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

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

RSS feeds

 Subscribe in a reader

Trade

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 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 29, 2008

UNCTAD XII is Over. . .More Work Ahead

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

I'm now in Geneva, back from Accra and UNCTAD XII. I've not yet recovered from an intensive week of civil society activities, meeting with officials and enjoying the sun and heat of the West African capital. But my head full of new ideas for how to advance our work, in collaboration with other individuals and institutions, as a contribution to make trade work for development.

I find that what’s most exciting about these international conferences is the number of people you meet and the opportunity to exchange perspectives. These discussions enrich our work back home. Over the course of the week, we co-sponsored or attended events on: commodities, biofuels, the future of the WTO, African women and food sovereignty, the food crisis and free trade agreements. All of them were informed by very different perspectives, from civil society, business, governments, etc. The fact that the conference took place in Africa gave us an opportunity to understand better the realities in that region in relation to agriculture and trade.

To be frank, the outcome of the conference in itself was a disappointment. As Alexandra highlighted in her earlier blog, there has been no genuine attempt by the UN to free itself from the neoliberal agenda for development and growth. The final Accra Declaration sadly lacks any kind of ambition. Some of the language is contradictory, reflecting the hard compromises that Member States had to strike to finally come up with a text. UNCTAD’s role in enhancing intergovernmental dialogue on the links – and possible contradictions - between globalization, development and poverty alleviation, is being severely constrained. While developing countries had ambitious proposals in these areas, the outcome was less space for these discussions to take place within UNCTAD.

The dramatic food crisis now spreading around the world was part of every single conversation in the Conference Center. We are satisfied that there seems to be more focus on the need to support agriculture in developing countries in order to increase food supplies. However, we are very concerned that there is no fundamental reconsideration of how to most effectively support agriculture development: how can governments believe that more of the same will solve the crisis?

If the UN is not able to offer bold proposals for how to address the crisis, then who is?

In the end, this conference was only one step on our way. In the months ahead, IATP will keep advocating in favor of a reform of international agriculture trade rules, so as to address the new challenges posed by climate change, rising oil prices, speculation in financial markets and corporate power in agriculture. Stay posted!

—Anne-Laure Constantin

April 28, 2008

Will the International Assessment of Agriculture Bring a New Era?

On April 12, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) reports on agriculture were approved by 57 governments meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa. The approval capped a six year-long process of negotiating terms of reference for the project, selecting more than 400 authors, and three full rounds of writing, editing and rewriting in response to thousands of comments from around the world. Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States have not signed on to the reports, despite many changes to the “Summary for Decision-Makers” and the “Synthetic Reports” on cross-cutting themes that were made to gain their support.

I went to two of the four author/reviewer meetings, was a Lead Author for the “policy options” chapter of the Global Report and reviewed the chapter on Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology (AKST) investment. 

Here are some of the key findings:

• The way the world grows its food must radically change to better serve the poor and hungry if the world is going to cope with a growing population and climate change.
• A new system must focus on the needs of small farms in diverse ecosystems.
• The industrial agriculture model focused almost exclusively on production has come at a high environmental cost.
• The patenting of genetically engineered crops has concentrated ownership of resources, driving up costs and undermining local farming practices.
• Women, who make up a large proportion of farmers in developing countries, continue to struggle with low income, limited access to education, credit and land, and deteriorating work conditions.

The paper concluded that a new agriculture system should focus on: fighting poverty and improving rural livelihoods; enhancing food security, using natural resources in a sustainable way, improving human health and greater equity in agriculture.

Much of the criticism about the IAASTD report comes from a few governments and the agricultural biotechnology industry, which had supported the creation of the IAASTD on the understanding that it would promote the industry and trade liberalization as primary vehicles for AKST investment and research. Industry representatives withdrew from the IAASTD when they couldn’t control its content in the writing and comment process to which they had agreed. I suspect that much of the criticism of the report as “anti-science” comes from those who have not read the whole report or from those whose notion of ASKT encompasses a very narrow range of science. For example, in contrast to the conventional call for focusing public investment in yield-increasing technologies, the IAASTD assesses the policy options and investments for post-harvest technologies to ensure that existing production does not spoil. Sometimes “low tech” solutions obviate the need for costly “high tech” science.

