bower Vine. And little by little I am going to make a stone wall, to protect the coffee from the rain that falls [each winter]."

The cooperative was able to support its members with the donation of new coffee plants to replace the older ones, organic fertilizer, and $62 for each member. They needed to make this investment to care for the plants they still had left.

They cooperative also repaired the channel that drains the coffee washing stations. This was essential to renew their fair trade certification; without this certification their income would drop even more.

Like other places in Guatemala, farmers in Solola lost much of their corn. Lucas said it has been difficult to feed his family of 10.

"I had to work even harder to sustain us, because I didn't have my harvest which was lost the year before. I lost 160 to 200 pounds from that corn harvest. So I had to plant tomato and onion and sell it to buy the corn that I used to grow for myself. Little by little I was able to buy the corn—100 pounds, another 100 pounds—because I grew these other crops."

Recovering the coffee crop is not a quick endeavor. In the majority of cases it will be three or four years until the harvest is at its normal level. And cleaning up the destroyed plots of land also takes time. It is an additional task that the coffee growers had to undertake in the moments when they weren't tending to the crops spared by the storm.

The first cooperative we visited was ASUVIM, in the province of Quetzaltenango, where we spoke with the president of the cooperative, Daniel Balux. The principle problem this cooperative faced was that nearly 30 percent of its harvest was affected by black bean, a deformation of the coffee bean that cannot be seen when the coffee is harvested, but only once it is dried. It changes the color and the taste of the coffee, disqualifying it from the gourmet and fair trade markets.

Can you tell us about the black bean problem?

Actually, we detected it here at the mill. We saw that we had black beans, but we didn't think it was so extensive, we thought it was just the first beans. But as we continued with the harvest it was the same. It was the whole harvest. The coffee looked good as parchment coffee but if we look at them all—the ones with a different color, they are black beans. We can't say that our members brought in bad coffee, because the cherries looked good, they didn't even look a little rotten or anything like that. The coffee was good. You can't say to the people, look, bring us better coffee or chose it better—[but] of course when they cup this coffee the cuppers will say it is green coffee, coffee that didn't reach its full maturity. So the aid for the black bean was something necessary [to compensate for the low price]. So, what did we do after all this? Well, thanks to the help that came from you, at least the members got their normal price. At least we could say to them, 'Look, the coffee was shipped at this price, but we are going to help you a little bit and we are going to pay you this much.' The people saw that at least there was an effort behind all this."

In addition to this monetary compensation that was given to the members, what other actions did ASUVIM take to overcome the crisis?

Here 60 percent of what people earn comes from coffee. If there are problems with the coffee, there are problems in the families. Either there is little schooling, or people are unable to complete projects they had planned or there isn't much food. Here in ASUVIM we also helped out with corn. We gave each member 800 pounds of corn. Part of it we donated, the other part the members had to buy. Each family of six consumes about 1,600 pounds of corn per year. [They lost 80 percent of the harvest.] What happened with the 20 percent that they were left with? They ate it in January, maybe into February, but by March they had to buy corn. Then the problem is that when there is high demand for corn, the price rises. So we helped them with this, with 800 pounds. We think it's 50 percent of the corn they eat, we could now say that at least they had corn to eat.

The other damage we suffered as an organization is related to the landslide here next to the patio where we sun dry the coffee. With the rain, little by little, we were losing more of it. So we were faced with an emergency. Either we did something or our patio would collapse. And the more time that passed, the worse it was. So we received aid from Oxfam America because the construction is big. But it was necessary because if we lose the patio, it'd be an additional expense.. We are still constructing, but we are making the wall. We aren't doing something that is simply going to fall apart next year and then we would have to invest in it all over again. We want to invest, to spend and if that means chipping in ourselves, we do it.

"This represents economic relief for farm workers and gives them real participation and a voice," said the coalition's Lucas Benitez.

"The significant thing is that McDonald's is the largest restaurant chain in the world and the second largest employer of workers in the United States," added Guadalupe Gamboa, a program officer in Oxfam's US regional office. "And so, for a little group like CIW to take them on and beat them is pretty significant. It shows the power of consumer pressure."

