[E-rundbrief] Info 16 - WTO out of Food and Agriculture - Priority to Peoples' Food Sovereignty - Our World Is Not For Sale
Matthias Reichl
mareichl at ping.at
Fr Aug 22 18:09:17 CEST 2003
E-Rundbrief - Info 16
Bad Ischl, 22.8.2003
Begegnungszentrum für aktive Gewaltlosigkeit
www.begegnungszentrum.at
=============================================================
International Peoples' Food Sovereignty Statement
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.
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.
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.
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:
Peoples' food sovereignty;
The rights of all countries to protect their domestic markets by regulating
all imports that undermine their food sovereignty;
Trade rules that support and guarantee food sovereignty;
Upholding gender equity and equality in all policies and practices
concerning food production;
The precautionary principle;
The right to information about the origin and content of food items;
Genuine international democratic participation mechanisms;
Priority to domestic food production, sustainable farming and fishing
practices and equitable access to all resources;
Support for small farmers and producers to own, and have sufficient control
over means of food production;
Support for open access of traditional fishing communities to aquatic
resources;
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;
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,
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:
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.
Cancel further trade liberalisation negotiations on the WTO's AoA through
the WTO's built-in agenda.
Cancel the obligation of accepting the minimum importation of 5% of
internal consumption; all compulsory market access clauses must similarly
be cancelled immediately.
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.
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.
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;
Halt all negotiations on GATS, and dismantle the principle of "progressive
liberalisation" in order to protect social services and the public interest;
Implement genuine agrarian reform and ensure the rights of peasants to
crucial assets such as land, seed, water and other resources;
Promote the primary role of fish harvesters' and fish workers'
organisations in managing the use of aquatic resources and oceans,
nationally and internationally.
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
Center for Encounters and Active Non-Violence, Austria
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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at foe.co.uk
GRAIN
Henk Hobbelink
Girona 25, pral 08010 Barcelona, Spain
Tel: +34-93-301 1381 Fax: +34-93-301- 1627
Email: grain at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at gbm.hn
Dear all,
Please find hereby the updated and completed peoples' food sovereignty
statement. This is already signed by a range of organisations (see the list
at the end).
If your organisations is not on but does want to support this statement
please send your organisations signature to Andrianna Natsoulas:
anatsoulas at citizen.org
(The statement can only be signed by organisations, not by individual
persons). We intend to give this text broad coverage in Cancun so we need
your support to increase its impact!
Thanks to pass this text on to those in your networks that would be
interested to support this.
With friendly greetings,
Nico Verhagen
Via Campesina
=========================================
Matthias Reichl
Begegnungszentrum für aktive Gewaltlosigkeit
Wolfgangerstr.26
A-4820 Bad Ischl
Tel. +43-6132-24590
e-mail: mareichl at ping.at
http://www.begegnungszentrum.at
Mehr Informationen über die Mailingliste E-rundbrief