“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.
]]>DR-CAFTA is a regional trade agreement between the US and Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic. If approved, the agreement would further open Central American economies to US exports and foreign investors. It would reduce local decision-making and fail to ensure international labor and environmental standards.
With Oxfam's support, representatives from El Salvador's FUNDE, Guatemala's CIDECA and Nicaragua's Centro Humboldt met with US Congresspeople and their staff.
Oxfam provides grants to the Central American partners, which lobby against DR-CAFTA and educate citizens about the consequences of the trade agreement, if ratified.
"Oxfam has allowed us to do a lot of research. And Oxfam has been instrumental in helping us come to the US to say, 'We really don't want CAFTA,' face-to-face," said Mario Rodriguez, 40, an economist specializing in intellectual property with CIDECA.
It's important for US citizens to lobby their Congressional representatives to make trade fair. But it also makes a big difference when Central American civil society representatives can speak directly to the US Congress to explain how their countries' development will be affected, said Stephanie Weinberg, Oxfam America policy advisor.
In addition to providing direct support to the Central American groups, Oxfam America also fosters connections between US farmers and farmers in other countries around policy debates like CAFTA. Working with US partners such as the National Family Farm Coalition, Oxfam has funded exchanges where American farmers from the National Family Farm Coalition meet with farmers in Mexico and Central America, and vice versa, with Mexican farmers touring US farms.
The exchanges help farmers from the North and South understand each other's situation and make tangible connections, farmer to farmer, about the impacts of agricultural and trade policies on their daily lives.
"My ability to explain to my fellow farmers why we should help didn't come naturally," said George Naylor, president of NFFC and a farmer from Iowa. "Meeting with farmers from other countries helped me understand."
After hearing the stories from the Central American and Mexican farmers he met, Naylor said he realized that CAFTA would further depress prices abroad and push more farmers off their land.
Any farmer can understand that threat.
"When everybody in the family ends up working off the farm, then what you used to think of as a 'family farm'—where everyone is involved in caring for the land and producing food—can't happen anymore," Naylor said.
]]>I am writing in regard to the imminent Congressional action on the US-Peru free trade agreement, titled the US-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (PTPA). Oxfam America believes that trade can be an engine for development and poverty reduction, and we strongly support measures to improve trading opportunities that can reduce poverty. However, we also believe that trade agreements must take into account the economic and social disparities between trading partners and include rules that allow the poor to realize these important potential benefits. Unfortunately, as a recent Oxfam report indicates, the PTPA will cause greater hardship and could undermine development in Peru. For this reason, Oxfam is calling on Members of Congress to oppose this legislation.
The PTPA, as negotiated, will harm many thousands of Peru's small farmers who supply food to their domestic market, as they will be forced into an unfair competition with subsidized US agricultural exports. The agreement will limit access to affordable new medicines in Peru by unduly extending the monopoly rights of the international pharmaceutical industry. The PTPA will also restrict Peru's ability to regulate foreign investment to ensure it serves national development.
Agriculture
More than half of Peru's nearly 28 million inhabitants live in poverty, many of them in rural areas, and the PTPA will adversely affect the livelihoods of many of the poor if passed. Agriculture is the main source of jobs in rural areas, generating nearly a third of all employment nationally. The vast majority of Peru's agricultural production is for domestic consumption. The trade agreement makes permanent the export opportunities that Peru currently enjoys under US trade preference programs and will thereby benefit certain export sectors. Yet barely 8 per cent of Peruvian agricultural production is for export, only one third of which is destined for the US (coffee, as well as non-traditional products such as asparagus and artichokes).
On the other hand, the PTPA will fully eliminate tariff protection on basic crops, which the US International Trade Commission has estimated will lead to large increases in Peru's imports of US basic grains, such as wheat, rice and corn. This means that Peruvian farmers who supply their domestic market will be undercut by heavily subsidized, cheaper US imports that are dumped in Peru below their real cost of production. As a result, there is a risk that many Peruvian farmers who are no longer able to earn a living by producing basic grains will turn to coca cultivation, thereby undermining years of US foreign policy and drug eradication efforts.
