Twenty-five developing countries have now signed free trade deals with developed countries, with more under negotiation, according to the report, Signing Away the Future. In total, there are more than 250 regional or bilateral trade agreements in force today, governing 30% of world trade. The US Congress is now considering new Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) already signed with Colombia and Peru, agreements which will harm thousands of vulnerable small farmers, block access to affordable medicines and favor foreign investors, according to Oxfam.
“Trade could be an engine to lift millions out of poverty, but these agreements are simply bad for development,” said Stephanie Burgos, Trade Policy Advisor for Oxfam America. “Agreements such as the ones with Peru and Colombia will only exacerbate poverty in countries by imposing hardships on developing country farmers, making access to affordable medicines more difficult, and constraining the kinds of policies developing country governments should enact to protect their own citizens and fight poverty.”
The poorest people in developing countries often bear the brunt of FTAs, as seen in the case of Mexico and the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In the first ten years after the agreement was enacted, Mexico lost 1.3 million agricultural jobs, according to the report. Manufacturing jobs were initially created but competition from cheap labor in China led to 200,000 job losses between 2001 and 2004 as firms relocated. In Peru, studies show that up to 900,000 people could be left without access to medicines if the US-Peru trade agreement goes ahead.
“Mexico has already suffered the initial impacts of the NAFTA—I saw it first hand when I met with small-scale producers of corn in Chiapas - and it will be worse if they fully liberalize the market for corn, beans and rice,” said Mexican actor Gael Garcia Bernal who has been working with Oxfam’s Make Trade Fair Campaign. “These agreements demonstrate the absence of political will to transform trade into a tool in the fight against poverty.”
The Oxfam report recommends that all trade rules, whether multilateral, regional or bilateral:
“Here in Washington, Congress should develop a new framework of objectives and priorities for US trade policy to ensure that it is not a tool strictly for advancing mercantile US business interests, but for shared prosperity, increased integration, and cooperation,” said Burgos. “Congress should recognize the dangers of such bilateral agreements and quickly vote to reject them.”
]]>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.)
]]>Two institutional investor organizations have joined Oxfam and other campaigners in criticizing Novartis as the company holds its annual general meeting in Basel today (Mar 6).
Dan Rosan from the US-based Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR), an association of 275 faith-based institutional investors and with $110 billion in collective assets, said: “Novartis has substantially invested in neglected disease research, policy development, and stakeholder engagement, differentiating itself from the rest of the pharmaceutical industry. Now, their actions in this case are undermining that record. Novartis’s legal tactics in this case have raised the stakes higher than the several thousand Indian patients relying on Glivec, to involve the millions of people kept alive today by generic AIDS drugs from India.”
Alex van der Velden from FairPensions, a British-based campaign for responsible investment, said: “Novartis is threatening its own future profits as well as access to medicines, putting at risk its reputation in key emerging markets and undermining public acceptance of the intellectual property regime on which pharmaceutical profits depend.”
Oxfam says that the Novartis case threatens access to affordable medicines for millions of poor people in developing countries. Novartis is suing the Indian government in an effort to ratchet up patent protection in India by eliminating the legitimate public health provisions in the country’s patent law. The specifics of the case center around a patent on the Novartis cancer drug Glivec.
Oxfam says that Novartis cannot pursue the case while continuing to tout its charitable credentials. A number of petitions have been set up by campaigners against Novartis and nearly 400,000 people have signed. More investors are starting to question Novartis’s policy on this case and the risk it is taking with its reputation.
“Novartis wants ‘good news’ headlines about its sales figures or its drugs pipeline or its philanthropy. But the real headline is about the company attacking how some of the poorest people in the world are getting affordable medicines,” said Celine Charveriat, head of Oxfam’s Make Trade Fair campaign. “Novartis should do the right thing and drop its case today.”
Julien Reinhard from the Berne Declaration said: “The Novartis case in India goes beyond the case of anticancer medicine Glivec because it is directly challenging an internationally recognized public health safeguard. This has consequences far beyond India alone. The concerns expressed by the former President of the Swiss Confederation Ruth Dreifuss and South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, along with thousands of campaigners worldwide, deserve to be taken seriously by the company. It is time for Novartis to show corporate responsibility by dropping its case in India.”
]]>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."
