About IATP

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy promotes resilient family farms, rural communities and ecosystems around the world through research and education, science and technology, and advocacy.

Founded in 1986, IATP is rooted in the family farm movement. With offices in Minneapolis and Geneva, IATP works on making domestic and global agricultural policy more sustainable for everyone.

IATP Web sites

• IATP home page
• Ag Observatory
• Trade Observatory
• Health Observatory
• Community Forestry Resource Center

About Think Forward

Think Forward is a blog written by staff of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy covering sustainability as it intersects with food, rural development, international trade, the environment and public health.

Categories

• Alternative Policies
• Bioeconomy
• China
• Environment and Agriculture
• Farm and Food Policy
• Food Crisis
• Healthy Food
• Local Advantage
• Rural Communities
• Trade

Archives

• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• December 2007
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007

RSS feeds

 Subscribe in a reader

Alternative Policies

June 17, 2008

Making Fair Trade Policy

Rising oil and food prices are raising questions, even among free trade supporters, about the benefits of the NAFTA/WTO model of globalization. In a remarkable article on Friday, Bloomberg reports that the free-trade era may be nearing an end. The story quotes Fred Bergsten of the pro-free trade Peterson Institute for International Economics as saying, "It'll take years to rebuild the foundations of free trade policy."

If the free trade era is ending, then it must be time for the fair trade era to begin. What would a "fair trade" policy from the U.S. look like? After extensive consultations with labor, environmental, consumer, faith and family farm organizations, Senator Sherrod Brown and Representative Mike Michaud introduced the Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment (TRADE) Act earlier this month. The bill is a sharp contrast to the full speed, no-holds-barred effort to liberalize trade characterized initially by NAFTA.

The bill requires an honest full-cost assessment of how successful our existing trade agreements have been, using a series of economic, environmental and social indicators. This seems like common sense, but the idea of an actual on-the-ground assessment is a surprisingly radical idea when it comes to trade policy. It hasn't been done in comprehensive way for NAFTA or the WTO, despite over a decade of experience to draw from.

The bill goes on to include a detailed description of essential provisions in future trade pacts, covering rules for labor, the environment, affordable medicines, farm policy, foreign investment, government producurement and food safety.

From IATP's perspective, the bill includes some important flexibility for countries to protect their farmers and food security. It allows each country "to establish policies with respect to food and agriculture that require farmers to receive fair remuneration for management and labor that occurs on farms and that allow for inventory management and strategic food and renewable energy reserves, to the extent that such policies do not contribute to or allow the dumping of agricultural commodities in world markets at prices lower than the cost of production." IATP has long documented the damaging effects of export dumping by U.S.-based agribusiness corporations. This legislation explicitly protects the right of each country to prevent dumping through border regulations or other mechanisms.

IATP's Dennis Olson commented in a Minnesota Fair Trade Coalition press release, "For too long, trade agreements have deregulated agricultural markets to promote exports at any cost. This bill outlines a new approach that establishes the right of all countries to increase food self-sufficiency based on independent family farm agriculture and sound conservation practices."

You can read what a whole host of other organizations are saying about the TRADE Act at the Citizens Trade Campaign web site.

—Ben Lilliston

May 23, 2008

British Prime Minister's Plan on the Food Crisis

This week, the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) held a “Special Meeting on the global food crisis” at the UN headquarters in New York. The meeting's goal was to help move the international community towards action in addressing the causes of the food crisis.

Speakers included Malawi President Bingu wa Mutharika, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, experts Joachim Von Braun and Jeffrey Sachs as well as DuPont Vice President James Borel, among others. UN Member States then had a chance to react, and many did. All the interventions are available on Ecosoc’s dedicated webpage.

Some may, with reason, consider this as only one among too many meetings to discuss the food crisis. International farm leader John Wilkinson recently wrote “it’s time to act instead of talk, it’s time to plant fields instead of having conferences.”

However, the meeting did feature some interesting debates.

Let us focus on Gordon Brown’s intervention. A short one: around four minutes. But an efficient one: in this limited amount of time, he outlined a dozen of measures the world should take to address the food crisis. They included efforts to: encourage sound policies on land tenure and property rights; set up input subsidies; implement price controls on commodity markets; tax regimes for the agriculture sector; build a regulatory environment around agribusiness; invest in research and infrastructure; and stop dumping.

IATP supports many of these same measures as well (we would have added other steps, including the central need to involve farmer organizations). It is encouraging to hear a powerful world leader support efforts to invest in agriculture and address agribusiness' market power, measures that have too often been downplayed over the past decades.

Of course, the details of implementation matter, and there is no guarantee that we would agree with Brown’s plan there. But most puzzling to us, really, is why the conclusion of Gordon Brown’s speech focused on how a rushed Doha Deal will provide a solution to the crisis. In fact, such a rush would make it more difficult to implement the measures he recommends. M. Brown, why don’t you take a look at IATP’s analysis?

—Anne-Laure Constantin

May 20, 2008

Exporting a Bad Idea on Food Safety

In 2007, 30 million pounds of ground beef was pulled off the U.S. market in 20 recalls because of contamination concerns. The recalls highlighted serious weaknesses in our deregulated food safety system. Over the last decade, we've reduced the number of food safety inspectors and instead rely more on the food industry to regulate itself.

While the U.S. domestic food safety sytem is cracking, we are also importing more food than ever - with imports projected to grow. What is the Bush Administration response to concerns that other countries may actually have weaker food safety systems than the U.S.? Perhaps to no one's surprise, the Administration is pushing a series of proposals, developed along with the food industry, to expand the U.S. deregulation model to other countries..

In a new report issued today, IATP's Steve Suppan analyzes the Bush Administration plan on import food safety and offers some concrete steps for the next Administration to bolster import food safety. See our press release from today below:

Bush Administration Prioritizes Trade Over Food Safety

Minneapolis – A Bush Administration interagency working group is pushing a flawed import food safety system that prioritizes trade considerations over public health, finds a new report by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP).

The report, “Import Food Safety in the Twilight of the Bush Administration” (at www.iatp.org) by IATP’s Steve Suppan, analyzes the recommendations of the Interagency Working Group on Import Safety – established by the Bush Administration following a series of recalls of contaminated and hazardous pet foods and toys imported from China last year. U.S. food imports are projected to greatly expand in the next decade. About 60 percent of fruits and vegetables and 75 percent of seafood currently consumed in the U.S. are imported.