It has been suggested that Peru's farmers could be compensated for the loss of their livelihoods. However, Peruvian agricultural leaders have stated that farmers would need close to $1 billion to compensate for their annual losses from the PTPA, nearly 30 times what the Peruvian government has committed to make available. This is also a far less effective way to promote development than providing full and effective safeguards for crops that are vital to livelihoods and food security.
Access to Medicines
The PTPA could lead to significant increases in medicine prices, another issue of major concern for poor people in Peru. Stringent, new intellectual property provisions in the PTPA will restrict generic competition and lead to higher prices for new medicines in Peru. Only half of all Peruvians have health insurance and about one-fifth of the population has no access to health care. Medicines account for one-quarter of all public health expenditures and 44 percent of household spending on health. People living in poverty are, for the most part, not insured and must either pay out of pocket or receive no treatment at all. Given these conditions, any increase in the price of medicines is likely to have significant negative consequences for the
The PTPA will unduly extend monopoly protections for the international pharmaceutical industry, which will mean that fewer Peruvians, particularly the poor, will be able to get the medicines they need. A study commissioned by the Ministry of Health in Peru has shown that provisions in the PTPA will increase the cost of new medicines, and the Health Minister has reported that an increase in public health care expenditures will likely be required in future years. Imposing new burdens on an already cash-strapped health care system will further exacerbate poverty and inequality in Peru. The primacy of public health over private patents has already been well-established at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Yet the PTPA ignores this by restricting the use of public health safeguards allowed under the WTO and requiring adoption of new intellectual property rules that exceed the WTO standards.
Investment
The rules on investment in the PTPA give foreign companies leeway to challenge investment regulations, such as laws to protect the environment and public health. This will undermine Peru's ability to ensure that foreign investment contributes to national development, rather than exacerbating poverty. For example, Peru's Law for the Promotion of the Agricultural Sector grants the farming industry certain tax benefits if at least 90 percent of its inputs are sourced nationally. Under the PTPA, this law could be challenged and potentially repealed. Likewise, efforts to regulate the operation of the mining industry to address its health and environmental effects could be challenged.
Conclusion
While the economic impact of the PTPA on the US is likely to be negligible, the economic and social costs to Peru will be high, especially among the poor. Peruvian agricultural exports to the US will expand little, as noted by the ITC, given that these products have already enjoyed duty-free access to the US market under Andean trade preference programs for the last 15 years. Contrary to promoting stability in Peru and the Andean region, the PTPA is likely to exacerbate the existing problems of poverty and inequality and undermine regional integration and development.
Although the PTPA has been actively promoted by Peru's outgoing president and approved by its lame-duck Congress, there is deep concern among much of Peru's population about agreement. Broad cross-sections of civil society in Peru have actively opposed or questioned the trade agreement. The PTPA was a significant campaign issue in the recent presidential elections, and the winner, incoming President Alan Garcia, campaigned on a promise to closely review the agreement's potential impact and renegotiate it if necessary.
Oxfam believes that in order for trade to truly be "win-win" for developed and developing countries, trade rules should be negotiated under the multilateral trading system at the WTO. The Doha Development Round was launched with the understanding that it would deliver on the promise of development for poor countries. A successful conclusion to these WTO negotiations that provides new opportunities for developing countries will also benefit the US by promoting more stable economies and increased purchasing power in the developing world.
Bilateral trade deals like the PTPA complicate the global trading system and divert efforts to achieve a more valuable global agreement at the WTO. Furthermore, the PTPA includes rules that weaken the ability of Peru to enact policies that reduce poverty and further national development.
For these reasons, and because of the harm it will cause to the poor in Peru, I urge you to vote no on the US-Peru free trade agreement.
Sincerely yours,
Raymond C. Offenheiser
President
I believe there are interests that we share that are very important to the work we do in Nicaragua—natural disaster preparedness work, extractive industries, and irrigation issues.
Oxfam also helps build campaign support, political understanding and meaningful participation.
We have firsthand information about what's going on with CAFTA. We are trying to provide that information to those people who don't have access to it.
We are influencing public opinion and pressuring the government to prevent the agreement from being ratified in the countries throughout Central America.
At the international level, we are trying to convince members of Congress who are undecided that CAFTA is not the thing to do.
CAFTA will have very serious consequences on the Central American environment. Even though there is a chapter on the environment in the agreement, it is not enough to mitigate the negative effects CAFTA will produce if approved.