Civil Society Organizations issued an April 12th statement in Johannesburg, entitled “A new era of agriculture begins today.” (More comments and articles on the assessment can be found here). Whether or not the optimism of this title is justified will depend on whether and how governments and CSOs interpret and implement the findings of the report. What cannot be denied is that a massive literature review supports the IAASTD conclusion that the 20^th century focus on increasing agricultural production, while “externalizing” the social and environment costs of that production, is unsustainable.

The IAASTD literature review is not just “scientific,” in the natural science and laboratory sense of the term, though it includes literature from agronomy, climate science, ecology, epidemiology, hydrology, molecular biology, plant virology, soil science, veterinary science etc. The review includes the economic, legal, political science, sociological and trade policy literature that helps decision-makers decide which ASKT policies to adopt and which investments to make. To dismiss the IAASTD because it concerns policy options and investments – and is not an AKST risk assessment on narrow questions of safety – is to misunderstand the assessment mandate given to the IAASTD authors: assess which AKST policies and investments can contribute to sustainable development and other IAASTD objectives.

If the misunderstanding is genuine, it can be corrected through the kind of discussion employed in the IAASTD comment process. If the misunderstanding is willful, then the terms of battle are set between a peculiar notion of “science” and the range of AKST policy and investment options in the IAASTD.

—Steve Suppan

April 24, 2008

M. Lamy Out of Step on Food Prices

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.

Skyrocketing food prices feature high on UNCTAD XII’s agenda. WTO Director General Pascal Lamy addressed this topic to civil society representatives here on April 21. His take on the current food crisis and the role of the WTO was a disappointment to many. According to Lamy, the change in eating habits in developing countries is the main, long-standing factor leading to the increase in prices.

The day before, U.N Secretary General Ban Ki Moon had highlighted more comprehensively the mix of factors leading to price increases, including rising oil prices, climate-related production shortfalls, global economic growth, financial speculation, the shift to biofuels production and the depreciation of the U.S. dollar. For more details on some of these factors, see our recent paper on global agriculture prices and development.

M. Lamy’s argument missed the point. Take just one of the factors M. Ban mentioned: speculation. More and more money is going into financial investment in agriculture commodities. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) concluded that this has been made possible by the deregulation of international agriculture markets. As a result, the volatility of commodity prices is growing. Yesterday, in a debate on “the changing face of commodities in the 21st century,” a Tunisian representative estimated that speculation was responsible for a third of the price of food at the moment.

But no question: M. Lamy was not prepared to engage in a serious reconsideration of global trade deregulation. Hence the “disillusion” expressed by an African civil society leader towards the end of the meeting.

—Anne-Laure Constantin

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 19, 2008

Mining Highlighted at International Civil Society Forum at UNCTAD XII

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.

Yao Graham and his colleagues at Third World Network Africa are working hard to strengthen democracy in Africa. They believe greater democracy will help put the continent on the road to development.

In his opening speech to the international Civil Society Forum in Accra this week, Yao pointed to the many countries where democracy is at risk in Africa (Cameroon, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Ethiopia, Egypt, Darfur…), but he also emphasized that, generally, the political space has opened up. Building stronger civil society movements in West Africa will ultimately strengthen the democratic processes nationally and regionally.

Civil society in West Africa is particularly concerned with the impacts of mining on rural communities. At a time when high commodity prices are portrayed internationally as good news for those who export mineral products, the reality in the region is that mining is not benefiting people: on the contrary, it is threatening livelihoods, those of workers in the sector, but also those of farmers because of the competition for land, water pollution and deforestation. While African countries can claim high growth rates, “growth without redistribution, without development and equity, is meaningless,” said Graham. Corporate control over natural resources in Africa was strongly denounced and participants recommended that people's movements should be strengthened in order to hold governments accountable. Otherwise, they fear that the new commodities boom will only lead to “a new scramble for Africa."

—Anne-Laure Constantin

April 18, 2008

UNCTAD XII, African Women and Food Sovereignty

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.

According to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization, women represent 80 percent of rural food production throughout Sub-Saharan Africa. In Ghana, the number is between 70-80 percent. However, women’s voices are largely absent from the global food and agriculture debates.

Yesterday in Accra, one of the first questions at a forum we co-hosted on women and food sovereignty  was: why wasn’t the voice of a Ghana woman farmer in the opening plenary of the Civil Society Forum preceeding UNCTAD XII?