Many of the IWG’s 14 recommendations and 50 action steps are designed to reduce import inspection and testing and instead emphasize safety certification of foreign export facilities, the report found. The IWG recommendations rely largely on exporters and importers to implement voluntary prevention controls against food and feed contamination. This approach extrapolates internationally the highly criticized U.S. food safety management system whose breakdowns resulted in large meat product recalls in 2007, culminating in the February 2008 recall of 143 million pounds of ground beef.

“The IWG report prioritizes the trade objectives of the food industry, rather than ensuring a safer food supply for consumers,” said Suppan. “Many of the regulatory tools proposed by the IWG have exposed U.S. consumers to unsafe or potentially unsafe food when implemented domestically. The Administration’s proposal was developed with the help of industry to avoid greater rates of physical inspection and testing. This off-shoring and outsourcing of product safety provides another layer of plausible deniability for corporate liability prevention.”

The Bush Administration approach shifts some legal responsibility for U.S. import safety from U.S. agencies and importers to foreign exporters. A new Administration should instead more tightly regulate the importing companies over which the U.S. government has jurisdiction, the report recommends.

“Fortunately, there are steps that the next Administration could take to prioritize public health and greatly improve the safety of our food,” said Suppan. The report’s recommendations for the next Administration include:

• Increasing the number of inspectors at our ports with better inspection technology;

• Allowing regulators to limit the number of ports of entry for high risk products;

• Letting regulators suspend import licenses for repeated failure to comply with food safety and other import rules;

• Working with developing country food safety authorities on training and infrastructure to ensure compliance with U.S. import requirements.

• Incentivizing importer compliance with import requirements by establishing an importer performance bond that would be reimbursable according to the importer’s compliance rate.

The full report can be read at: www.iatp.org

—Ben Lilliston

May 16, 2008

Growing Minnesota Biodiesel - Responsibly

Minnesota recently passed legislation to increase the biodiesel content of diesel fuel sold in the state from the current 2 percent to 20 percent by 2015. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, together with Minnesota farm and environmental organizations, worked with legislators to make sure that the mandate, which is the highest in the nation, will not only support the biodiesel industry, but will also specifically benefit Minnesota’s economy and environment and help us move forward towards the next generation of biofuels.

While the merits of mandates are debatable, if they are going to be put in place, they must incorporate provisions to ensure that Minnesota's farmers, economy and environment are the beneficiaries - not just a few multinational processors.

In particular the legislation included:

• A first–in-the-country palm oil ban (and possibly first in the world - if you know of others, let us know). Virgin palm oil cannot be used to produce biodiesel to meet the mandate, which will help assure that Minnesota does not contribute to environmental destruction and rainforest clearing associated with new palm oil production - a practice outlined in our recent report Biofuels and Global Biodiversity.
• Focus on Minnesota and Midwest production. The increasing levels of biodiesel content can only go into effect if Minnesota is producing at least 50 percent of mandated production level in-state from feedstocks produced in the US and Canada, assuring that this market share will benefit Minnesota farmers and biodiesel producers.
• Opening the door for the next generation. Five percent of the mandate needs to be met with biodiesel produced from non-traditional feedstocks (waste oil, algae, etc.), which will help diversify biodiesel production and assist with a shift away from food and feed crops such as soybeans.
• Assessing the costs and benefits. Reports to the legislature are required annually on price and supply of biodiesel, as well as the impacts of the mandate on the Minnesota biodiesel industry and the use of Minnesota crops and materials used for biodiesel production.

Here is the full text of the bill:

—Jim Kleinschmit

May 15, 2008

The WTO Will Not Solve the Food Crisis

If I hear Pascal Lamy say one more time that the Doha Round will help solve the current food crisis, I am going to explode! For months, the WTO chief has used every public opportunity (and then some) to push for the completion of the WTO’s trade round to solve the current food crisis. He is wrong.

The food crisis is the result of a series of circumstances, including alarmingly low stocks for staple foods—wheat, rice, and corn; high oil prices; poor climatic conditions in major food producing areas; and natural resources depletion. On top of this, more and more people can now afford dairy products and meat; and, rich countries have started to use food crops for biofuels to supplement oil consumption.

The WTO has nothing to say about most of these issues. The climate and energy crises are both outside the WTO's mandate and will likely remain that way. The WTO has no control over the oil oligarchy, OPEC, nor over biofuels policies in the U.S. and Europe. Nor does the WTO has a say over how the world plans to address the growing environmental crisis.

Instead, existing WTO agreements and the proposed Doha reforms are likely to intensify the food crisis. Further deregulation and liberalization will make agricultural markets more volatile and will strengthen the position of dominant players, mainly transnational agribusinesses like Cargill, Monsanto and ADM, in food and agricultural markets.

It is time to build a trading system that cooperates with international efforts to secure food for all. Trade agreements must allow governments to reestablish national and regional food stocks. Global commodity markets must be better managed. And it is time to create international competition laws to prevent transnational agribusinesses from abusing their market power. If Pascal Lamy could start proposing these steps we might start getting somewhere in resolving the crisis in our food system.

—Carin Smaller

May 09, 2008

Fair Trade and Volatile Markets

Earlier this week, IATP met with leaders of coffee farmer cooperatives from Latin America who sell in the certified Fair Trade market. In this case, they sell to Cooperative Coffees, a fair trade, green bean importer. Peace Coffee - a 100 percent, organic and fair trade company owned by IATP - is a founding member of Cooperative Coffees and hosted the farmers.

The representatives came from farm cooperatives in Bolivia, Peru, Mexico, Columbia and Guatemala. The challenges they described brought on by rising prices of all types of commodities were similar. Like other sectors, the coffee market has also been extremely volatile in recent months.

"In our lives we have to deal with changes all the time. But we haven't had any kind of contingency plans in our country for these changes," said Carlos Reynoso, of Manos Campesinas in Guatemala.

Policarpio Ali Cruz, from FECAFEB in Bolivia, told us that the price of gas there is about $8 a gallon, and the country is experiencing a 17 percent increase in inflation from last year. Despite the fact that the country exports oil, its citizens are still paying a high price.

Cruz described the results of U.S. aid policies in Bolivia over the years. Unfortunately, the story is similar in many developing countries around the world who have become dependent on imports. "Donated U.S. flour has eradicated wheat producers in Bolivia," said Cruz. "There are now plans for government support to try to bring back wheat producers."