]]>The current ICA expires in September 2007. Negotiations regarding the next ICA are an excellent opportunity to implement policies to advance international cooperation on the development of a more sustainable, participatory, and equitable coffee supply chain. Oxfam urges reforms along three general themes:
In 2005, cancer patient groups in India used Indian intellectual property law to stop a patent application by Swiss company Novartis for its anti-cancer drug, Glivec. This allowed Indian companies to continue making generic versions at about $2,700 a year, as opposed to Novartis having a monopoly priced version for sale at about $27,000 a year.
Novartis recently appealed the decision in a direct challenge to India's right to use safeguards contained in trade rules agreed by the WTO in 2001 in the interests of public health.
What is Glivec?
Glivec (Gleevec in the US) is an important drug that means the difference between life and death for cancer patients suffering from leukemia (CML), stomach tumors, and other conditions. Glivec is a significant improvement over other forms of treatment and should be as widely available as possible, at affordable prices.
Why is Novartis enforcing its patent on Glivec in India and in other in developing countries?
Glivec is a key drug for Novartis worldwide. It's the company's second best selling drug with sales reaching $2.8 billion in 2005 and accounts for 9.6 per cent of Novartis's estimated share value. Research indicates that there are multiple diseases that respond to the drug. In only five years, Glivec is now approved in the US for seven different diseases. There is a danger that the company could apply for a new patent based on these "new uses" elsewhere, which would extend its monopoly and delay availability of affordable generic versions of Glivec for people who need it.
Novartis says that there is virtually no commercial market for Glivec in India and that it is taking the case in part to "align Indian IP laws with TRIPS", The World Trade Organization's agreement on intellectual property. This action is one that will affect India's right to produce not only generic versions of Glivec but also for other new medicines in the future.
What would happen if Novartis were successful in its appeal?
Not only would it increase the price of the drug it would also jeopardize India's generic export industry. India is the world's leading supplier of inexpensive generic medicines to developing countries with approximately 67 percent of its exports going to developing countries. As a result people needing cheaper versions of medicines in many developing countries would lose out.
Oxfam believes that generic competition reduces the price of many patented medicines and makes them much more affordable to poor people in developing countries. Lower prices via generic competition could ensure free or subsidized medicines for millions of poor people through increased public sector funding for health, through health insurance and because many poor people are willing to pay out of pocket for medicines because the health and well being of themselves and their family a top priority.
]]>Intellectual property is knowledge which societies have decided can be assigned specific property rights to either individuals, companies or organizations. It allows people, companies and organizations to own their creativity or innovation in the same way they can own physical property.
Intellectual property includes inventions, literary and artistic works, symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce.
The owner or creator has the right to prevent others to use his property during a limited period of time.
A patent is a legal creation describing "ownership" of an invention. Patents are issued by individual governments and are meant to benefit both the inventor and the society at large. Patents provide the inventor with a temporary right to produce and sell their invention without the threat of competition. This monopoly results in higher prices which provide incentives for inventors.
A Trademark is ownership over product names or brand identity e.g. NIKE and PUMA. This allows for a distiction to be made between different traders of goods and services
Copyright is ownership over creative materials such as literature, art, music and films, sound recordings, software and multimedia. Copyrights usually provide the author or creator with lifetime ownership over their own materials.
These give ownership protection over designs for a product's appearance and can last up to 25 years.
Developing countries, taken as a whole, are net importers of technology and new inventions, most of which are supplied by the developed countries. Companies and organisations in developed countries own the overwhelming proportion of patent rights worldwide.
It is widely recognized that knowledge is essential for development, and that developing countries have much to gain if they are to fully exploit the many opportunities opened up by new technologies. However, increasingly restrictive intellectual property rights are limiting the benefits that new technologies can bring to developing countries.
Fact: Between 1991 and 2001, the net US surplus of royalties and fees (which mainly relate to IP transactions) increased from $14 billion to over $22 billion. In 1999, figures from the World Bank indicate a deficit for developing countries for which figures are available of $7.5 billion on royalties and license fees.
The challenge is for developing countries to use Intellectual property to their own benefit. Only under 2 percent of patent applications in the US in year 1999-2001 came from developing countries.
A reason for that is the lack of capacity for most developing countries to generate their own inventions. To build their capacity, they need to be able first to use other people's inventions, hence their need to have access to cheap technology to kick start their own development. The current IP system is too rigid to cater for these development priorities and needs to be reformed.
