|
|
|
|
WTO: handen af van voedsel en landbouw |
OUR WORLD IS NOT FOR SALE
Priority to Peoples' Food Sovereignty
WTO out of Food and Agriculture
Food and agriculture are fundamental to all
peoples, in terms of both production and availability of sufficient
quantities of safe and healthy food, and as foundations of healthy
communities, cultures and environments. All of these are being
undermined by the increasing emphasis on neo-liberal economic policies
promoted by leading political and economic powers, such as the United
States (US) and the European Union (EU), and realised through global
institutions, such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO), International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB). Instead of securing
food for the peoples of the world, these institutions have presided
over a system that has prioritised export-oriented production,
increased global hunger and malnutrition, and alienated millions
from productive assets and resources such as land, water, fish, seeds,
technology and know-how. Fundamental change to this global regime
is urgently required.
People’s Food Sovereignty is a Right
In order to guarantee the independence and food sovereignty of all of
the world’s peoples, it is essential that food is produced though
diversified, community based production systems. Food sovereignty
is the right of peoples to define their own food and agriculture; to
protect and regulate domestic agricultural production and trade in
order to achieve sustainable development objectives; to determine the
extent to which they want to be self reliant; to restrict the dumping
of products in their markets, and; to provide local fisheries-based
communities the priority in managing the use of and the rights to
aquatic resources. Food sovereignty does not negate trade, but
rather, it promotes the formulation of trade policies and practices
that serve the rights of peoples to safe, healthy and ecologically
sustainable production.
Governments must uphold the rights of all peoples to food sovereignty
and security, and adopt and implement policies that promote
sustainable, family-based production rather than industry-led,
high-input and export oriented production. This in turn demands
that they put in place the following measures:
I. Market Policies
Ensure adequate remunerative prices for all farmers and fishers;
Exercise the rights to protect domestic markets from imports at low prices;
Regulate production on the internal market in order to avoid the creation of surpluses;
Abolish all direct and indirect export supports; and,
Phase out domestic production subsidies that
promote unsustainable agriculture, inequitable land tenure patterns and
destructive fishing practices; and support integrated agrarian reform
programmes, including sustainable farming and fishing practices.
II. Food Safety, Quality and the Environment
Adequately control the spread of diseases and pests while at the same time ensuring food safety;
Protect fish resources from both land-based and
sea-based threats, such as pollution from dumping, coastal and
off-shore mining, degradation of river mouths and estuaries and harmful
industrial aquaculture practices that use antibiotics and hormones;
Ban the use of dangerous technologies, such as food
irradiation, which lower the nutritional value of food and create
toxins in food;
Establish food quality criteria appropriate to the preferences and needs of the people;
Establish national mechanisms for quality control
of all food products so that they comply with high environmental,
social and health quality standards; and,
Ensure that all food inspection functions are
performed by appropriate and independent government bodies, and not by
private corporations or contractors;
III. Access to Productive Resources
Recognise and enforce communities' legal and
customary rights to make decisions concerning their local, traditional
resources, even where no legal rights have previously been allocated;
Ensure equitable access to land, seeds, water, credit and other productive resources;
Grant the communities that depend on aquatic
resources common property rights, and reject systems that attempt to
privatise these public resources;
Prohibit all forms of patenting of life or any of
its components, and the appropriation of knowledge associated with food
and agriculture through intellectual property rights regimes and
Protect farmers', indigenous peoples’ and local
community rights over plant genetic resources and associated knowledge
– including farmers' rights to exchange and reproduce seeds.
IV. Production-Consumption
Develop local food economies based on local
production and processing, and the development of local food outlets.
V. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)
Ban the production of, and trade in genetically
modified (GM) seeds, foods, animal feeds and related products;
Ban genetically modified foods to be used as food aid;
Expose and actively oppose the various methods
(direct and indirect) by which agribusiness corporations such as
Monsanto, Syngenta, Aventis/Bayer and DuPont are bringing GM crop
varieties into agricultural systems and environments; and,
Encourage and promote alternative agriculture and
organic farming, based on indigenous knowledge and sustainable
agriculture practices.
VI. Transparency of Information and Corporate Accountability
Provide clear and accurate labelling of food and
feed-stuff products based on consumers' and farmers' rights to access
to information about content and origins;
Establish binding regulations on all companies to
ensure transparency, accountability and respect for human rights and
environmental standards;
Establish anti-trust laws to prevent the
development of industrial monopolies in the food, fisheries and
agricultural sectors; and,
Hold corporate entities and their directors legally
liable for corporate breaches of environmental and social laws, and of
national and international laws and agreements.