Starting in the 2007 growing season, McDonald's will pay an extra penny per pound for Florida tomatoes offered through its produce suppliers to its US restaurants. The farm workers will receive the increase directly for the tomatoes McDonald's buys. The agreement also lays out a plan for CIW and McDonald's to develop a new code of conduct for Florida tomato growers and calls for the creation of a third-party mechanism to monitor conditions in the fields and investigate workers complaints about abuses.

Typically, Florida field workers earn between 40 and 45 cents for each 32-pound bucket of tomatoes they pick—a wage that has not gone up significantly since 1978, according to CIW. At that rate, working a 12-hour day, laborers would have to pick nearly two and a half tons of tomatoes to earn the federal minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. With the penny-per-pound increase, workers can earn 32 cents a bucket more.

An Oxfam America report released in 2004, Like Machines in the Fields: Workers Without Rights in American Agriculture, documented the harsh conditions farmworkers endure and how big buyers, like institutional food services and fast food companies, are buying increasing volumes of produce at increasingly cheaper prices.

"Like machines, nearly two million workers in America's fields labor without rights, earn sub-living wages, and exist in dehumanizing conditions," said the report. "Already, farmworkers are among the poorest—if not the poorest—laborers in the United States."

Added Gamboa, "In the past 20 to 30 years, farm workers' wages have been stagnant. It may not sound like much, but for poor farmworkers in southwest Florida, McDonald's decision to increase by a penny a pound the amount it pays for tomatoes could translate into nearly a doubling of wages.

They have lost value in real dollars. But the profits earned by the retail industry have gone up tremendously, and it has been profiting from the sweat and labor of the workers."

And that has translated into profound hardship for field workers, whose average annual salary in 2005 was between $10,000 and $12,499, according to the National Agricultural Workers Survey. The federal government considers an individual earning less than $10,210 to be living in poverty. The income guideline for a family of four is $20,650 a year—more than the average farm worker household earns. That figure ranges from $15,000 to $17,499, according to the agricultural survey.

Since 1993, when CIW first began organizing with a small group of workers in a borrowed room at a church, the coalition has worked hard to address the injustices farm laborers face. The message is now getting heard—at the highest levels of corporate America.

"CIW has publicized the terrible conditions of farm workers," said Gamboa. "People who pick the food don't have enough to eat. They endure terrible living conditions with between 10 and 15 people in a single trailer. And in real terms, their wages have gone down in the last 20 years."

That was the reality CIW set out to change when, in 2001, it launched a national boycott of Taco Bell, another fast-food giant that purchases great volumes of tomatoes. The company had long denied responsibility for the bad working conditions and below-poverty-level wages at the farms that supplied it tomatoes. Students, religious groups, and labor organizations all got behind the boycott, galvanizing support for CIW's cause and putting intense national pressure on the company.

Two years ago—in March 2005--CIW and Taco Bell announced an historic agreement guaranteeing Immokalee tomato pickers a penny a pound extra for the produce supplied to the chain.

"We are laying the groundwork for real change," Benitez said at the time, "both in the concrete conditions of farmworkers' everyday lives and in the market itself."

On Monday, with the McDonald's agreement in hand, those farmworkers have marked a another victory in their long, slow struggle toward equity and justice.

"Today, with McDonald's, we have taken another major step toward a world where workers can enjoy a fair wage and humane working conditions in exchange for the hard and essential work we do every day," said Benitez. "We are not there yet, but we are getting there, and today's agreement should send a strong message to the rest of the restaurant and supermarket industry that it is now time to stand behind the food they sell from the field to the table."

By seeking the right to control its most famous coffee trademarks—Sidamo, Harar and Yirgacheffe—Ethiopia aims to work with the worldwide coffee industry to build the value of its coffee ‘brands’ and give its farmers a greater share of the retail value of their coffees. Coffee is among the most valuable commodities in Ethiopia, one of the world’s poorest countries, and these rights could help lift farmers and their families out of poverty.