Another reason is that the current system does not help developing countries benefit from their own assets and resources. Their traditional knowledge in medicines, their genetic resources, or the names of high-quality products are often patented by foreign companies, which capture all the gains without having to return a fair share of their profits to the origin countries and populations.
A clear illustration of this problem is Ethiopia's Sidamo coffee, which is one of the best coffees in the world. Whilst earning coffee companies higher prices due to its quality and name, it still fails to produce enough returns for coffee farmers to make a decent living. The Ethiopian government wants to trademark this and other Ethiopian coffee names, to build its coffee industry and help its own farmers. However, this trademark is being opposed in the United States by the National Coffee Association of America, of which Starbucks is a member.
Fact: In 2001, less than 1 percent of US patents were granted to applicants from developing countries, nearly 60 percent of which were from seven of the more technologically advanced developing countries.
R&D expenditure is heavily concentrated in developed countries, and in a few of the more technologically advanced developing countries. Few developing countries have been able to develop a strong indigenous technological capability. This means that it is difficult either for them to develop their own technology, or to assimilate technology from developed countries.
Fact: In sub-Saharan Africa in 1998 (excluding South Africa), 35 patents were granted to residents compared to 741 for non-residents. By contrast in Korea, 35,900 patents were issued to residents, compared to 16,990 to non-residents. In the US, the corresponding figures were 80,292 and 67,228.
]]>Following a traditional coffee ceremony featuring some of Ethiopia's finest coffees—Harar, Sidamo, and Yirgacheffe—the farmers said they wanted the opportunity to make more money off the coffees they cultivate, which command such high prices among consumers.
While Starbucks charges as much as $26 a pound for Ethiopian specialty coffees, Ethiopian coffee farmers get only 5-10 percent of that price. For this reason, Ethiopia has asked Starbucks to sign a trademark agreement that would give Ethiopia the ability to control the use of its coffee names, occupy a stronger negotiating position with foreign buyers, and capture a larger share of the market.
"Just because I'm a farmer, don't think that I don't understand what's happening in the global market," said Tadesse Terro, who traveled from Yirgacheffe to speak out. "I do listen to the radio and I know how much my coffee retails for overseas. The money I earn for my hard work does not come close."
More than 200 people came to the Sheraton hotel in Addis Ababa to attend the coffee ceremony. Government officials and diplomats joined community activists and farmers. Each person signed a petition asking Starbucks to honor its commitment to Ethiopian coffee farmers by recognizing the country's ownership of its coffee names.
One farmer, 85-year-old Gemede Robe, left his Abaya district hometown for the first time to attend the event. Unable to read and write, he signed the Starbucks petition with his fingerprint.
Robe became the face behind Ethiopia's trademark initiative late last year when Oxfam began using his photograph to publicize the campaign.
"Like any other human being, we Ethiopians hold our names very dear," Robe said. "If given the opportunity to speak with people at the big company (Starbucks), I would ask them why they're resisting us owning our coffee names. I am sure they know, as the whole world does, that our coffees are some of the best in the world. But why are they refusing to give us the recognition we deserve?"
Oxfam is part of a broad coalition calling on Starbucks to sign a trademark agreement with Ethiopia. More than 89,000 people in 70 countries have already joined the campaign. Earlier in December, activists from New Zealand to Scotland to the US demonstrated outside of Starbucks stores. The coffee ceremony in Addis Ababa represented the culmination of these global actions.
]]>But lately that medicine has become harder to come by as pharmaceutical corporations have priced poor people out of the market. Five years after the World Trade Organization's members unanimously reaffirmed developing countries' rights to produce, export, and import affordable copies of patented drugs, rich country governments keep breaking their promises.
Countries like the US are forcing developing nations to accept free trade agreements that violate the spirit of the WTO's decision on medicine patents. The provisions contained in US-negotiated free trade agreements would restrict the availability of generic drugs; people who can't afford brand-name medicines for infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS or for chronic illnesses like diabetes or heart disease would have to go without.