VII. Specific Protection Of Coastal Communities Dependent On Marine And Inland Fish
Prevent the expansion of shrimp aquaculture and the destruction of mangroves;
Ensure local fishing communities have the rights to the aquatic resources;
Negotiate a legally binding international convention to prevent illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing;
Effectively implement international marine
agreements and conventions, such as the UN Fish Stocks Agreement; and,
Eradicate poverty and ensure food security for
coastal communities through equitable and sustainable community based
natural resource use and management, founded on indigenous and local
knowledge, culture and experience.
Trade Rules Must Guarantee Food Sovereignty
Global trade must not be afforded primacy over local and national
developmental, social, environmental and cultural goals. Priority
should be given to affordable, safe, healthy and good quality food, and
to culturally appropriate subsistence production for domestic,
sub-regional and regional markets. Current modes of trade
liberalisation, which allows market forces and powerful transnational
corporations (TNCs) to determine what and how food is produced, and how
food is traded and marketed, cannot fulfil these crucial goals.
“No” to Neo-liberal Policies in Food and Agriculture
The undersigned denounce the ‘liberalisation' of farm product exchanges
as promoted through bilateral and regional free trade agreements, and
multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and the
WTO. We condemn the dumping of food products in all markets, and
especially in Third World countries where it has severely undermined
domestic production. We condemn the attempts by the WTO and other
multilateral institutions to sell all rights of aquatic resources to
transnational consortiums. Neo-liberal policies coerce countries into
specialising in agricultural production in which they have a so-called
“comparative advantage” and then trading along the same lines.
However, export orientated production is being pushed at the expense of
domestic food production, and production means and resources are
increasingly controlled by large transnational corporations. The same
is occurring in the fishing sector. Fishing communities are losing
their rights of access to fisheries, because access has been
transferred to industrial corporations, such as PESCANOVA. Those TNCs
have consolidated a great part of the production and of the global
fishing commerce.
Rich governments continue to heavily subsidise export oriented
agricultural and fisheries production in their countries, with the bulk
of support going to large producers. The majority of taxpayers’ funds
are handed out to big business – large producers, traders and retailers
– who engage in unsustainable agricultural, fisheries and trading
practices, and not to small-scale family producers who produce much of
the food for the internal market, often in more sustainable ways.
These export-oriented policies have resulted in market prices for
commodities that are far lower than their real costs of
production. This has encouraged and perpetuated dumping, and
provided TNCs with opportunities to buy cheap products, which are then
sold at significantly higher prices to consumers in both the North and
the South. The larger parts of important agricultural and
fisheries subsidies in rich countries are in fact subsidies for
corporate agri-industry, traders, retailers and a minority of the
largest producers.
The adverse effects of these policies and practices are becoming
clearer every day. They lead to the disappearance of small-scale,
family farms and fishing communities in both the North and South;
poverty has increased, especially in the rural areas; soils and water
have been polluted and degraded; biological diversity has been lost,
and; natural habitats destroyed.
Dumping
Dumping occurs when goods are sold at less than their cost of
production. This can be the result of subsidies and structural
distortions, such as monopoly control over markets and distribution.
The inability of current economic policy to factor in externalities,
such as the depletion of water and soil nutrients and pollution
resulting from industrial agricultural methods, also contribute to
dumping. Dumping under the current neo-liberal policies is
conducted in North-South, South-North, South-South and North-North
trade. Whatever the form, dumping ruins small-scale local
producers in both the countries of origin and sale.
For example:
Imports by India of dairy surpluses subsidised by
the European Union had negative impacts on local, family based dairy
production.
Exports of industrial pork from the USA to the Caribbean proved ruinous to Caribbean producers;
Imports by Ivory Coast of European pork at
subsidised prices are three times lower than the production costs in
Ivory Coast;
Chinese exports of silk threads to India at prices
far lower than the costs of production in India has been seriously
damaging for hundreds of thousands of farmer families in Southern
India; and,
On one hand the import of cheap maize from the US
to Mexico – the centre of the origin of maize – ruins Mexican
producers; on the other hand the export of vegetables at low prices
from Mexico to Canada ruins producers in Canada.
Dumping practises must to be stopped. Countries must be able to
protect their home markets against dumping and other trade practices
that prove damaging to local producers. Exporting countries must
not be allowed to dump surpluses on the international market, and
should respond to real demands for agricultural goods and products in
ways that do not undermine domestic production, but rather support and
strengthen local economies.