The intellectual property rights provisions will allow exploitation of all the local environmental capital that Central America has. This chapter will just benefit big corporations at the expense of local companies and communities.
The big corporations will tap the genetic information in tropical forests and use it for their own needs. In this agreement, foreign investors will benefit to the detriment of local businesses in Central America.
Biodiversity is an area in which Central America is very rich. And those resources are at risk under CAFTA.
Another major problem for the environment is genetically modified organisms. US agriculture allows the use of these kinds of products without a problem. If CAFTA takes effect, increased trade will bring these products to Central America. Right now, these genetically engineered products don't exist in Central America. This would lead to contamination of the local resources.
We don't know what type of problems these new seeds will introduce. We don't know what consequences there will be.
After the agreement was negotiated, the nature of the activities changed. We moved from a phase where we constructed proposals to a second stage, which involved getting information to the people about what had been negotiated.
I believe that the US Congress is near a decision. It will be very tight, a very close call. So, this is a very important time. This is the time to influence the decision.
We still have to wait for the final result, but we have provided them with important information so they can make an informed decision.
]]>Oxfam has allowed us to do a lot of research. And Oxfam has been instrumental in helping us come to the US to say, "We really don't want CAFTA," face-to-face.
We believe that public opinion has been manipulated. The business sector, which is pushing CAFTA, has said that people in Central America want CAFTA. The reality is totally different
For example, in El Salvador, this agreement was approved late at night and behind closed doors. In Honduras, when they approved it, the legislature had to leave through the back door because there were protestors out front. In Guatemala, the people are asking for a national referendum even though the president says they can't afford it.
We believe that this is an important decision for the future of our countries. There has to be a national referendum so people can say what they think.
I believe that the negotiations and ratification process is totally undemocratic—because the negotiations have been carried out, and still are being carried out, by a very small group of people. We have asked the Congressional representatives in Guatemala if they understand the agreement. And they say they don't even have a copy to look at. But they have been pressured to vote in favor of CAFTA. That's not democratic and says a lot about the process.
If CAFTA really is a good thing, why do they have to hide negotiations and do it behind the people's back?
I got news of the police repressing local people who were protesting against CAFTA. I don't think CAFTA has been approved yet, but it can happen at any moment. (Guatamala's congress ratified CAFTA on March 10, 2005. The agreement is awaiting ratification by the US congress).
We lobby the Guatemalan congress. At the national level, we are part of Mesa Global, which has been leading the protests this week. We also present proposals and research on issues related to the negotiation process and the potential impact of the trade agreement. We have been working with people involved in the negotiations and ratification of CAFTA, as well as with local organizations.
I'm very sad because I feel that the future, whatever it is, will be decided here in the US. They don't have the right to make decisions about our lives.
]]>Other students held events on their college campuses. Creative ideas included a "CAFTA Carnival" that featured rigged games to illustrate unfair trade. In one, participants were challenged to shoot a basketball at a net—the distance was determined by whether they were representing a US- or Central American-based business. Students and other activists also held more formal debates and discussions with experts on trade policy. Activists held more than 250 events during the Week of Action, a significant proportion of which were focused on DR-CAFTA.
At the end of July, the day before the last debate in the House on CAFTA, a small group even staged mock tug of war before the votes on Capitol Hill to show the uneven trade benefits DR-CAFTA provides.
In the end, watching the DR-CAFTA floor vote during the last week of July was "gut wrenching," said Sophia Lafontant, Student Trade Campaign Organizer at Oxfam America. But she was comforted by the many memories of activists around the country showing such passion in their grassroots efforts to defeat the agreement.
"I have to admit that I took this loss hard. It is difficult to pour all of your energy and passion into one issue and have the outcome end up not as you hoped, especially when the impacts of DR-CAFTA are so real," Lafontant said. "However, I am consoled by the fact that DR-CAFTA passed by such a slim margin. Let that be a reminder to us that we are doing our job and that we are being effective. The impact that trade has on development was a theme in the debate."
]]>It is a stark example of the impact of HIV and AIDS on rural Zimbabwe. In addition to her own 10 children, Mrs. Nyuwani, 48, and her recently disable husband took in another dozen children. "The 12 came here because their parents passed away and they were living as street children. So my husband I brought them here," she said. "Six are of my late sister, others are my brother-and sister-in-law's kids, and the grandchildren of my sister."