We heard from a number of women agriculture leaders at the forum, which was co-hosted by Acord International, Action Aid International, Food Security and Policy Action Network (FoodSPAN), International Gender and Trade Network, Third World Network-Africa and Gender and Economic Reforms in Africa. 

In particular, we heard the testimonies of two women farmers on the role of women in agriculture in their part of the world:

Mme Beatrice Donkor - FoodSPAN: In the northern region of Africa, women are farming grains. They are also the majority producers of shea butter, livestock, small poultry and they process food. They have replaced men as the dominant force in agricultural production. Yet, management and decision-making processes continue to be male-dominated. 

Mme Lydia Sasu (photo left) – ROPPA (Network of Farmers’ and Agricultural Producers’ Organizations of West Africa) and International Federation of Agriculture Producers: In the South, women are planters of maize and plantains. They are also fish processors. Women handle the smoking, sorting and drying of fish. They are washing, peeling, grating, and pressing cassava into dough. They are also providing food for their families and cleaning.

We learned that structural adjustment policies and trade liberalization have created some disturbing changes in food systems in both the North and the South.

1.       The eating habits of Ghana communities are changing. For example, the younger generation is now eating rice, which has flooded the Ghana market since trade liberalization, instead of other traditional food items such as cassava and fufu.

2.       Farmers, majority women, that are unable to make a living are migrating out of rural areas.

3.       The cost of farm inputs is higher than the income that farmers receive.

4.       Rural networks are struggling to gain access to markets. 

5.       High food prices are increasing hunger in rural communities.

6.       Water is drying up in rural areas so women are traveling farther to collect water.

7.       Women lack land rights, technology, credit, infrastructure and resources.

8.       Women farmers and producers are not present in policy-making decisions nor are their concerns central in food sovereignty debates.

Participants at the event stressed the need to link agendas so that agriculture and development groups adopt gender into their analysis and action, and the global women’s movement commits to alternatives in food and agriculture in a more substantive way. 

In light of the global food crisis today, linked to high commodity prices, climate change, biofuels and financial speculation, it's clear that deregulating agriculture has been a mistake. And the message here is that we do not have any time to waste in correcting the problem. Controls are needed to manage our food system. In order to do this, support for human rights, including women’s rights, and reform of global governance overall are urgently needed.

—Alexandra Spieldoch

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 17, 2008

Salmonella, the FDA and Honduran Melon Exports

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

If people in southern Honduras were looking for an issue to focus an overall, slow-simmering resentment of the United States, the recent ban on Honduran melon imports certainly has provided the spark. As the Honduran newspaper La Tribuna stated recently (in Spanish), “The fruit of discontent is no longer the apple…it is now the melon.” Fifty nine people in U.S. and Canada were sickened by salmonella, and the outbreak was linked to melons imported from Honduras, although the origin of the salmonella is in dispute. Much to the chagrin of the Honduran government, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has blocked Honduran melon imports.

My first impression of the issue – surely formed through spending most of my life as a U.S. food consumer – was thankfulness that the FDA acted to protect the integrity of the U.S. food system. At least 59 people have fallen ill to a potentially serious bacterium; maintaining a safe and healthy food system should take precedent over trade relations or corporate profits. But I am probably the only person in southern Honduras who feels that way. Everyone I have talked to, whether they have financial interest in melon production or not, feels that the U.S. government is fabricating the situation in order to protect U.S. domestic fruit production, or perhaps to provide leverage in future trade negotiations.

Agropecuaria Montelibano, the exporter that allegedly shipped salmonella-tainted melons, claims that the ban has cost them $8 million and has put 5,000 jobs at risk. The potential loss of this employment would be devastating for small, rural communities here in southern Honduras, many of which are practically surrounded by melon fields.

(At left is a mural in the center of town in Choluteca, paying homage to the region´s watermelon and cantaloupe production.)

I don’t know enough about the situation yet to have a position in this debate. But this is clearly another example of a food system built without resiliency. The salmonella outbreak, wherever it occured, seems to have no geographic rhyme or reason, infecting people in 16 states and Canada. This region of Honduras has become completely dependent on exporting melons, sugar and shrimp, and few jobs exist in many communities outside of these industries. While top government officials and corporate executives will drive this issue, it will be a few unlucky U.S. and Canadian consumers – and thousands of very poor Honduran laborers – that will be most hurt.