There is no ‘World Market’ of Agricultural Products
The so called ‘world market’ of agricultural products does not exist.
What exists is, above all, an international trade of surpluses of milk,
cereals and meat dumped primarily by the EU, the US and other members
of the CAIRNS group. Behind the faces of national trade
negotiators are powerful TNCs, such as Monsanto and Cargill. They
are the real beneficiaries of domestic subsidies and supports,
international trade negotiations and the global manipulations of trade
regimes. At present, international trade in agricultural products
involves only ten percent of total worldwide agricultural production
and is mainly an exchange between TNCs from the US, EU and a few other
industrialised countries. The so called ‘world market price’ is
extremely unstable and has no relation to the costs of production. It
is far too low because of dumping, and therefore, it is not an
appropriate or desirable reference for agricultural production.
The Older Siblings of the WTO: The World Bank and The IMF
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are the older
siblings of the WTO and serve as domestic arms of the WTO regime in
developing countries. They have played significant roles in
weakening agricultural autonomy, dismantling domestic self-sufficiency,
creating famines and undermining food sovereignty. Their
structural adjustment programmes – now called poverty reduction
programmes – have created and entrenched policy induced poverty across
the developing world. Hardest hit by these policies are those who
rely on agriculture and the natural environment for their livelihood
and survival.
Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, the Bank and Fund are
unchanged in their belief that “global integration” of domestic
agriculture systems and “market access” are the best avenues to reduce
poverty. Developing countries are exhorted to undertake reforms
in their respective agriculture sectors, which include dismantling of
agriculture subsidies, deregulation of pricing and distribution,
privatisation of agriculture support and extension services, provision
of greater market access to foreign producers and removing all barriers
to international agriculture trade. However, the Bank and Fund
are unable to force the rich countries of the OECD to the same.
As a result, Bank-Fund policies entrench inequalities among the
developed and developing world and reproduce colonial structures of
production and distribution.
Privatisation, liberalisation and deregulation are the hallmarks of the
World Bank-IMF approach to development and are necessary conditions in
all Bank-Fund lending programmes. Despite fierce criticism from
numerous farmers’ organisations, academics and independent researchers,
the Bank continues to support “market-assisted land reform” and the
creation of “functioning land markets” as a key rural development
strategy. Bank-Fund policies mandate the transformation of
subsistence based, community oriented and self-sufficient agriculture
systems to commercial and market dependent production and distribution
systems. Food crops are replaced by cash crops for export, and
communities and societies are compelled to rely on external markets
that they have no control over for food security. Furthermore, the
emphasis on export crops has led to increased dependence on harmful and
costly chemical inputs that threaten soil, water and air quality,
biodiversity, and human and animal health, while providing greater
profits for large agribusiness and chemical corporations.
The commercialisation of agriculture has resulted in the consolidation
of agriculture land and assets in the hands of agribusiness and other
large commercial entities, displacing small-scale and family farmers
off their lands to seek employment in off-farm activities, or as
seasonal labour in the commercial agriculture sector. Most
farmers in developing countries are steeped in debt as a result of
increasing input costs and falling farm-gate prices for their products.
Many have mortgaged their land and assets to repay old debts, and in
several cases have lost their lands altogether. An equally large number
have moved to contract farming for large agribusiness in order to hold
on to whatever assets they have left. This has resulted in widespread
migration of farming families, the creation of new pockets of poverty
and inequality in rural and urban areas, and the fragmentation of
entire rural communities.
The World Bank and the IMF threaten the wealth, diversity and potential
of our agriculture. Agriculture is not simply an economic sector,
it is a complex of ecosystems and processes that include forests,
rivers, plains, coastal areas, biodiversity, human and animal habitats,
production, distribution, consumption, conservation, etc. Bank-Fund
policies are creeping into every one of these areas. In order to
protect our agriculture, the World Bank and the IMF must be removed
from food and agriculture altogether.
The World Trade Organisation Dismisses Calls for Reform
The WTO is undemocratic and unaccountable, has increased global
inequality and insecurity, promotes unsustainable production and
consumption patterns, erodes diversity and undermines social and
environmental priorities. It has proven impervious to criticisms
regarding its work and has dismissed all calls for reform.
Despite promises to improve the system made at the Seattle Ministerial
Meeting in 1999, governance in the WTO has actually become worse.