“Starbucks continues to break its promises to the poorest communities,” said Seth Petchers, coffee lead in Oxfam International’s Make Trade Fair campaign.“The company has branded itself as a friend to poor farmers. But when these farmers seek the right to own their coffee brands and compete in the global market on an even playing field, Starbucks refuses to support them.”

In mid-February, Starbucks issued a joint release with the government of Ethiopia stating that the company would no longer stand in the country’s way to obtain trademarks. However, since that meeting, Starbucks has balked at signing a voluntary licensing agreement and has refused to engage in good-faith discussions with Ethiopia about the trademarking initiative.

Ethiopia has continued to garner support for this project, most recently from the deputy secretary-general of the twenty-member Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa at the East Africa Fine Coffees Association meeting in Addis Ababa last month. Ethiopian farmers, in a recent statement from the Ethiopian Fine Coffee Farmers Cooperative Unions and Exporters, accused Starbucks of dodging the real issues and encouraged the coffee chain to sign the licensing agreement.

In a Valentine’s Day memo to staff leaked to the public in February, Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz stated that changes that have come with rapid growth and success also, “have lead to the watering down of the Starbucks experience.” Earlier this month, Schultz told Fortune magazine that "Starbucks is the quintessential people-based business... Everything we do is about humanity."

“If Starbucks is seriously committed to humanity, it needs to change its position and agree to negotiate a licensing agreement with Ethiopia that respects its ownership of its unique coffee trademarks,” said Petchers. “Starbucks has retailed these Ethiopian coffees for as much as $26 a pound yet most Ethiopian coffee farmers struggle to survive on one dollar a day.”

At its Annual General Meeting today, Starbucks is celebrating growth of more than 20 percent in net revenues over the past year. Meanwhile, coffee farmers struggle to meet their most basic needs.

“Is this the best that a company that is all about humanity can do?” asked Petchers. “It’s time for Starbucks to allow Ethiopian coffee farmers to find their way out of poverty instead of continuing to stand in their way.”

View a copy of the Oxfam advertisement that ran in the March 21st edition of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Seattle Times.

I was traveling with Ransam Mariga, Oxfam's program officer in Zimbabwe, and Bridget Masaraure and her colleagues Grace Tambo and Helen Dhliwayo from the Single Parents and Widows Support Network, our partner in Zimbabwe. Our mission that day in December was to visit a few of the 6,000 families that had received a package of seeds and other assistance, part of an agriculture recovery project designed to help them grow some food during the approaching rainy season.

Our first stop was Beatrice Masuku's household. Her homestead consisted of several small brick and mud buildings with corrugated iron or thatched roofs spread in a rough circle around a yard of baked dirt. We crowded under the shade of a tree and settled onto a few chairs and a mat. As we began to talk, several children peeked out from behind one of the small buildings, laughing in delight at the sight of the unexpected visitors.

The Masukus have eight children, and had taken in five orphans, children of Beatrice's brother. The family of 15 makes a living by farming and selling what they can of their crops. The children look after other people's cattle. It's not an easy life, made more difficult by erratic rainfall and Zimbabwe's continuing economic woes.

Beatrice Masuku brought out bags of seed to show us what she'd received, making several trips between her granary and our shady tree: plastic bags and packets of millet, pumpkin, kale, bean, and sorghum seeds filled her arms.

In previous years, when the family hadn't received seeds and times were difficult, she explained to us that she had to ask neighbors for seeds. "People would look around and see if they had any extra seed in their granaries," Masuku said. "They would sometimes not have any seeds or any money to give us." If that happened, she would go work in someone else's fields in exchange for seeds or money, and do whatever job they wanted—and she would then have to work in her own fields as well.

We followed Masuku out of the compound and down a dirt path that led to the family's fields. She showed us where she had already planted the groundnut (peanut) seeds that came in the seed package. The rest of her fields were already prepared for planting the other seeds. She explained that she is waiting until the seasonal rains begin before she plants the rest.

Farmers in most parts of Zimbabwe have no choice but to wait for rain. Few have any other means of irrigating crops. In recent years the rains have been extremely erratic, with too much rain that washes away soils followed by extended droughts. Lack of rain is now a brutal counterpoint to the economic crisis. When taken together it is very hard for most farmers to make ends meet, particularly those with chronically ill family members or caring for orphaned children.