Wilman Sotelo from Fondo Paez Cooperative in Columbia told us, "The volatility in prices has to do with global commodity exchanges." He pointed to speculation of commodities in global markets as a source for rising prices. Sotelo explained that one of the strengths of the fair trade system is more direct relationships with buyers, "so that we can get out of this system of commodity markets. We are building strong organizations where people are aware and think long-term, rather than getting taken in by a little more price" in the short-term.

Elmer Pena Silva, of CENFROCAFE in Peru, pointed to the damage caused by the devaluation of the U.S. dollar. "In spite of the fact that prices for coffee have been at high levels, the farmers are receiving less value," said Silva. He called for a more open-pricing system in commodity markets that would include more open contracts, rather than secretive, private contracts that allow for big buyers to manipulate the market.

The response to rising commodity prices was similar among these fair trade producers."The dialogue with our producers is to encourage more sustainable practices, protecting the forests and water and using less fertilizers," said Reynoso.

Sotelo emphasized the need to diversify further what cooperatives grow to include more food as a response to the volatile prices.

The meeting brought home once again how rising commodity prices, particularly oil and food, are affecting everyone - even within a fair trade movement built on economic and environmental sustainability.

—Ben Lilliston

May 08, 2008

Presidential Candidates and Food Prices

We've been hearing a lot from Presidential candidates on rising gas prices. But what about rising food prices? What is their plan to address increasing volatility in U.S. agriculture markets? And how will the candidates reform trade and aid policies to help countries around the world facing food shortages get the immediate help they need, as well as strengthen their own food production systems?

In a new commentary titled "Will the Food Crisis Finally Get the Attention of Presidential Candidates?" IATP's Alexandra Spieldoch and Dennis Olson offer some advice for the next Administration:

"Some have called for more laissez-faire policies that would support expanded trade as a response to the current food crisis. This approach is a dangerous one, particularly for net-food importing countries that lack food reserves and production capacity, making them the most vulnerable to price fluctuations that we are experiencing today."

Last month, IATP's Anne Laure Constantin outlined additional concrete steps to address the food crisis at the international level. Look for more from IATP on the food crisis in the coming weeks.

—Ben Lilliston

May 06, 2008

Biofuels and Biodiversity

The biofuel sector has grown so rapidly around the world, we are all still coming to grips with its impact - both good and bad - on the farm and food economy. A new report by IATP's Dr. Dennis Keeney and Claudia Nanninga finds that the first generation of biofuel feedstocks is exacerbating many of the environmentally-destructive practices of the current industrial model of agriculture. Specifically, the biodiversity of several of the major biofuel-producing countries is being threatened as feedstock production extends onto native vegetation.

Below is a press release from today:

Biofuels Contributing to Changing Land-Use Patterns, Affecting Biodiversity – New Report

Minneapolis – Increasing production of crops for biofuels is exacerbating agriculture’s impact on biodiversity in many parts of the world, finds a new report by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP).

The report, “Biofuel and Global Biodiversity,” is by Dr. Dennis Keeney and Claudia Nanninga and is available at: www.iatp.org. The paper includes case studies of three regions that have been growing much of the feedstock for biofuels around the world: the U.S., Brazil and Malaysia/Indonesia.

“Ethanol and biodiesel are being overlaid on a broken agricultural production system,” said Dr. Keeney. “Many of the biodiversity impacts of biofuel feedstock production are not inherent to biofuel, but are more a symptom of damaging agricultural production systems and policies.”

The report found that in the U.S., increased corn planting is reducing the diversity of crop rotations and threatening wetlands and acreage set aside for conservation. In Brazil, greater sugarcane production for ethanol is moving into the fragile, diverse Cerrado region, and soy production for biodiesel is contributing to significant destruction of the Amazon rainforest. Perhaps the largest loss of biodiversity is occurring in the rainforests of Malaysia and Indonesia, where palm oil plantations are rapidly being established to feed the growing demand for biodiesel in Europe and elsewhere.

The paper found that the biofuel industry has expanded due to two complementary drivers: the increase in the price of crude oil and national policies to encourage the production and use of biofuel. It concluded that future policy solutions need to focus on:

• Protecting rainforests and fragile, native ecosystems and indigenous lands – The most significant biodiversity threat is from biofuel feedstock production that extends onto native vegetation;
• Making sustainability a priority in all biofuel production – Policies should encourage more sustainable production of existing biofuel feedstocks – and accelerate the transition to more sustainable next generation biofuel feedstocks;
• Moderating price volatility in agricultural commodities – An updated supply management system could stabilize market prices and reduce incentives to encroach on native vegetation;
• Redesigning our agricultural and energy sectors – Agriculture and energy policies should prioritize local production and use.

“Public policy has been a major driver in the development of the biofuel industry,” said Jim Harkness, IATP President. “In moving forward, smarter policy is crucial if biofuel production is going to protect and enhance – rather than decimate – global biodiversity.”

—Ben Lilliston

May 02, 2008

May Day in Southern Honduras

IATP Senior Fellow Mark Muller is working in a volunteer program in Honduras through July. He is blogging periodically on his experiences there.

Sometimes it can feel like we work in a little bubble. It's good to get out of that bubble sometimes to see how much others share IATP´s core concerns like keeping farmers on the land, respecting human rights, protecting the Commons, and keeping government and corporations accountable. I spent yesterday at a wonderful May Day celebration in Choluteca, Honduras, where hundreds of people marched in support of these issues. The hundred degree weather didn´t seem to phase people.

It was an impressive merging of labor unions, campesinos, human rights groups, environmentalists and the faith community. Unfortunately, it seems more difficult for these disparate groups to come together in the United States. Here are some photos below of the May Day celebration.

—Mark Muller

April 21, 2008

Africa, Post-Colonialism and the Role of the UN

IATP's Alexandra Spieldoch and Anne Laure Constantin are in Accra, Ghana for the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) XII meeting through April 24. They will be blogging periodically on events in Accra.

The official UNCTAD XII meeting began yesterday with an opening plenary including speeches from the presidents of Brazil (Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva), Ghana (John Agyekum Kufuor) and the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon. Secretary-General of UNCTAD, Supachai Panitchpakdi, spoke to the G77 earlier in the day and also to civil society groups the day prior. This meeting takes place at a critical time for Africa, which is drowning in unfilled promises for development - worsened by skyrocketing food and oil prices, climate change and unfair terms of trade and investment.