Rather than addressing existing inequities and power imbalances between
rich and poor countries, the lobby of the rich and powerful in the WTO
is attempting to expand the WTO’s mandate to new areas such as
environment, labour, investment, competition and government
procurement.
The WTO is an entirely inappropriate institution to address issues of
food and agriculture. The undersigned do not believe that the WTO will
engage in profound reform in order to make itself responsive to the
rights and needs of ordinary people. The WTO is attempting to establish
rules to protect foreign investments of fleets that operate in national
waters, and is pressuring the governments to yield exclusive fishing
rights to the international consortiums. Therefore, the undersigned are
calling for all food and agricultural concerns to be taken out of WTO
jurisdiction through the dismantling of the Agreement on Agriculture
(AoA) and removing or amending the relevant clauses on other WTO
agreements so as to ensure the full exclusion of food and agriculture
from the WTO regime. These include: the Agreement on Trade
Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), Sanitary and
Phytosanitary measures (SPS), Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT),
Quantitative Restrictions (QRs), Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
(SCM) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).
Agriculture: A Deadlock at the World Trade Organization
In February 2003, the WTO released the controversial and unacceptable
Harbinson Draft proposal, written by General Council Chairman, Stuart
Harbinson, to restructure world agricultural production and trade.
Modalities are the terms of reference and conditions upon which member
states will make binding commitments in the WTO of their agriculture
sectors. However, trade-offs in this sector will be linked to
other WTO negotiations. All member states were suppose to come to
agreement on the Modalities text by March 25-31, but they did not.
Members are also expected to draft their commitments in this agreement
by the WTO Ministerial in Cancun in September 2003, but they may not be
able to reach an agreement by then.
The US and the Cairns Group (a bloc led by Australia and other
developed countries, which never reflects the interest of developing
countries) are lobbying for more aggressive cuts in agricultural
tariffs, claiming that the Harbinson Text is inadequate, but both are
content with the proposed domestic support. The European Commission
(EC) has the most trouble with the domestic support cuts proposed.
Although the European Union does not endorse the Harbinson modalities,
there are some commonalties between it and the EC proposal to reform
the Common Agriculture Policy. The lack of proposals to fundamentally
address the level and nature of US domestic support has been forgotten,
because of widespread criticism against the EC.
India is in agreement with the EC on its caution against steep tariff
reductions. As a result, India is finding itself squeezed from
both the Cairns developing countries and the US. India is hoping for 1)
a much milder tariff reduction formula; and, 2) a strong permanent
Strategic Product (SP) provision and a temporary Special Safeguard
Mechanism (SSM) against import surges, for developing countries
only. The SP and the SSM are a major concern for many developing
countries that simply cannot afford to liberalise many of their
agriculture sectors and even wish to raise their tariffs in certain
vulnerable areas.
The proposed modalities still allow developed countries to retain
significant levels of trade-distorting domestic support. The GATT-UR
provisions on domestic support are maintained, providing protection to
payments exempted under the Green Box, where a significant portion of
the trade-distorting subsidies of developed countries have been
transferred. For example, the direct payments under the Green Box,
which have the same net effect of boosting farm production was not
subjected to removal despite calls from developing countries for such.
The modalities on market access did not address the main inequity in
the provision that forced many developing countries to tariffy and
lower their tariffs substantially, while developed countries retained
high tariffs through tariff peaks and escalation. If developed
countries reduce their high tariffs to an average of 60% over 5 years,
and developing countries 40% over 10 years, the former will have higher
tariff protection than developing countries whose tariffs have already
been reduced to very low levels or even to zero at the start of
implementation.
Finally, the provisions for special and differential treatment for
developing countries remain inconsequential, as they can hardly redress
the existing inequities in trade stemming from the agreement,
itself. The provision for a minimal tariff reduction of 10% for
products specified by developing countries as strategic to food
security and rural development ignores the fact that many of these
countries have already bound their agricultural tariffs to very low
levels.
We, the undersigned, reject the Harbinson Text. Rather than redressing
the imbalances and inequities inherent in the AOA, it enunciates
modalities that will further intensify trade in agriculture; ensures
protection of trade-distorting agricultural support and subsidies in
developed countries; and entrenches control of transnational
corporations in global agricultural production and trade.
A Role for Trade Rules in Agricultural and Food Policies?
Trade in food can play a positive role, for example, in times of
regional food insecurity, or in the case of products that can only be
grown in certain parts of the world, or for the exchange of quality
products. However, trade rules must respect the precautionary
principle to policies at all levels, recognise democratic and
participatory decision making, and place peoples' food sovereignty
before the imperatives of international trade.