Masuku says that the seeds she received from Oxfam and the Single Parents organization, plus a little she saved from last year's harvest, will allow the family to manage well over the year ahead—if the rains begin soon. She expressed hope that the first pumpkins would be ready soon so that the family can use the pumpkin leaves as an accompaniment for their maize meal, or sadza, the staple food in Zimbabwe.

After returning to the compound we said goodbye and piled back into the car. The group continued on to several other households as part of our monitoring of the Oxfam agricultural recovery project.

Tough times for farmers

The other households had stories similar to that of the Masukus: families who have taken in orphans, some of whom are affected by chronic illness and HIV/AIDS, and all struggling to survive in a country with an inflation rate of almost 1,600 percent. The declining economy means that sometimes there are shortages of everything farmers need, and other times the prices are so high that average farmers cannot afford to buy the seeds, fertilizer, fuel, and other basic inputs to run a farm. It is a serious situation in a country dependent on agriculture.

As we sat in one compound, again under a shady tree, members of the Kanjere family of 10 told us how they occasionally receive food aid but that the delivery is sporadic—sometimes they receive nothing. However, one woman in this household talked enthusiastically about the seeds and fertilizer that came from Oxfam and Single Parents. The seeds were the best types for the dry region, she explained, and because the variety of seeds in the package help them to grow vegetables as well as grains like sorghum. The pumpkins, beans, and kale fill an important gap in the period before other grains can be harvested: "In two months we will fend for ourselves," she told us.

As we drove out of the compound, the family members returned to their seats in the doorway of their house and under the tree. Fields already prepared, there was nothing to do but wait for the rains to begin.

Community gardens fill crucial needs

We ended the day with a visit to a community garden funded by Oxfam America. Community gardens help families grow vegetables in the winter season, providing enough food to survive until they can plant, grow, and harvest their next crop. The gardens require less intensive labor, which benefits those who are not physically strong, and the vegetables grown in the gardens are both nutritious and a source of income.

The garden is surrounded by a thick "fence" of prickly branches and, inside, there are many rows of long, even beds. We were visiting after most of the vegetables had been harvested for the season so many of the beds had only sparse vegetation, but the plants that remained were bright green against the dark soil.

Each garden member is given several rows to plant, and seeds for green beans, butternut squash, kale, onions, cabbage, and carrots. We stood on the packed dirt paths that divided the beds, under the hot sun, and talked to members of the garden. Each of the women and one young man we met had a difficult story to tell: being widowed, having sick children to care for, or taking care of orphaned siblings. One young ma's parents died when he was younger, leaving him in charge of his siblings. "I used to be a child heading a family, but now I am older and look after seven orphans," he said. "It's tough to look after so many orphans, and I mostly use this garden to support the children." By the end of last winter his beds were full of onions which he hoped to sell after they matured.

The garden members told us that although much of what they grew was eaten to supplement the families' staple food, sadza, they were also able to sell some vegetables. They used the income for school fees, purchase of other foods, medical expenses, and to pay for the grinding of maize. "Things are better than before because I could sell my harvest," said a young mother of two.

Since women are typically the ones interested in participating in community gardens in Zimbabwe, I asked the young man why he was a member. His response was very honest: "I am interested in gardening because of the hard times. I have a lot on my shoulders and am gardening because I have no other choice. I would rather have money to start my own business, but I also need the garden."

Emily Farr is the deployable humanitarian officer for Oxfam America in Boston. She works primarily on Oxfam's programs in Africa.

Overall, the proposal would spend an estimated US$10 billion less over the next 10 years than projected spending for the 2002 Farm Bill, which is set to expire in September 2007. Much of the anticipated savings are from expected high prices for many commodities in future years. However, the Johanns proposal actually would spend US$5 billion more from 2008 – 2012 than simply extending the existing provisions in the 2002 Farm Bill.

Download the attached file to read the full text of this report by Oxfam America employee Emily Alpert. (From Bridges No. 1, February-March 2007, published by the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.)