Yet again, government leaders acknowledge that the poor are being left behind in the globalization model. They are urging countries to work together to deal with the development crisis. However, their solutions are neither new nor will they curb the crisis today. They propose a "second generation of globalization" which would include: increased aid to meet the Millenium Development Goal targets; increased trade (including more South/South free trade agreements); increased "aid for trade" to further productive capacity; increased biofuels investment; and a green revolution in Africa. More of the same and then some….It is sad to see the UN so overtaken by the neoliberal agenda for development and growth. The reduced role of the UN is apparent. The implications for Africa are huge.

In relation to the food crisis, the UN seems to understand all of the problems associated with deregulated markets, financial speculation and the lowest grain reserves in history. Yet, surprisingly, UN officials caution against managing food supplies (i.e. price caps on certain goods and export/import taxes, and establishing grain reserves). Rather, they urge countries to wait it out and let the market regulate itself.  This policy is condemning people to starve at a time when they must be served by their governments and international institutions.

Ministers and other high-level officials from 49 of the least developed countries (LDCs) released a statement on April 19, calling for a "new deal" to tackle the international crisis caused by high food prices. They urge UNCTAD to support additional aid for agricultural infrastructure and domestic production, market access to developed countries and the integration of LDCs into the world economy. Immediate regulation at both the domestic and international levels is needed in order to achieve these objectives.

UNCTAD has written on the fact that foreign direct investment (FDI) has grown in Africa. What UNCTAD reports, however, is that FDI flows have not actually led to an increase in Africa’s share in global FDI. This is because 70 percent of investment agreements concluded by African countries have been with other countries in Europe. Much of the future investment will continue to be extractive (oil, gas and minerals). The majority of this investment has been in primary and services sectors and is due to the exploitation of African’s natural resources and privatization schemes.

Within Africa itself, only a few resource rich countries have benefited from FDI. These include Angola, South Africa and Nigeria. In spite of the fact that current foreign direct investment hasn’t led to GDP growth in most countries, UNCTAD is calling for regional Free Trade Agreements and more Bilateral Investment Treaties as the cure for the region.

It is clear that the UN’s role has been greatly reduced and co-opted by the trade agenda. Our challenge moving forward in this global economy is strengthening the UN and our commitment to one another and the environment. Africa is in terrible trouble in spite of its rich history, culture and vibrant spirit. We cannot stand back while our friends and colleagues suffer from this ongoing colonial paradigm.

—Alexandra Spieldoch

April 18, 2008

High Prices and Rural Development

In this time of high agriculture prices, we know someone is making a lot of money. On the buying side of the farm chain, Cargill reports third quarter net earnings of over $1 billion this week, a 69 percent increase from last year. On the input side, Monsanto announced record earnings earlier this month, also over $1 billion for its second quarter.

In theory, higher global prices should represent an important opportunity for farmers and rural communities in developing countries. But according to a new report released today by IATP's Anne Laure Constantin, many of the benefits of high prices are not finding their way to farmers due to higher production costs and the dismantling of important agriculture policy tools (thanks to World Bank, IMF and WTO policies) designed to help ramp up production and manage supply to address price volatility.

On Sunday, trade ministers from around the world will gather in Accra, Ghana for the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). The meeting represents an important opportunity to address the current failings in agriculture markets. You can follow the latest happenings at the UNCTAD XII meeting at IATP's UNCTAD web page.

Here is IATP's press release from today:

Can High Agriculture Prices Spur Development?

UNCTAD Meeting an Opportunity to Address Agriculture Markets, New Report

Minneapolis/Accra – Trade ministers gathering in Accra, Ghana for the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) should take steps to support agriculture and manage supplies to address price volatility, according to a new paper by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP).

“A Time of High Prices: An Opportunity for the Rural Poor?” written by IATP’s Trade Information Project Officer Anne Laure Constantin, is being released in Accra today, and is available at www.iatp.org.

The paper finds that governments have been limited in their ability to help farmers take advantage of higher prices – due to free trade economics pushed by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization. Trade liberalization has encouraged the dismantling of agriculture programs in many developing countries, making it difficult to ramp up production and manage supplies to stabilize prices.

“The push to deregulate national and international agriculture markets needs to be reassessed,” said Constantin. “UNCTAD has historically been at the intersection of commodities and development. They could play a constructive role in addressing unfair markets and stabilizing prices.”

The paper found that while agriculture prices are rising almost across the board, farmers in poor countries aren’t benefitting as much as they could. Instead, many of them suffer from the spike in food prices. Skyrocketing energy and input (fertilizer and seed) costs are increasing the cost of production. Gains from export earnings are being swallowed up by the exporting company and profits have not found their way back to farmers.

The paper called for:

·         UNCTAD XII to reassess the need to regulate agriculture markets. High prices can be a tool for development and poverty alleviation, but they will not achieve these aims if left to highly volatile and concentrated global markets;

·         Greater support for the agriculture sector, particularly in developing countries;

·         Coordinated action to manage agriculture supply to address price volatility;

·         Regulation of the food value chain to address the market power of transnational corporations and deliver on a fair distribution of benefits from producers to consumers;

·         Promotion of environmentally sustainable methods of production including assistance adapting agriculture to climate change;

·         Bioenergy policies that don’t threaten food security and adapt to local conditions and needs.

Constantin and IATP’s Director of Trade and Global Governance, Alexandra Spieldoch, are in Accra at a civil society forum from April 17-19, and then monitoring the UNCTAD meeting from April 20-24. You can find updates on all that is happening at the UNCTAD XII Ministerial at: http://www.iatp.org/unctadxii/

—Ben Lilliston

April 14, 2008

Trade Rules and Biofuels

The global biofuel market has grown so quickly that international trade and investment rules aren’t prepared to handle the multiple challenges arising from this new sector. As an example, the World Trade Organization treats ethanol and biodiesel very differently under its rules. At the same time, the clearing of land to meet the growing need for biofuel feedstocks is causing a host of environmental problems, including threats to water and biodiversity (a topic IATP will tackle in an upcoming report). 