An Alternative Framework
To compliment the role of local and national governments, there is
clear need for a new and alternative international framework for
multilateral regulation on the sustainable production and trade of
food, fish and other agricultural goods. Within this framework,
the following principles must be respected:
1. Peoples' food sovereignty;
2. The rights of all countries to protect their
domestic markets by regulating all imports that undermine their food
sovereignty;
3. Trade rules that support and guarantee food sovereignty;
4. Upholding gender equity and equality in all policies and practices concerning food production;
5. The precautionary principle;
6. The right to information about the origin and content of food items;
7. Genuine international democratic participation mechanisms;
8. Priority to domestic food production, sustainable
farming and fishing practices and equitable access to all resources;
9. Support for small farmers and producers to own, and have sufficient control over means of food production;
10. Support for open access of traditional fishing communities to aquatic resources;
11. Effective bans on all forms of dumping, in order
to protect domestic food production. This would include supply
management by exporting countries to avoid surpluses and the rights of
importing countries to protect internal markets against imports at low
prices;
12. Prohibition of biopiracy and patents on
living matter - animals, plants, the human body and other life forms -
and any of its components, including the development of sterile
varieties through genetic engineering; and,
13. Respect for all human rights conventions and
related multilateral agreements under independent international
jurisdiction.
The undersigned affirm the demands made in other civil society
statements, such as Our World is Not for Sale: WTO-Shrink or Sink, and
Stop the GATS Attack Now. We urge governments to immediately take
the following steps:
1. Cease negotiations to initiate a new round of
trade liberalisation and halt discussions to bring 'new issues' into
the WTO. This includes further discussions on such issues as
investment, competition, government procurement, biotechnology,
services, labour and environment.
2. Cancel further trade liberalisation negotiations on the WTO’s AoA through the WTO’s built-in agenda.
3. Cancel the obligation of accepting the minimum
importation of 5% of internal consumption; all compulsory market access
clauses must similarly be cancelled immediately.
4. Undertake a thorough review of both the
implementation, and the environmental and social impacts of existing
trade rules and agreements (and the WTO's role in this system) in
relation to food, fisheries and agriculture.
5. Initiate measures to remove food and agriculture
from under the control of the WTO through the dismantling of the AoA
and through the removal or amendment of relevant clauses in the TRIPS,
GATS, SPS, TBT and SCM agreements. Replace these with a new
Convention on Food Sovereignty and Trade in Food, Agriculture and
Fisheries.
6. Revise intellectual property policies to prohibit
the patenting of living matter and any of their components and limit
patent protections in order to protect public health and public safety;
7. Halt all negotiations on GATS, and dismantle the
principle of “progressive liberalisation” in order to protect social
services and the public interest;
8. Implement genuine agrarian reform and ensure the
rights of peasants to crucial assets such as land, seed, water and
other resources;
9. Promote the primary role of fish harvesters’ and
fish workers’ organisations in managing the use of aquatic resources
and oceans, nationally and internationally.
10. Initiate discussions on an alternative
international framework on the sustainable production and trade of
food, agricultural goods and fisheries products. This framework
should include:
A reformed and strengthened United Nations (UN),
active and committed to protecting the fundamental rights of all
peoples, as being the appropriate forum to develop and negotiate rules
for sustainable production and fair trade;
An independent dispute settlement mechanism
integrated within an international Court of Justice, especially to
prevent dumping and GM food aid;
A World Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and
Food Sovereignty established to undertake a comprehensive assessment of
the impacts of trade liberalisation on food sovereignty and security,
and develop proposals for change. This would include agreements and
rules within the WTO and other regional and international trade
regimes, and the economic policies promoted by International Financial
Institutions and Multilateral Development Banks. Such a
commission could be constituted of and directed by representatives from
various social and cultural groups, peoples’ movements, professional
fields, democratically elected representatives and appropriate
multilateral institutions;
An international, legally binding Treaty that
defines the rights of peasants and small producers to the assets,
resources and legal protections they need to be able to exercise their
right to produce. Such a treaty could be framed within the UN Human
Rights framework, and linked to already existing relevant UN
conventions;
An International Convention that replaces the
current Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and relevant clauses from other
WTO agreements and implements within the international policy framework
the concept of food sovereignty and the basic human rights of all
peoples to safe and healthy food, decent and full rural employment,
labour rights and protection, and a healthy, rich and diverse natural
environment and incorporate trading rules on food and agriculture
commodities.