This fall, Oxfam's partner, the Educational Network for Global and Grassroots Exchange, brought three Thai HIV/AIDS activists to New York, Washington DC, Pennsylvania, Texas, Illinois, Minnesota and California to speak out against the proposed US-Thailand Free Trade Agreement. The tour was part of Oxfam's campaign to change trade rules that favor rich countries over poor people and company profits over public health.
"Americans don't know much about the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Thailand or the negative impact that a US free trade agreement would have on the cheap drugs that the government makes," said Matthew Coghlan, Oxfam's Regional Trade Policy Officer in East Asia. "This tour gave the Thai speakers the chance to educate Americans about what's really at stake."
Boripat Donmon, or Pii Muu as he's known, has been living with HIV for 13 years. During that time, he has become an instrumental leader in the fight for greater access to HIV and AIDS medicines in Thailand. His organization, the Thai Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS, gathered 50,000 signatures from the Thai public to lobby the Thai government to revise its national health policies. With pressure from hundreds of other organizations mounting, the Thai government announced last year that it would include treatment for HIV and AIDS in the national health insurance plan, commonly known as the "30 Baht Scheme."
Since then, though, people like Pii Muu have been forced to stop treatment. As they become resistant to older drugs that are manufactured by the Thai government, they must take newer drugs still under patent to prolong their lives. But currently patent rules give brand-name companies exclusive rights to market their medicines for 20 years, which allows them to charge more than most sick Thais can afford.
"The situation will only worsen if the US-Thailand FTA is approved," Pii Muu said during a stop on the tour in New York City. US free trade agreements severely restrict the ability of developing countries to ensure availability of generic versions of patented medicines—the only proven way to lower prices. "Most Thais make $140 a month—way below what patented medicines cost," he continued. "I don't know how anyone will be able to afford them with an FTA."
Sang-Siri Teemanka, also known as Pii Tui, agreed. An organizer with Thailand's Aids Access Foundation, she has also spent much of her career campaigning to get the Thai national health system to offer affordable anti-retroviral medicines.
"The problem now in Thailand is that the basic treatment manufactured ... at the cheap price will become ineffective for some patients after just three to five years. They will need to change medicines, and the new drugs are patented by the giant foreign pharmaceutical companies," Pii Tui said. "These drugs are very expensive."
Negotiations for a free trade agreement with the US are a contentious issue in Thailand. In January 2006, thousands of people took to the streets in Chiang Mai, Thailand to protest their lack of involvement.
The Thai activists touring the US said they want their government to recognize the people's rights to shape the trade rules that would have real effects on their daily lives. Specifically, the Thai activists asked that the government educate the people about the US-Thailand FTA, consult with them when negotiating it, and invite them to participate in decision-making.
They also asked that Americans lobby the US government and the WTO to help poorer countries like Thailand assert their right to make available generic versions of the patented drugs.
"We want the US to understand that the FTA is not balanced," Pii Tui said. "Access to medicine is very important to Thailand. It is not like CDs or computer software. People's lives are at stake."
]]>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.
]]>Patented medicines continue to be priced out of reach for the world's poorest people. Trade rules remain a major barrier to accessing affordable versions of patented medicines (generic medicines).
The prevalance of debilitating and life-threatening diseases in poor countries is growing, but medicines are simply not available. Urgent action is needed.
]]>Launched by Red Tomato, one of Oxfam America's partners, in collaboration with two other organizations, Oké USA is a new, Massachusetts-based tropical fruit importer with a simple mission: To improve the lives of poor banana farmers and workers by making sure they get a fair price for their fruit.
"The banana industry is a pretty brutal industry," said Jonathan Rosenthal, Oké USA's chief executive officer. "In Ecuador, a typical banana worker earns a couple of dollars a day, and if you get sick or someone in your family gets sick, you're in trouble. If people don't have their basic needs met, it's hard to envision a better future."
But hope for that future is what Oké USA wants to help banana workers build, and fair trade is the engine that will drive it.
"Fair trade is a whole economic model based on direct trade, fair price, dignity, and collaboration," said Rosenthal. "With fair trade, small farmers are getting a higher price and they're getting it directly."
In a way, the birth of Oké USA completes the circle for Red Tomato, a non-profit marketing organization that helps small farmers in the northeast and minority farmers in the southeast gain brand loyalty and better prices for their produce through large supermarket chains. Its business model is based on principals that include fair prices for farmers and a commitment to ecological farming.