In a new paper published with our friends at the International Institute for Environment and Development,  IATP’s Sophia Murphy outlines how global rules will shape the biofuel market and how new rules are needed to support environmental sustainability, rural development and human rights. Below is our press release on the paper from today:

Global Trade Rules to Shape Biofuel Market

Minneapolis – The long-term sustainability of the fast-moving global biofuel market will depend on changes to international trade and investment rules that govern energy, environment, agriculture and rural development, according to a new paper published by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) and the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

“This industry has developed so quickly that governments at all levels, but particularly at the global level, have been slow to set rules on how to manage its growth,” said Sophia Murphy, IATP Senior Advisor and author of the paper. “It is critical that governments set global rules that support environmental sustainability and economic development for more than just a few companies.”

The paper, “The Multilateral Trade and Investment Context for Biofuels: Issues and Challenges,” outlines the different interests of the largest global players in the biofuel market, including the U.S., European Union and Brazil. The paper analyzes biofuel trade within the context of World Trade Organization rules governing agriculture, environmental goods, services, patents and investment. Biofuels raise a number of tricky trade questions, including: the acceptability of production and processing methods (PPMs) as a basis for discrimination among goods; the legitimacy of trade restrictive measures that support goals set in multilateral environmental agreements; and the effects of private standards on market access.

Current biofuel feedstocks are energy-intensive and involve largely industrial-scale monocultural production. In parts of the world, biofuel feedstock production is taking a heavy environmental toll on water, soil, and ecological biodiversity. Investment from foreign firms seeking biofuel feedstock is also aggravating land disputes and intensifying the political fight to protect food security. The paper discusses some of the issues on developing sustainability standards for biofuel production and calls for a multilateral discussion to set trade and investment rules that support a fair and sustainable biofuel sector.

“International guidelines could complement what will ultimately be local and national decisions,” said Murphy. “Such guidelines could carve out space for policies that are dictated by human rights and environmental norms, and could help to reshape trade and investment obligations to be more supportive of sustainable development.”

The paper can be read at: www.iatp.org.

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy works at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems for all people. www.iatp.org. IIED is an independent, non-profit research institute working in the field of sustainable development at the local, national, regional and global level. www.iied.org.

—Ben Lilliston

April 09, 2008

The Emerging U.S. Water Crisis - Part Two

Barely three years ago in the wake of hurricane Katrina IATP’s Mark Muller wrote: “The storm exposed some real vulnerability in the current agriculture system. As we recover from the tragedy of Katrina, we have an opportunity to rebuild and rethink how to strengthen agriculture, regional economies and the transportation and production infrastructure. He identified 10 areas of vulnerability exposed by Katrina, including energy, fertilizer, transportation markets for crops less dependent on inputs, CAFO regulation, on-farm water storage, valuing the commons and climate change.”

I find these areas of vulnerability particularly relevant when it comes to the current water crisis. Like Katrina, this crisis gives us yet another opportunity to rethink and challenge issues that we need to raise: land use planning that allows unfettered development, energy production that is water intensive, and agricultural water use that is inefficient from a hydrological perspective. So far we have assumed that we can undertake any development we want, wherever we want, or we could grow whatever we want,
however we want, and that water will always be available to support that growth. In the process we are draining our aquifers, polluting our rivers, tampering with ecosystems and destroying the diversity of life—as if nature is ours to be manipulated to suit our wants. It is time to change some of our practices.

For more than a century, the federal government has spent billions of dollars, building our dams, reservoirs, aqueducts and pipelines. Ironically, in the same way that extracting/ transporting and processing water consumes large amounts of energy, the operation of power plants consume large amounts of water. Thermal energy is one of the largest water users in the United States. However, irrigated agriculture accounts for 80 percent of
water consumed in the U.S. This high percentage is partially because of low water use-efficiency (the portion of water actually used by irrigated agriculture relative to the volume of water withdrawn).

For the western United States, agricultural farms are the single largest water user, half of which is used by the largest 10 percent of the farms. High levels of irrigation subsidies, combined with archaic water laws make water use in the western U.S. highly wasteful and inefficient. But there is room for improvement in agricultural water use in almost all parts of the U.S.

Water use should be such that for a given locale, appropriate incentives are put in place to ensure that water withdrawals do not exceed the recharge rate; that water conservation techniques (such as rain water harvesting) are central to land use planning; that improved irrigation efficiency and better nutrient management (to reduce non-point water pollution from farm run-offs) are rewarded; and that growing water-intensive crops in water scarce regions discouraged.

Legal judgments, such the recent case involving the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, are an attempt to reverse earlier actions by state and federal water managers that have damaged the water system. But much more is needed.

As Peter Gleick of the California based Pacific Institute points out in a recent article: “While predictions of economic disaster arising from the Delta decision may come true, they don't have to. But it will take a re-evaluation of our ideas about water-use and political courage by the governor, Legislature and water users to have open and honest discussions about how to redesign our water
system so that it is smart, efficient and sustainable.”

This is true for the nation as a whole: here in this land of plenty, we need to rethink our policies regarding urban development, energy production, and most importantly our agriculture and food systems, in order to avert an environmental crisis that many countries are already in the grip of.

—Shiney Varghese

April 07, 2008

The Emerging U.S. Water Crisis - Part One

I am amazed: since last summer, almost every day we see at least one news story on another water crisis in the U.S. The water crisis is no longer something that we know about as affecting developing countries or their poor in particular. It is right here in our own backyard. Today, in many parts of the U.S. we are nearing the limits of our water supplies. And that is getting our attention.

The writing has been on the wall for some time. The private sector has been showing much interest in water as a source of profit, and water privatization has been an issue in many parts of the country. The failure in public water systems has indeed been a contributing factor for this interest. In many cities, consumers have been organizing and opposing the privatization of water utilities, because they have been concerned about affordability or deterioration in the quality of service. Environmental organizations and
consumer activists have also been concerned about the socio-economic, health and environmental implications of ever increasing bottled water use.

But for most of us living in the U.S., water is something we take for granted, available when you turn your tap on–—to brush your teeth, to take a shower, to wash your car, to water your lawn, and if you have your own swimming pool then, to fill that as well.

So it was with alarm that many of us read the story of Orme, a small town tucked away in the mountains of southern Tennessee that has become a recent symbol of the drought in the southeast. Orme has had to literally ration its water use, by collecting water for a few hours every day–—an everyday experience in most developing countries, but unusual for the U.S.

This is an extreme experience from the southeast region that has been under a year long dry spell. In fact, the region’s dry spell resulted in the city of Atlanta setting severe water use restrictions and three states, Georgia, Florida and Alabama, going to court over a water allocation dispute (settled in favor of Florida and Alabama early this month).