This would be a tremendous challenge for anyone. But Nyuwani has a thoughtful, peaceful air about her as she takes a deep breath and describes how the family copes: "At first it was disturbing, because I thought about where to get food for all these children," she said. "But now I am used to looking after them? I treat them all the same, and share the food equally."
Survival comes down to just that: food. Nyuwani has seven hectares (about 17 acres) of farmland at her disposal, and is an experienced farmer. "I manage all this by farming, and the older kids help in the fields," she said. "During the rainy season there is a lot of work to be done, because I have to tend to the crops and the children as well."
Lack of cash and time to look for farming supplies like seeds and fertilizer make it extremely difficult for Nyuwani to plant and harvest enough to sustain the family. These constraints and the number of AIDS orphans on the Nyuwani homestead made her a candidate for the seed distribution project implemented by the Single Parents and Widows Support Network, in partnership with Oxfam America. Single Parents gave Nyuwani some seeds in November 2005, and by the end of May 2006 she had a decent harvest: she estimated growing about 500 kilograms (1,100 pounds) of groundnuts, 100 kilograms (440 pounds) of corn, and 250 kilograms (550 pounds) of sorghum.
This was an improvement over previous years when lack of seeds as well as rain diminished the agricultural yield for the Nyumanis. But the food won't last forever. "I got a better harvest this year, but it won't last until the next season since I have such a big family," Nyuwani said. "For us to survive, to the next [growing] season, two of my daughters will pan for gold in river beds near here. We will also cut back on our meals to one or two a day. We will eat sadza [corn meal] and okra—that's what we have here—no tea, no sugar, no bread. During this [rainy] season we also have some pumpkins and cow peas, but we don't usually eat them apart from the rainy season."
Oxfam America and the Single Parents and Widow Support Network are exploring possibilities for a winter garden project that would help families grow vegetables over the winter. This would help bridge the food deficit many families will be experiencing before the end of the next growing season, and improve nutrition for families taking care of chronically ill people.
For now, the food is sustaining the homestead. "I appreciate the seeds I got from Single Parents," Nyuwani said. "I was very happy with the sorghum and maize seeds I received. I am also happy with the groundnuts."
In addition to improving their diet, groundnuts are also an economic opportunity for a family low on cash with a lot of kids who need to go to school. "If you can grow more of these to sell some, you can get some money," Nyuwani said. "Some of the children were chased away from school due to lack of school fees, but I sold some groundnuts and paid for six who are now at school."
]]>September is the end of winter in Zimbabwe. After four years of erratic rains and low yields, many farmers were desperate as they headed into another growing season. Most had no money to buy seeds, fuel, or fertilizer—or if they did these essential farming supplies were simply not available due to the economic crisis gripping Zimbabwe.
Many families in Mudzi were caring for people living with HIV and AIDS, which is infecting more than 20 percent of Zimbabwe's population. This took away the time they needed to travel in search of seeds to plant and grow corn.
"For the last five years, few had been able to produce a crop," Mariga said. "People were surviving on wild fruits, and they did not have access to any grains or other sources of food."
Mariga, Oxfam America's humanitarian program officer, had no time to waste. He immediately started working with representatives from a local development organization called Single Parents and Widows Support Network, carrying out a rapid assessment of the most vulnerable families. Coordinating with special committees comprised of local volunteers, Oxfam and Single Parents surveyed the population in Mudzi and identified 5,000 families that needed help the most.
"Our criteria prioritized families with chronically ill family members," Mariga said, "Households taking care of more than two or three orphans, women-headed households, child-headed households, and those with older grandparents taking care of the young."
"Mudzi is a dry area of Zimbabwe," Mariga explained on a visit the following May. "It only gets between 300 and 350 millimeters (1.2 to 1.5 inches) of rain during the growing season. It's not ideal for agriculture and there are a lot of people living here who have to scrounge for a living, and grow what crops they can."
In consultation with farmers, Oxfam and Single Parents devised an agricultural support program that would get families the seeds they needed to plant before the rains started in November. The priority was on drought-resistant small grains like sorghum, as well as corn, pumpkins, and groundnuts (peanuts).