Michael Rozyne is the founder of Red Tomato. With Rosenthal and Rink Dickinson, he was also a founder of Equal Exchange, which pioneered the fair trade coffee industry in the US. Now, carrying the spirit of those two enterprises to a new level, Red Tomato and Equal Exchange have joined forces with AgroFair, a European-based fair trade company jointly owned by growers and NGOs, to start Oké USA.
"We aim to build a fair trade business that changes the terms of trade in bananas just as we did in coffee-challenging the cut-throat race to the bottom of the big banana companies," Rosenthal told supporters in an e-mail announcing the new venture.
At the head of that race are a handful of giant importers, some of whom own their own ships and banana plantations and who are striving to increase their profits by cutting production costs wherever they can. For banana workers and small growers, those cuts translate into shrinking wages and dangerous working conditions.
"Traditionally, workers get very low wages and are exposed to awful chemicals and have health problems," said Shayna Harris, an Oxfam America coffee organizer. "The banana industry is fraught with human rights abuses."
In Ecuador, the largest banana exporter in the world, the government has set the legal minimum price for bananas at $3.35 for a 40-pound box, said Jordan Bar Am, Oké USA's operations manager. But in reality, he added, some farmers get as little as 80 cents. By contrast, bananas sold by small-scale farmers on the fair trade market command $7.75 for the same 40-pound box.
"That's the price that's needed to cover the cost of production and allow farmers to invest in the futures of their businesses and communities, and to provide adequate health care and send their kids to schools," said Bar Am.
Oké USA is now forging relationships with small-scale banana farmers, such as those in Ecuador's El Guabo cooperative, to help them get their products directly to the American market. Besides higher prices, farmers also receive a fair trade premium that helps them strengthen their communities by investing in things like education, clean water, and housing.
"Oké USA is a little guy with a big mission going up against a big marketplace," said Jaeda Harmon, a program officer for Oxfam's US regional office. "Its hope is that by working with small farmers and non-governmental organizations, and promoting consumer awareness, they'll sell a quality product that will give the farmers a chance."
Oxfam America has helped the whole process along by providing a grant that laid the groundwork for Oké USA's launch, as well as giving Red Tomato a two-year general support grant that included exploration of the joint venture with AgroFair.
Now, the hard work has really started for Oké USA.
The company received its first shipment of 100,000 fair trade certified bananas-about 38,000 pounds-on August 17 in Boston. After parking them at a ripening facility for four days, Oké USA shipped the bananas throughout New England to about 70 different locations including co-op supermarkets, natural food stores, and college campuses. Since then, eight more shipments have reached Boston's shores and found their way into the bellies of Americans who, on average, each eat 33 pounds of bananas a year.
Regardless of how fast people consume them, the fruit is perishable-and that's just one of the mammoth challenges confronting Oké USA in this venture. Bananas are not like coffee: They can't sit on the shelf for weeks.
"With bananas, I'm bringing in 38,000 pounds and they can go bad in less than a week, so I've got to move them all the time," said Bar Am. "The perishability factor is huge."
Besides that, Oké USA is going head to head with the biggest banana companies in the country, and it doesn't have millions of dollars to spend on marketing. Educating consumers about the story behind fair trade bananas will be key-particularly as the retail prices for the fruit range from 69 cents to 99 cents a pound.
But once consumers are sold on the concept behind fair trade bananas, they might convince their local supermarkets to buy into the idea, too.
"Supermarkets are incredibly sensitive to consumer demand," said Bar Am. "If they find out it's popular, and there's a hook, they'll get behind it."
To help spread the word, Oké USA and Red Tomato sponsored a three-farmer tour of New England October 22 -28. Among the farmers were Sylvia Arevalo, a banana grower in Ecuador. Sylvia is a founding member of El Guabo cooperative, a pioneer in fair trade for producers. Sylvia raises both organic and conventional bananas, for which she receives a fair price that helps support her family and community.
The tour also featured Shirley Sherrod, Georgia director of the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, representing black family farmers in the southeastern US, and several New England fruit and vegetable growers. All spoke about their struggles to maintain family farming in a global economy. A commitment to ecological production methods, fair prices, and top quality produce are the common ground that connects not only Red Tomato and Oké USA, but also these farmers and others like them who depend on fair trade for their future.
]]>“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.
]]>