Early this year we also heard that drought in the region could force nuclear reactor shutdowns. Nuclear reactors need billions of gallons of cooling water daily to operate, and in many of the lakes and rivers water levels are getting close to the limit set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is possible in the coming months that we may see water levels decrease below the intake pipes, or that shallow water could become warmer and unusable as a coolant. While this may not cause blackouts, this can result in increased costs for energy as utilities have to buy from other sources.

Water concerns are not restricted to the southeast region—similar issues have also been popping up in other parts of the United States. In the Midwest, concerns abound as to whether the newly emerging biofuel industry is putting undue pressure on the region’s groundwater resources. The issue came into focus for the first time in the late summer of 2006 in Granite Falls, MN where an ethanol plant in its first year of operation depleted the groundwater so much that it had to begin pumping water from the Minnesota River.

In early February, it was reported that there is a 50 percent chance Lake Mead (on the Arizona/Nevada border), will be dry by 2021 if climate change continues as expected and future water use is not limited. Along with Lake Powell in Utah, Lake Mead helps provide water for more than 25 million people, and is a key source of water in the southwestern U.S. On the west coast, where water is a precious resource, water disputes abound: between farmers who want water for agriculture, environmentalists who want to conserve water for ecosystems, and cities who want to meet ever-growing urban water needs.

Last summer, in a landmark decision, a federal judge ordered state and federal water project managers to reduce the amount of water pumped from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to protect the threatened delta smelt from extinction. Along with excessive rains in other regions and increased incidence of hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, these changes are a constant reminder of an increasingly evident reality: climate change.

In fact, in early February, Nature reported that, “In the western US, where water is perhaps the most precious natural resource, anthropogenic global warming is responsible for more than half of the well-documented changes to the hydrological cycle from 1950 to 1999. . .Over the last half of the twentieth century, the region's mountains received less winter snow and more rain, with snow melting earlier, causing rivers to flow more strongly in the spring and more weakly in the summer.”

Unlike Katrina’s images that are as haunting as that of a severe sub Saharan drought, the images of the current North American drought are no more than a mild distraction for most Americans (though not for those who live in Orne). Yet there is no reason to be complacent. We are close to the limits of our water supplies. It is time for us to start thinking of this nation’s susceptibility to these changes and disruptions and how to minimize our vulnerability to them.

In part two, I'll look more at the U.S. water crisis and agriculture.

—Shiney Varghese

April 04, 2008

In Istanbul on World Water Day

Istanbul is a beautiful city. It straddles the continents of Asia and Europe, and lies on the banks of the strategic Bosphorus Strait that connects the Marmara and Dead Sea. For water activists, Istanbul is an especially important place because it will host the 5th World Water Forum (WWF) one year from now.

Many Turkish water justice activists have come together to organize a parallel alternative water forum next year. This alterative water forum will challenge the corporate and International Financial Institution (IFI)-led agenda of the WWF, and talk about alternatives that will help address the global water crisis. You can find background on the emerging water crisis, both in the U.S. and around the world, at our water web page.

As people around the world celebrated World Water Day on March 22nd, I had the privilege to be part of a delegation of international water justice advocates which held a preparatory meeting in Istanbul to plan for the alternative water forum.

The first event was a conference, "Water Under the Yoke of Capitalism,” organized by a network of 50 Turkish organizations in collaboration with 17 other groups from around the world. It was well attended by representatives of diverse sectors, including: water worker unions, consumer groups, academics and public health and environmental organizations.

The program was well organized, with high quality and in-depth presentations on a broad range of issues. It paid attention to the many ways in which water is central to our lives, our economy and how water mismanagement impacts health, agriculture, industry, mining and energy.

As far as the Turkish water situation goes, every presenter, irrespective of their professional background -- engineering, hydro-electric energy, health, mining, dams or agriculture -- stressed sustainability and criticized neo-liberalization. They were in agreement about the threats of privatization, the misuse of water resources, the damage caused by international finance and domestic policies that promote unsustainable development, and the need for alternatives.

Farm groups were also very active at the meeting. While irrigated agriculture accounts for 70 percent of world water use, it produces 40 percent of the world’s food crops. Rain-fed agriculture meets 60 percent of food production, but is under threat from climate change. The conference ended with a call from farmers' groups to include rural water concerns in the upcoming alternate water forum.

The conference was followed by a strategy meeting that issued the Istanbul Solidarity Statement on March 24, 2008. I'll continue to report throughout the year on plans for next year's World Water Forum in Istanbul.

—Shiney Varghese

March 20, 2008

One month to go before UNCTAD XII

In 2008, the United Nations (UN) has chosen to hold its major trade and development conference in Africa. Ministers from all around the world will meet in Accra, the capital of Ghana, starting April 20. In addition to ministers, a crowd of 4,000 international civil servants, civil society activists, business representatives, and journalists is expected to descend on the usually discrete West African capital.

The World Trade Organization (WTO), its Doha “Development” Round and its highly publicized ministerial conferences have received most of the attention over the past ten years. But the UN has its own important forum on trade and development: UNCTAD (the UN Conference on Trade and Development). What’s the point? And what are the stakes of this year’s UNCTAD meeting?

A cross-cutting mandate on trade and development

UNCTAD was created in 1964 out of concern that existing international institutions (the GATT and the Bretton Woods Institutions) were not adapted to the particular challenges faced by developing countries in a post colonial era. It was agreed, as developing countries demanded, that the UN needed a permanent forum to address trade and development issues in an integrated manner.

This cross-cutting mandate on trade and development is at the heart of UNCTAD’s value. It enables UNCTAD to critically assess the impacts of trade on various development objectives. Take, for example, the liberalization of trade in services: how does it impact people’s access to essential services (water, education, health…)? This is one of the many sensitive questions that UNCTAD addressed in 2007. At a time when the stalemate at the WTO represents countries’ discontent with the Doha Round of negotiations’ inability to accommodate their development concerns—such as the need to retain space to regulate their services sector, or to meet their food security, rural development and rural livelihoods priorities—UNCTAD’s ability to make these linkages is particularly critical.

Also, as a UN body, UNCTAD can leverage other resources in the UN system, and draw on specialized agencies’ expertise. It takes into account the wide range of UN norms that countries have to respect, instead of looking at trade rules in isolation. 

In between conferences, UNCTAD works to support developing countries in making well-informed decisions as they define their trade policies. It does so by providing them with remarkable research and analysis, by facilitating intergovernmental debates on outstanding issues and subsequently through technical assistance.