It was a race against time: Oxfam America and Single Parents procured the seeds and distributed them to the 5,000 project participants just in time for the rains. Suddenly, the most vulnerable families had a glimmer of hope.
"The seed package was really well received by the farmers," Mariga said. "They had something to grow, they would not have to scrounge for money to buy these inputs, and they could use their money for school fees, and health care for those who are chronically ill."
By the middle of April, the results were clear: farmers grew substantially more than in previous years, and would have more food to eat in the coming winter. "Our final round of monitoring indicated that about 40 percent of the participants harvested a crop that would sustain them until December," Mariga said. "Another 20 percent will have food until the next harvest in May 2007. This is a milestone for an area that has not been able to produce much in the way of crops for the last four to five years—it is a real achievement."
Bridget Masarauru, the program director for Single Parents, said that the agriculture program is making a big difference for the people they work with in Mudzi. In the previous years of low rainfall, Masarauru said it was common to see people faint during community meetings as the lack of food caught up with them. "People can now confidently say that they can have two or three meals a day, at least during the rainy season," Masarauru said. "This is something really tangible we can do."
David Kanjere, the elected councilor for Masahwa ward in Mudzi, was enthusiastic about the seed program. On a late-May tour of Masahwa, the second-largest ward in Mudzi with more than 24,000 people, Kanjere said this year's harvest was significantly larger thanks to the seeds and a bit of rain. "People started harvesting last month, and they are still harvesting now. Right now, people's lives are changing with this yield."
Oxfam and Single Parents are now turning their attention to helping farmers in Mudzi to store their seeds for the next season, and create ways for them to sell or exchange seeds and make them more widely available to other farmers. They will also look at ways to help the minority of participants who had trouble maximizing the potential of their seed basket in the 2005-2006 growing season.
]]>The matriarch of the family, Chisero's mother, was in Harare, 300 kilometers (about 186 miles) away getting medical treatment. She has been living with HIV for seven years'a long time for a farmer in rural Zimbabwe to survive with HIV—which makes Minor Chisero a very good daughter indeed. There is a lot of pride in Minor's voice when she says, "Yes, I am the one who takes care of her."
It is a close-knit group. "We work as a family in the fields, and we eat as a family," Chisero explained. "It is a little better now, we can eat three meals a day, compared to last year when we were only eating once a day."
The increase in food is due to an increase in crops they grew this season with seeds supplied by the Single Parents and Widows Support Network, through a grant from Oxfam America. The family had recently harvested five 50-kilo bags of groundnuts (about 550 pounds), seven bags (770 pounds) of sorghum. They were still harvesting their corn in late May, and were hoping to have as much as five bags.
This 2005-06 harvest was a lot stronger than their 2004-05 yield, when they grew only one bag of corn, three bags of sorghum, and two bags of groundnuts.
The increase in groundnuts this year is not only helping their diet, but their income as well. It is also making it possible for the children to attend school. Chisero and her sisters are roasting and grinding part of their groundnut supply to make peanut butter, which they are selling to cover their health care and school fees for three of their children. "All of the children here are in school," Minor said. "We pay the school fees by selling groundnuts, maize, and livestock."
School fees are 1.5 million Zimbabwean dollars per year, or about $US 15 at the official exchange rate. Peanut butter demands a high price in Mudzi: Chisero said they can get about a million Zim dollars for a liter of peanut butter (about $US 10 a pint).
Minor and her family are making the best of a tough situation. Although they are eating more than they were last year at this time, their meals consist primarily of sadza, or ground corn meal, the main staple food in Zimbabwe. As Chisero puts it, "Our meals are a little bit better—three meals a day, but it is still sadza in the morning, sadza at noon, and sadza at night. It is not a balanced diet."
But in between the sadza and peanut butter revenues, the family is coping for now. Chisero expects their food supply to last through September.
"This program helped us a lot," Chisero said. "If it was not for this seed we got last year we would not have been able to plant our fields, because we have no money."
]]>Last September, coffee farmers from seven countries traveled to Salvador, Brazil, to add their voices to the World Coffee Conference, a special meeting of the International Coffee Organization. The ICO is an intergovernmental organization that brings together coffee-producing and coffee-consuming countries.
The World Coffee Conference kicked off Oxfam America's campaign to influence the next International Coffee Agreement. That agreement was a key issue at the ICO meeting in London this past week, but no specific proposals were forthcoming to solve those ongoing economic problems.