A Broad Alliance with an Agenda for Change!
The impacts of the neo-liberal policies are all too evident and
increasingly understood and challenged by civil society across the
world. The pressure for change is increasing.
In the run up to the next WTO Ministerial Meeting and in the coming
years, the undersigned will continue to reveal the adverse effects of
neo-liberal trade and economic policies on food, agriculture and
fisheries, and to propose alternatives to the current global trade
regime.
This declaration is a clear sign of the determination that unites social
movements and other civil society actors world-wide in their struggle
to democratise international policies, and to work towards institutions
that are capable of embracing and defending sustainable approaches to
food, agriculture and fisheries.
Signed by:
A) International Networks and Movements
Via Campesina (international farmers movements with over 80 organisations from over 40 countries)
World Forum of Fish Harvesters and Fishworkers (WFF)
World Forum Of Fisher Peoples (WFFP)
B) Regional Networks and Movements
Friends of the Earth Latin America & Caribbean
COASAD - Africa
C) Organisations
CESTA- Friends of the Earth El Salvador
CENSAT - Friends of the Earth Colombia
COECOCEIBA- Friends of the Earth Costa Rica
COHPEDA- Friends of the Earth Haiti
Collectif Stratégies Alimentaires - Belgium
Focus on the Global South - Thailand
Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Foodfirst/ Institute for Food and Development Policy - USA
ETCgroup - Canada
IBON Foundation Inc. - Phillipines
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy - USA
KMP (member of Via Campesina) - Philipines
NBS (member of Via Campesina) - Norway
NFFC (member of Via Campesina) - USA
Public Citizen's Energy and Environment Program - USA
REDES- Friends of the Earth Uruguay
Sobrevivencia - Friends of the Earth Paraguay
Small and Family Farms Alliance (SFFA) - United Kingdom
National Fishworkers' Forum Of India (NFF)
Contacts of the organisations that initiated this statement:
COASAD
Christine Andela
POBox 11813, Yaounde, Cameroon
Tel: +237-96 32 58, Fax: +237-22 86 55
Email: andelac@yahoo.com
Collectif Stratégies Alimentaires
Marek Poznanski
184 D, Boulevard Léopold II, 1080 Bruxelles, Belgique
Tél. + 32-2- 412 06 61 / Fax: + 32 2 412 06 66
Email: csa@csa-be.org
ETC Group (formerly RAFI)
478 River Avenue, Suite 200, WINNIPEG MB R3L 0C8, CANADA
Tel: (1-204) 453-5259, Fax: (1-204) 284-7871
Email: etc@etcgroup.org
Focus on the Global South
Shalmali Guttal
CUSRI, Chulalongkorn University, Phayathai Road, Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Telephone: (66-2) 218 7363-5
Email: s.guttal@focusweb.org
Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy
Peter Rosset
398 60th Street, Oakland, California 94618 USA
tel: +1-510-654-4400 x224, fax: +1-253-295-5257
Email: rosset@foodfirst.org
Friends of the Earth Latin America & Caribbean
Alberto Villarreal
San Jose 1423, 11 200 Montevideo, URUGUAY
tel/fax: 5982 902 2355 or 5982 908 2730
Email: comerc@redes.org.uy
Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Tim Rice
26-28 Underwood Street, London N1 7JQ, United Kingdom
tel - 44 20 7566 1603
Email: timr@foe.co.uk
GRAIN
Henk Hobbelink
Girona 25, pral 08010 Barcelona, Spain
Tel: +34-93-301 1381 Fax: +34-93-301- 1627
Email: grain@grain.org
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Mark Ritchie
2105 1st Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN, USA, 55404
tel: +1 612 870 3454
Email: mritchie@iatp.org
IBON Foundation Inc.
Rosario Bella Guzman, Antonio Tujan Jr.
P.O. Box SM-447, Sta Mesa, Manila, Philippines
tel +63-2-7142737 fax +63-2-7160108
Email: atujan@ibon.org
Public Citizen's Energy and Environment Program
Wenonah Hauter
215 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20003, USA
phone 202-454-5150
Email: whauter@citizen.org
Via Campesina
Rafael Alegria, Paul Nicholson
Colonia Alameda, Casa #2025, 11 Calle, 3 y 4 Avenidas, Tegucigalpa, Honduras
Telefax: (504) 235 99 15, Telephone: (504) 239 4679
Email: viacam@gbm.hn
|
|
|
|