A compelling context for UN Member States… 

From April 20-25 this year, Ghana will host the 12^th session of UNCTAD. It will take place at crunch-time for the multilateral system: the world is facing major global challenges that call for collaborative action.

The crisis spreading throughout global financial markets in the wake of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco seems endless. Every week carries a new list of affected companies. For now, mostly those directly active in financial markets seem to be weakened. But as more banks lose confidence there is more and more concern that the crisis might spread to the “real” economy, first in the U.S. and then, as a result, to the rest of the world.

In addition, the risks entailed by climate change are becoming more concrete. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the unprecedented number of climate related disasters in 2007 is proof that “climate change is upon us.” There is no question that this is going to be a new constraint affecting countries’ development in the future. Questions around climate’s impact on food production are hitting the headlines as prices have experienced sharp increases in the past few months. Debates around the impact of international trade on climate change are heating up, as the Trade Ministers meeting in Bali last December showed.

And yet, the ability of the multilateral system to come up with collaborative solutions to new and other enduring challenges (such as the Millennium Development Goals) has been, up till now, a disappointment. International financial institutions (the World Bank and the IMF) have lost their credibility: developing countries are making every effort not to surrender to their conditionalities. Discussions on the linkages between trade and climate change are only just starting—despite the importance of the challenge, they sound like business as usual. Last but not least, negotiations at the WTO have been stalled for almost two years now. The world desperately needs fair multilateral trade rules, but does not seem to be able to find a way to craft them.

… But will they be up for the challenge?

The main theme of UNCTAD XII is: “Addressing the opportunities and challenges of globalization for development.” In their preparatory negotiations, Member States are grappling with all of the above mentioned issues. In his report to the Conference, the Secretary General presented some bold proposals in particular in the area of financial markets regulation.

Developing countries are striving for an ambitious outcome for the conference. Negotiating as a group called “G77,” they are putting bold proposals on the table for UNCTAD to take up and facilitate the design of development-friendly solutions at the international level.

Developed countries, however, are not showing the same enthusiasm. Arguably, their efforts in these negotiations are directed at reducing the role of UNCTAD and muting its critical voices. Ideally, they would like UNCTAD to stick to its technical cooperation projects and stop intervening in policy debates.

This is not a new situation. UNCTAD, under strong leadership, experienced two decades of high political standing in the 1960s and 1970s. It has been significantly weakened, though, in the past three decades, by developed countries’ shift towards new economic theories that support a more prominent role for markets and limited roles for governments. As a result, efforts have focused on neo-liberal institutions like the IFIs and the GATT/WTO, at the expense of UNCTAD.

But the failure of the current model of globalization and of the institutions that are associated with it is clear. Furthermore, developing countries have gained a voice in international debates that they did not have ten years ago. Will the UNCTAD XII negotiations be hampered by developed countries’ reluctance to acknowledge this new reality? If negotiations continue on the same track, yes. Can the month left in the run-up to the conference open the way for renewed multilateral efforts on trade and development? Here are a couple of benchmarks that will help us find out.

Some benchmarks for UNCTAD XII

UNCTAD Conferences serve two related objectives: first and most importantly, their outcome is a reflection of the consensus, at the international level, on trade and development issues. The ambition of this outcome—or on the contrary its emptiness—reveals whether countries have been able to agree on most issues or whether opinions remain far apart. Second, UNCTAD Conferences define the organization’s mandate for the following four years. Here the fight is on the margins, where the secretariat is asked to address issues identified as key by member States. Much of this also depends on funding, that comes at a later stage, making it difficult to assess at the end of the conference whether the mandate will actually be implemented.

At the time of writing this article, virtually all the issues on the negotiating table are controversial. Compromises will likely be identified in the last weeks of negotiations and at the Conference itself. We chose to highlight three particularly sensitive subjects, the treatment of which will be a test-case for the relevance of UNCTAD XII.

- Globalization and countries’ policy space. UNCTAD XI had initiated a debate around the impact of globalization, and trade liberalization in particular, on countries’ ability to regulate and implement domestic policy measures. In light of widespread popular discontent over the impacts of trade liberalization on livelihoods, this debate is of utmost importance. Developing countries are calling on UNCTAD to further the debate on this issue, including through a proposed Commission on Globalization, but developed countries would rather ignore the subject.

- Ever since its creation, UNCTAD has been the pre-eminent forum for debate, analysis and policy-formulation with regard to commodity issues in the context of development. UNCTAD XII happens at a time when the world is experiencing historically high commodity prices, which bring both opportunities and challenges to developing countries. And yet, the treatment of this issue in the negotiations falls short. Developed countries would like to focus on national governments’ responsibility to deal with their commodity sectors. The food security and environment challenges associated with high prices are absent from the text.

- UNCTAD produces remarkable research and analysis on trade and development through numerous reports like the Trade and Development report, the LDCs report, the Economic Development in Africa report, etc. They help countries assess the best options for their development strategies, and provide interested stakeholders with critical analysis and proposals for how to make globalization work for development. These publications, however, do not always please all members. Developed countries want to require the ability of member States to comment on draft reports prior to publication. This would be a blow to the organization’s independence and credibility.

There is no question that the stakes are high and that UNCTAD XII is timely. Its mandate is very relevant to the current crises, and it has an unquestionable expertise on some of today’s key challenges. However, unless Member States decide to engage in a genuinely collaborative way instead of fighting an old-fashioned North-South battle, UNCTAD XII will fall short. 

—Anne-Laure Constantin

March 17, 2008

NAFTA takes the spotlight: It's about time

“We're seeing the strongest opposition to free trade expansion in recent memory. NAFTA has become symbolic of the fears and apprehensions of globalization in general.” Eric Farnsworth, Council of the Americas.

Almost 15 years after it was ratified, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is increasingly in the spotlight. The U.S. public has a growing understanding about the link between trade and the economic and social challenges currently surfacing. Presidential candidates are being called on by the public to answer to NAFTA and the economy.

Over the years, there have been different views on how NAFTA has affected the environment, the downward wage spiral and loss of jobs, and rural development. And, while NAFTA is not responsible for all the woes in North America, it has clearly not fulfilled its promise to create good jobs, increase wealth and decrease migration.