Oxfam has been working to make the agreement better reflect the needs and concerns of small-scale farmers who are struggling with the changing face of the coffee crisis.
"I wonder if the participants at the World Coffee Conference know what the coffee crisis has truly meant for producers," said Pradeep Nandipur of the Karnataka Growers Federation in India.
"In my region, farmers committed suicide because they could see no way out of their mounting debt. They had no way to repay it because their income was gone."
To survive these challenges, farmers and farmworkers said they require some stability, the kind that only comes through long-term capital investment, access to markets, and political representation.
When the international price of coffee dropped to historic lows in 2001, family farmers in places like Guatemala and Ethiopia fell into crisis.
With a glut of coffee on the market, many couldn't find buyers for their crops. Others couldn't pull in enough profits to pay off their farming expenses and feed their children.
Many farmers who survived the price drop were members of fair trade cooperatives. By agreeing to certain principles, such as transparency with members, democratic elections, and setting aside a percentage of profits for the community, cooperative members received a guaranteed minimum price for their crop.
"When the prices were low, fair trade was the best market we had," said Moise Coz, administrator of the IJATZ coop in Guatemala.
Farmers who were part of fair trade cooperatives said they made enough money to buy food, clothe and educate their children, and buy more farmland. Some coops even had enough money to buy mills to process their own coffee or to help local schools buy chalkboards and desks.
But even as farmers were counting the benefits of their fair trade premium, the crisis was changing. The price of coffee began to recover, creating competition between the coops and local middlemen representing importers or mega-roasters.
Some farmers now find themselves in an awkward position. They can sell their coffee to their cooperative for less and wait a few months for payment. Or they can sell to middlemen, called coyotes, willing to pay a higher up-front price.
The cooperatives try to remain competitive by using some of their savings to pay the difference between their price and the coyotes' price. But many fall short.
They need to use their savings to pay the administrative staff or electricity bill. In the end, the best thing cooperatives can do is try to remind farmers that what goes up must come down. When the international price drops, the cooperatives will be the only ones offering a price safety net and specialized training.
"We explain why they aren't receiving the money up front. We have costs to pay off," states Guillermo Campa, President of the IJATZ cooperative.
"We tell them that they need to think about the future. Think about the price dropping like it did in the past. If they work with fair trade, they can have a stable price."
But that argument doesn't always work. "People who live day to day can't just depend on what happened in the past," said Carlos Reynoso, manager of Manos Campesinas cooperative in Guatemala.
So how do coffee cooperatives respond? How do they get their members to sell them enough coffee so they can fulfill their contracts with importers and roasters? And how does the International Coffee Organization help?
Stronger cooperatives are more competitive in a fluctuating market. In order to get there, cooperatives need access to debt refinancing, low-interest loans for working capital, long-term capital investment, information, and markets. With a voice at the ICO, small-scale farmers and their cooperatives can advocate for these interests.
At the World Coffee Conference, Oxfam America and its partners presented coffee producing and consuming countries with a declaration articulating the needs of small-scale farmers and their cooperatives. The declaration calls for these issues to be addressed in the next International Coffee Agreement.
This is just one component of a strategy to give the world's 25 million coffee farmers a real chance to do what they've done for generations—and turn a profit that makes it all worthwhile.
"We need to take advantage of this historic opportunity," said Seth Petchers, Coffee Program Manager at Oxfam America. "We can use these negotiations to put measures in place that better address what these farmers face."
]]>The discussions on the future of the International Coffee Agreement present an historic opportunity to address the ongoing crisis facing smallholder coffee farmers and farmworkers by contributing to sustainable coffee supply chains. At the 2nd World Coffee Conference in September 2005 several organizations presented the International Coffee Organisation and its delegates with the Carta de Salvador—the Salvador Declaration, which stressed the ongoing effects of the coffee crisis facing small-scale family farmers and farmworkers. This paper calls on International Coffee Organization members to support small-scale farmers and farmworker organizations by ensuring space for their direct participation in international debate, creating mechanisms that enhance the availability of market information to small-scale farmers, and maximizing opportunities to develop cohesive international strategies to provide technical support, access to credit, and direct access to markets.
]]>