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.
]]>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.
]]>Five men from the Community Cooperative for Rural Development, or CCRD, an Oxfam partner organization, stood along the mill's perimeter, watching it work. Serious and proud, they admired their prize: the only certified organic rice mill in the country.
Cambodian rice farmers, long vulnerable to fluctuating prices and heavy regional competition, are looking to organic rice to help them carve out a niche in the market. As eating healthily has become more popular around the world, so has organic food. Organic products sell for a higher price than conventionally farmed food. In a country where more than a third of the population lives on less than $1 a day and more than half depends on agriculture, the organic advantage could translate into a reliable and steady income.
"The momentum is really growing," said Le Thi Nguyet Minh, an Oxfam America program officer in the East Asia office. "We need to maintain it."
Maintaining the organic momentum requires establishing farming cooperatives, which are equipped to work in the organic market. This transition represents a huge practical and emotional leap for many Khmer farmers.
The bloody civil war and subsequent genocide that ravaged Cambodia left many Khmer people distrustful of both their neighbors—and any sort of collective work, said Yann Omer-Kassin, an Oxfam Quebec field advisor supporting CCRD.
Even the words "farming cooperative" pose a problem. In Khmer, they translate into "work camp," a term that conjures up painful fears or memories of Khmer Rouge death camps. Many of the people Kassin talked to in Pursat said they were wary of joining a farming coop "because it's linked to a horrible past."
Because of these cultural sensitivities, CCRD staff work slowly and patiently to convert farmers to organic production. They spend much of their time simply building trust in the cooperative concept. They point to the tangible benefits of organic production.
Farmers are encouraged to use animal manure instead of chemical fertilizers—a requirement of organic certification. The resulting savings can be used—to grow other crops, or send children to school. If farmers use natural fertilizer, they can also prevent illness. Many farmers and farm workers get sick because they can't read the labels on the chemicals they use. Many of the chemicals are so dangerous they're prohibited in other countries.
Tang Eum, 47, a rice farmer in Pursat, said she began farming organic rice three years ago. She said natural fertilizer doesn't always produce as much rice as chemical fertilizer. But she's willing to accept that tradeoff if it means her family and friends won't get sick.
CCRD has converted at least 75 of the 1,500 farmers in its collective to farm organic. Their support is crucial. Many of the rice farmers face the same challenges organic and fair trade coffee farmers saw when they first learned about the new model. Many have farmed small plots with chemicals for generations. They need help learning new agriculture techniques so that they can someday grow as much rice as they had before.
Then they need help getting the experience, technical assistance, and market access to pull it all off.
It is a challenging task, CCRD workers said. But knowing what they do about the potential benefits keeps them motivated. Eventually they want to help local farmers not only farm organically, but take the next logical step, and sell to the fair trade market.
Fair Trade Certified™ products are high quality and grown through practices friendly to the environment. Farmers receive a minimum price even when the market price is low. According to a 2005 market study, if farmers made the transition from conventional growing to fair trade organic they could see their profits more than double.
Sitting at a wood table outside her house in Pursat, Tang Eum said she knows what she wants to do with that extra money. A mother and a businesswoman, she would use it to support her family and sell her rice.
"I want to use the money to send my children to school," she said. "And I want to buy a moto to go to the market in town."
]]>Aggressive demands by rich countries mean that, far from being able to pursue reforms that will lift people out of poverty, poor countries are having to engage in damage limitation.
Unless the substance of the offers on the table changes radically, then no deal should be signed in 2006.
]]>But I'm luckier than most. Just as the shortest, coldest days of winter hit Boston, the coffee cherries in Central America and Ethiopia begin reaching their peak red color. That's when I get to do my favorite work—visiting with Oxfam's coffee partners in Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Ethiopia. Each coffee harvest, I reconnect with the farmers who Oxfam America campaigns for back home.
Whenever I visit with coffee farmers and explain that I've come to learn more about their lives I'm always greeted warmly. These visits get me motivated, although, if truth be told, the visits aren't always uplifting.
This harvest I visited a farmers' cooperative in southern Ethiopia. Though I was welcomed by a group of 15 farmers and their families, the conversation was grim. The coop had fallen on hard times. Though the world price of coffee was up, the families I met were struggling to make it on $300 a year. In two hours there wasn't a single smile on anyone's face and I drove away struggling to imagine how these people were going to make it.
Just a few weeks ago I returned from Guatemala. The volcanic mountains surrounding Lake Atitlan create some of the best coffee-growing conditions in the world. Yet last October the farmers I met with saw Hurricane Stan wash enough mud and boulders down from these mountains to cover houses and wipe out coffee farms. I met people who lost it all and found myself struck by the fact that these farmers—people who were already struggling to get by—were struggling even harder this year because they were on the wrong side of geographic circumstance.
But both in Ethiopia and Guatemala I was amazed to find—as I always do—something inspiring. This harvest, my favorite experience was a walk with Don Antonio Cavajay Ixtamer, president of the cooperative La Voz que Clama en el Desierto (the voice that cries out in the desert). Antonio took my colleagues and me on a walk through his coffee farm where Antonio estimates 80 percent of his land was damaged. We saw coffee trees buried in infertile silt and stumps marking the places where healthy coffee trees once stood.
At the far end of Antonio's farm we emerged from the trees left standing into an area that looked like a dry river bed covered with boulders, some larger than Antonio. He explained that this area had been covered with coffee trees but was inundated with rocks and mud that slid down the mountain during Stan.
It was hard to fathom the force that was required to do such damage to the farm and I asked Antonio if he would ever be able to recover the land. Without missing a beat, Antonio replied "Si se puede. Si se puede." (Yes we can. Yes we can.), and proceeded to explain how he and his sons would remove the rocks, fill trenches, and build stone barriers to divert water before the rainy season begins in May.
Antonio hopes to have the recoverable portions of his land replanted within three years. I don't know whether he'll be successful, but if he falls short, it won't be for lack of motivation and hard work.
Some won't be successful—I know that. But so many of the coffee farmers I meet share the same spirit as Antonio that I've returned to Boston inspired and ready to do what I can to support them. As a result of my trip, Oxfam will provide farmers with $100,000 they can use to help rebuild after Stan.
Despite all the challenges I see, there are farmers who don't give up. As long as they're willing to fight, then I'm willing to fight, too. Some wins are big, some incremental, and sometimes we don't win at all. But as long as Antonio and other coffee farmers are saying "Si se puede" then "Si se puede" it is for me, as well. Yes we can. We have to.
]]>