Billed as the first summit between the Ethiopians who produce the coffee and the US and Canadian companies that buy it, this week's meeting showcased real unity and support for Ethiopia's efforts. Ethiopia has asserted ownership of the names of its coffees so that it can increase the coffees' value, gain more leverage, and receive an equitable price in the market. Already some companies, such as Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, have agreed to work with Ethiopia on this initiative. Their representatives showed their support by attending the meeting.

"Now that the trademarking work is becoming fruitful, many in the specialty coffee market are happy with us and accept that we want to increase our negotiating power and ensure greater returns to small farmers," said Tadesse Meskela, manager of Oxfam partner, the Oromia Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union.

As the three-hour meeting unfolded, I was struck by the achievements already realized by the Ethiopians. It was clear that everyone in the room was ready to work together to help Ethiopian farmers get an equitable share of the coffees, which have sold for as much as $26 a pound in the US. The stakeholders and coffee companies left the meeting with a "To Do" list and a promise to meet again in the coming months.

It was a tremendous achievement for Oxfam's partners, three farmer cooperative unions, to sit side-by-side with private exporters, government representatives, and foreign coffee buyers, discussing ways to improve the livelihoods of Ethiopia's coffee farmers.

During the meeting, I had the opportunity to speak about the tremendous global support Ethiopia's efforts have garnered. Since October, more than 90,000 Oxfam supporters from around the world have voiced their solidarity for Ethiopia's initiative. Through their efforts, these supporters have sent a clear message that coffee companies must recognize the legitimate right of countries and farmers to use the names of their coffees and their unique reputations to compete in global markets and realize higher incomes.

While much attention has been paid to Starbucks's unwillingness to recognize this right, I left the meeting feeling inspired. The conversation has moved from whether Ethiopia has the rightful ownership of its coffee names to how the coffee industry should recognize those rights and act accordingly.

As Ashenafi Argaw of Oxfam partner, Sidama Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union, said, "Our farmers deserve a better price than they are getting right now. Let's plan and discuss ways to get them better benefits from the market."

While the Farm Bill does little to help poor farmers in the US, it actually harms rural communities around the world. After receiving massive subsidies, US cotton farms produce more than they otherwise would, and sell their surplus at less than the cost of production. These subsidies hurt African cotton farmers by reducing the world price of cotton and shrinking their share of the market. This situation is not only unfair; it violates international rules set by the World Trade Organization.

“I don't think you can come away from such a trip without some realization that our agriculture policy is shameful,” said Leo Tammi, a commercial sheep producer in Mount Sidney, Virginia. “We went to bear witness, and we've seen theft - we saw these livelihoods being stolen because of our government’s policy.”

Oxfam has been campaigning for the reform of US agriculture policies, which encourage overproduction of commodity crops, such as rice, cotton and soybeans. According to the international aid organization, the surplus is dumped on international markets at prices well below the cost of production, undermining local production, threatening the livelihood of millions of farmers and depriving developing countries of earnings and market share.

“Because of subsidies, the price of commodities has decreased to a point where the village receives no profit, preventing them from building a school, or have a health clinic, or even to invest in equipment that could improve their farming,” said Jim French, a rancher from Reno County, Kansas and an organizer with Oxfam America. “The people we met live always one drought or natural disaster away from famine and displacement.”

“The poverty struck me the most because it is so widespread,” said Ken Gallaway, a third-generation, medium-scale cotton and corn farmer from near Lubbock, Texas. “There's just no comparison between the living conditions in the US and in West Africa.”

“We have a lot of things in common with farmers around the world,” said Charlie Melander, a wheat farmer from Salina, Kansas. “Farmers in the villages we visited shared their concerns over weather, lack of rain, yields, production costs and profitability.”

“These folks are struggling and even as great as that struggle is, we were welcomed with open arms everywhere we went, which was a little surprising considering where we came from,” said Terry Steinhour, who grows corn, soybeans and cattle in Greenview, IL. “If every farmer in the US saw what we saw, it would change their opinion on subsidies.”

