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.
]]>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."
]]>The report, “Song of the Sirens,” outlines the negative impacts the proposed agreements will have on millions of people in the Andean region. The US is demanding concessions that could affect the sustainability of development policies and weaken the ongoing process of integration with neighboring countries, Oxfam says.
Although negotiations with Ecuador have been temporarily suspended, the agreement with Colombia is awaiting final executive approvals and the Peru agreement, already signed by both countries, will be considered by the Peruvian Congress in the coming days and in the US Congress in the coming months.
“Developing countries have been enchanted by the appeal of free-trade agreements, but, much like the song of the Sirens, this attraction is ultimately self-destructive,” said Stephanie Weinberg, trade policy advisor for Oxfam. “The benefits that an FTA offers Peru, Colombia and Ecuador will be far outweighed by the negative impacts of agricultural dumping, harsh patent rules and deregulated foreign investments.”
Oxfam believes that the Peru and Colombia agreements on agriculture, intellectual property and investment rules would harm the development of these countries. In agriculture, the agreements would dismantle safeguard mechanisms that are vital for food security and the livelihoods of small farmers, while making no attempt to address the unfair dumping of American overproduction.
“The livelihoods of a quarter of the population of these countries, especially the poorest in rural areas, depend on agriculture for their livelihoods,” said Weinberg. “The FTAs pry open the markets of Peru and Colombia without any consideration for the damaging effects of dumped, cheap, subsidized American products.”
On intellectually property, the US has succeeded in extending pharmaceutical patents beyond 20 years, which goes well beyond agreements made at the World Trade Organization. As a consequence, medicine prices in Peru will increase by almost 10% in the first year of the FTA and 100% after 10 years, while Colombia will have to spend an extra $940 million a year to buy more expensive medicines and nearly 6 million people there will lose access to medicines. The new investment rules in the agreements would also curtail the powers of Andean governments to regulate foreign investment.
“Trade could be the engine to pull millions out of poverty, but the winners of this agreement are American and international companies,” said Weinberg. “In the Andean countries where half the population lives in poverty, this agreement will actually reduce access to affordable medicines and stifle opportunities for development.”
The US has started concentrating on bilateral agreements because the WTO’s Doha Development Round is deadlocked and talks on the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) have stalled. Oxfam says that the US is using these new bilateral deals to force poorer countries to give up a lot more than they would at the WTO.
“The US Congress should not approve trade agreements that will harm developing countries. It should instead encourage developing countries to utilize trade as a means of achieving sustainable economic development and poverty reduction,” said Weinberg. “But with these free trade agreements, the US is locking in unfair trade rules that pull the rug from underneath Peru and Colombia.”
NOTE: Some of the facts discussed in the report:
Furthermore, they will weaken existing regional processes of integration and co-operation. Trade rules with the Andean region need to be substantially modified in order for development to become a priority once again.
]]>