During NAFTA, wealth increased only for a select few in each of the three countries. The gap between rich and poor has widened. And that gap is driving forced migration from Mexico into the U.S. Today, over 500,000 people cross into the U.S. from Mexico every year. The U.S.-Mexico border is the world’s highest immigration corridor. Remittances (money sent back to Mexico from migrants) were at $25 billion in 2007, coming in only second to oil as a source of Mexico’s foreign revenue. These remittances are not creating development in Mexico. Rather, they are a desperate attempt to ease poverty that has become so dire. Overall, NAFTA has worsened the economic divide between the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

IATP has argued for years that NAFTA-style deregulation is the wrong form of integration. A closer look at agriculture helps us understand just what is so problematic with the NAFTA model.

To prepare for NAFTA, the Mexican government dismantled its domestic support for agriculture, including land allocation laws, the grain reserve, programs for rural sector development, and tariffs on basic foods such as certain varieties of corn, beans, and dairy products. Decreased spending on agriculture in Mexico and tariff cuts combined with U.S. exports being dumped at below the cost of production. The result has been devastating for small farmers and contributed to unemployment and migration from the countryside. Over two million people have been forced off their land in Mexico since NAFTA, many migrating to urban centers within Mexico and the United States. IATP outlined some of the links between NAFTA, the U.S. Farm Bill, and Immigration in our Farm Bill series last year.

Many of those former farmers, unable to make a living in Mexico, have been absorbed into the agricultural sector in the U.S. Raul Delgado Wise, Executive Director of the International Network on Migration and Development, refers to this phenomenon as the “Mexicanization of U.S. agriculture.” In the U.S., most migrant workers in agriculture take seasonal jobs and are paid low wages by the hour for the amount of work done. According to the USDA, between 2.2 and 3.1 million undocumented immigrants work in three agri-food sectors: farming and fishing, meat and fish processing, and food service. Most of these workers come from Mexico. Once here they face incredible challenges, including the potential for death crossing the border to get here, poor wages, poor health care and housing.

While policymakers and the media are focused on the need for immigration reform in the U.S., they consistently fail to make the connection to NAFTA and to the systemic causes of forced displacement. Oscar Chacon, the Executive Director for the National Alliance for Latin American and Caribbean Communities, talks about the fact that in most cases undocumented immigrants are victims of extreme poverty and hunger in their country of origin and then again in the U.S. as they struggle to survive and evade deportation. And, while migration is not new, the number of undocumented migrants coming to the U.S. from Mexico has doubled since NAFTA came into force.

NAFTA hasn’t been good for U.S. farmers either. From 1992 to 2002, the U.S. lost over 200,000 farmers. The 1996 Farm Bill deregulated farm commodity programs leading to grain overproduction and 10 years of price collapse, until the recent ethanol boom. Cheap grains have indirectly subsidized the meat and processed food industry, whose operations have consolidated and whose profits have grown. From 1999 through 2006, Cargill’s overall profits went from $597 million to $1.73 billion. Meanwhile, the consumer has seen an increase in food prices since NAFTA.

Our neighbors in Canada share a similar story. The National Farmers Union in Canada reports that agri-food exports have increased substantially since NAFTA, as have corporate profits. Conversely, realized net farm income has gone down, farm debt has more than doubled, there are less farmers today, and food prices in Canada have risen.

With an eye toward a new Congress and President in 2009, the political opportunity is here to make a change.

On March 5, IATP co-organized a conference in Washington, D.C., entitled Linking Agriculture, Development and Migration: A Critical Look at NAFTA Past, Present and Future, to promote an alternative vision for this region among legislators and civil society. One major outcome was that Canadian MP Peter Julian (Burnaby-New Westminster), U.S. Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) and the Honorable Yeidckol Polevnsky (senator for Mexico State and vice-president of the Mexican Senate) announced their joint commitment to call for the renegotiation of NAFTA. Civil society groups in the U.S., Mexico and Canada have outlined concrete suggestions for what renegotiation would entail.

Perhaps the most encouraging outcome is that legislators and civil society were able to speak frankly about our moral responsibility to one another in this region and elsewhere. Economic integration could make sense, but not as we have seen it. Recognizing the fundamental errors with the NAFTA model, we must change our course so that integration is about regulated investment and managed trade in support or people, the environment and infrastructure, healthy and accessible food, a higher standard of living, and regional citizenship. What we are talking about is respect for communities, people and the environment, not just the profits of multinational corporations. Renegotiate NAFTA? Lives depend on it. And so does the stability of the region.

—Alexandra Spieldoch

March 14, 2008

Good Jobs, Green Jobs... for everyone!

IATPers Jim Harkness, Lindsay Dahl and I are all at the "Green Jobs, Good Jobs" conference in Pittsburgh today and it has been a very powerful and uplifting experience. Organized by the Blue-Green Alliance, which brings together the United Steelworkers and the Sierra Club, this is the first national conference to focus not only on the global warming and environmental challenges we face, but more importantly, on how we need to restructure our economy and create jobs to address these challenges.

Yesterday was a great start, with multiple speakers and panels on issues ranging from public policy and investment to the role of green chemistry and energy in rebuilding rural and urban economies. Carl Pope of the Sierra Club gave a stirring speech to help open the conference and place it in context, by asking the essential question: how do we ensure, as we move into a green jobs economy, that poor people, people of color and rural communities aren't left out? The response from Lou Schorsch, CEO of Flat Caron America and ArcelorMittal North America, the world's largest steel company, was emblematic of the problems we face: "I'm a business guy, so that's a hard question for me." 

Minnesota is the home of Dave Foster, the Executive Director of the Blue-Green Alliance, so it's not surprising that much of the work here has been highlighted. Minnesotan presenters included Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, Minnesota State Senator Ellen Anderson, and Piper Jaffrey's Lois Quam yesterday, with Senator Amy Klobuchar scheduled to speak today. While we know things aren't perfect back home and we still face many challenges in moving toward green and good jobs, it's clear that Minnesota has lessons and approaches that other states and regions can learn from, so a little "Minnesota-pride" is deserved!

For me, however, it is the focus on jobs, people and justice that has me most excited. Marko Trbovich of the United Steel Workers, gave a rousing speech to end yesterday's program, where he spoke directly to the connections between climate change and international trade. Some of the key points include:
- Climate change is the most pervasive form of globalization.
- Climate change is inextricably linked to international trade.
- To really make the policy changes we need to address global warming, we need to reform our trade system.

These connections with people and justice were brought into sharp focus this morning by an incredi