“I saw a glimmer of hope because they saw hope in us,” Dexter Randall a dairy farmer from North Troy, Vermont. "We may come from very diverse areas, but we all have one thing in common: the survival of the family farm, not just in the US but across the world.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: Tour participants and Oxfam spokesperson are available to speak to speak with journalist one-on-one. For more information, please call Laura Rusu at 202-496-3620 or 202-459-3739

After the ICO’s May meetings finished in London,  ICO members acknowledged this week that it was important for small-scale family coffee farmers, who produce of the majority of the world’s coffee, to make a decent living. However, the ICO failed to come up with specific proposals to solve the ongoing economic crisis facing 25 million of these producers.

“The ICO is talking about addressing issues of environmental and social responsibility – but small farmer representation within the ICO is the only way to effectively address the economic inequities faced by small-scale family coffee farmers and farm workers in the supply chain,” said Dagoberto Suazo, head of the La Central coffee cooperative and Honduran delegate to the ICO.

“Farmers’ voice in these debates is critical in creating true economic sustainability in this sector – ensuring farmers can cover the cost of their coffee production and meet the essential necessities of life such as providing food, education and basic healthcare for their families.”

The ICO first began discussing the future of its operating charter, the International Coffee Agreement (ICA), in 2005. This meeting was a chance to make real progress in agreeing on a new charter that would make solving the world coffee crisis a real priority. However, talks continue to move at a snail’s pace.

“We are asking that small-scale family coffee farmers and farm workers have equal representation in the ICO’s advisory forums,” said Seth Petchers, coffee lead for Oxfam’s Make Trade Fair campaign. “Corporate interests are represented and have dedicated forums for discussion within the ICO – so it’s only reasonable that the people who grow most of the world’s coffee also have a say in the process.”

The lack of progress at these ICO proceedings was further reflected by the organization’s refusal to allow Oxfam to attend the meeting via temporary observer status. While Oxfam was allowed to make a presentation to the council, there was no opportunity for the organization to engage in critical dialogue.

Oxfam, an international development organization, works all over the world with civil society organizations representing coffee farming communities and their concerns. Oxfam is in a unique position to propose tangible, constructive solutions based on its relationships with these communities and organizations representing small coffee farmers.

At this week’s meetings, several ICO delegations submitted statements that emphasized the need to work toward a more sustainable coffee sector, information sharing within the supply chain, and access to credit for farmers– all issues that impact the ability for small coffee farmers to make a decent living and support the urgency for small-scale coffee farmer and farm worker voice within the ICO. However, no commitments were made on these topics.

For more information, contact Helen DaSilva at +617-331-2984 or hdasilva@oxfamamerica.org. To learn about Oxfam’s recommendations for the renewal of the ICA, read the Grounds for Change report at www.oxfamamerica.org/ico.

Speaking at a food industry conference in Chicago, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns laid out for discussion alternatives related to future farm policy reform. Proposals presented included a shift of funds from marketing programs to crop insurance, rural development, conservation and farm savings accounts, targeting smaller and mid-sized farms for support programs and making USDA programs compliant with World Trade Organization rules.

"Secretary Johanns is to be commended for putting these options on the table for discussion" said Raymond C. Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America. “The current farm bill subsidy program is not helping America’s farmers or rural America, is dangerously out of step with international trade rules and it hurts poor farmers in developing countries."

The current Farm Bill is set to expire in 2007, offering an important opportunity for necessary reform and to put in place new policies that truly support those who make their living off the land. Currently, more than 75% of America’s farmers receive little or nothing from current commodity subsidy programs. Subsidies encourage overproduction, with the surplus dumped on the international market, lowering prices and undercutting the livelihoods of millions of poor farmers around the world.

“America’s agriculture policies can do so much more to help America’s farmers in a way that would be in line with our international commitments and would not hurt family farmers all over the world who are ready to lift themselves out of poverty through farming and fair trade,” said Offenheiser. “That’s why this opportunity for reform is so important to deliver a sustainable, diverse and fair agriculture system.”

Oxfam welcomed the news in light of a discouraging proposal by some in Congress for an extension of the current FB until the Doha round at the WTO is complete. The current Farm Bill is widely viewed by US trading partners and the WTO as non- compliant with current international rules, because it encourages overproduction and increases trade-distorting subsidies.

“Reforming the Farm Bill provides us with the opportunity to do better for farmers here, address global inequities and put the US in a stronger negotiating position in the international trade negotiations,” said Offenheiser.

With the US looking to increase trade with Africa and Asia as well, Oxfam and its partners knew the negotiations around DR-CAFTA would set the stage for the US free trade agenda.

"In the US, this was a symbolic vote and symbolic debate. It was about much more than US trade with these Central American countries," Weinberg said. "For Oxfam and others, it was important to draw the line in the sand to say 'stop negotiating trade rules that fail poor people.' Our message to the US Congress and administration is 'get back to the negotiating table at the World Trade Organization to ensure a meaningful outcome that addresses key concerns for development.'"

The campaign operated on several levels. In Central America, civil society groups largely barred from democratic processes worked hard to open up avenues of debate with their government representatives negotiating the agreement. They also carried out grassroots education campaigns and mobilized people from across their countries to pressure their governments to stop DR-CAFTA.

At the same time, Oxfam sponsored delegations from all six Latin American countries that are party to the agreement.

Ten groups—made up of economists, small-scale farmers, generic drug company representatives, women's rights activists, environmentalists and former elected officials—came to Washington, DC, between 2003 and 2005 to speak directly with Congress members and their staff.

"It was an education for many in the US Congress, as well as a capacity building exercise for those who participated, because the people who came up learned a lot about how the US Congress and political system functions," Weinberg said.

At the same time, elected officials in the US learned about the reality on the ground in Central America, which provided a different story than the ones they constantly heard from Central American ministers and ambassadors. In one example, Oxfam America helped facilitate visits by rice farmers from Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic last April. They met with 20 different undecided members of Congress and their staff, and helped them hear directly from farming communities vulnerable to low-priced imports from the US. Congressman Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and his staff heard this message about rice, and issued a statement to his colleagues in Congress explaining the potential for unfair trade.

"While Central American countries will be forced to eliminate import tariffs on rice, the United States will continue to maintain generous subsidies for domestic rice producers. The US produces $850 million in rice each year, but subsidizes the industry to the tune of $1.3 billion; $450 million over the market price. These artificial supports lead to dumping on the international market, distorting trade. Huge agri-business reaps the profits, as 20 percent of US rice producers receive 85 percent of price support revenues," the statement read.

"Central American rice producers face an uncertain and bleak future with an imminent flood of unfair imports."

Then there was the way DR-CAFTA was negotiated. The US insisted that the entire agreement be developed in just one year, and that the Central American countries negotiate as a bloc. This was an ambitious request, and asked a lot of countries which had little capacity to negotiate trade agreements with an economic superpower.

As DR-CAFTA was being negotiated, the countries in the region had few meaningful democratic traditions in place. The poorest and least politically connected members of society were unable to influence the negotiations. And with elite business interests dominating the input to trade ministries, DR-CAFTA was less likely to really help the poor farmers and others who really needed to experience the benefits of increased trade.

"Most of the region's organized poor were skeptical that a free trade agreement with the United States could in any way help improve their situation," said Thea Gelbspan, Oxfam America's Program Manager for Latin America. "DR-CAFTA ignored the rural poverty so many Central American farmers live with, and its claims to guarantee economic growth for the region weren't backed up by the policies it contains."

To address this concern, Oxfam America gave grant funding to a coalition of economic research and advocacy organizations working to inform the public about the details of the agreement, and seek meaningful participation by all members of society. Called "Iniciativa CID," the group included organizations in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

Members of Iniciativa CID carried out research projects to inform legislators about the concerns of farmers and low-wage workers, provided training to farmers and farm workers about the DR-CAFTA proposal, and helped bring together citizens and their elected representatives to discuss international trade and poverty.

"The rules of the game really need to be changed... as well as the content of the agreements," said Rene Rivera, an economist at El Salvador's National Foundation for Development.