—Mark Muller

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 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 25, 2008

This volunteer experience is brought to you by Wal-Mart, Cargill, Pepsi-Cola…

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

Anyone who has traveled in Latin America knows to expect to drink lots of soft drinks. Coke and Pepsi have woven themselves into the fabric of society amazingly well. Every family that we have visited here, including some that are very poor, have given us a glass of soda. As much of the available water has bacterial concerns, for most travelers visiting a home or in many restaurants, the healthier choice is the sugar-filled, carbonated option.

The distribution network developed by these companies is stunning. Coke and Pepsi trucks ramble down these horrible secondary roads to small villages that even many local Hondurans don't know exist. And more often than not, the little stores in these villages will have a large advertising sign, graced with a Coke or Pepsi emblem.

It has been several years since I've traveled in Central America, and what has surprised me this time is how often I am buying from multinational corporations in addition to Coke and Pepsi. Here in Choluteca, Honduras there are two supermarket-type stores. The fancier store, with air conditioning, is called Maxi-Bodega. It is located on the outskirts of town just off of the Pan-American Highway, next to the Pizza Hut and Wendy's. It has the look and feel of corporate, chain store ownership.

The second store, Dispensa Familiar, is located in the old part of town and does not have the same corporate feel as Maxi-Bodega. It is close to where we live, and seems to be the store of choice for the middle class of Choluteca. Unfortunately, these two stores are just two sides of the same coin - they are both owned by Wal-Mart. And in both stores one can readily by meat products from Cargill, cereals from General Mills, prepared foods from Kraft, etc.

To be honest, the presence of multinationals is one of the reasons we chose this location. We figured an occasional trip to Pizza Hut would help our kids cope with the radical transition we've caused in their diets. And as much as I like to eat local, I also love the opportunity to buy imported lettuce, cheese, apples and wheat flour. I expected to have some of my money go toward multinational corporations, but it is happening more than I anticipated.

To a surprising degree, the food dollar of the upper and middle classes of Choluteca are captured by multinational corporations. There certainly remains a thriving local market, particularly for the region's plentiful tropical fruits, meats, and other staples. But for many other necessities of life, the Wal-Mart supermarkets have become a preferred option.

I've been asking around to try to find out why so many people here shop at Wal*Mart. Just as in the United States, Wal*Mart has excelled at conveniently providing low-cost goods. Rather than wandering around the cramped public markets and buying from a half-dozen different vendors, the supermarkets provide shopping carts, parking lots, spacious aisles, competitive and set prices, and credit card sales.  For the wealthier people in town that have cars, Wal*Mart is much, much more convenient.

It raises the question of how much of the food dollar is actually staying in the community. I'm sure that as we slowly learn more about Choluteca, we'll find more local stores and get savvier with using the public market. Similarly, it took us a little while to get situated in Minneapolis and take advantage of the co-ops, CSAs and other opportunities to eat and shop locally.

How beneficial has globalization been for the Choluteca economy? They are dependent on selling tropical fruits, sugar, and shrimp into the global economy at wholesale prices (and many of these exporters are foreign-owned companies). In return, the local consumers are purchasing some of their food, much of their clothing, and all of their electronics from global markets at retail prices. The few products that have remained local tend to be the low-value commodities like corn and beans. Having access to computers and the like is a huge benefit, and the city of Choluteca has certainly benefited from being the region´s shopping hub. But overall, the trade patterns appear to leave the region further behind, particularly the rural communities that have few economic development opportunities.

—Mark Muller

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 incredibly emotional and powerful speech given by Van Jones, Director of "Green for All" in Oakland, CA. Van spoke of the victories our movement has already achieved, shown most starkly in the fact that "polluters" are trying to sound just like us now on climate issues. But he emphasized that as we move forward politically and as a movement from the margins to the center, we need to make sure that we use this opportunity to bring all folks forward -- that the green economy isn't just about reclaiming "stuff," but more importantly a chance to reclaim thrown away children and lives. As Van said, those communities pushed down by a pollution-based economy need to be lifted up by the green economy -- we have the chance and obligation to create a green wave that can lift all boats and has a place for everyone. 

To create this "green pathway out of poverty," Van pointed to the need for the right policies, politics and principles. We need to create a green workforce to meet our new labor needs, but one that is open and accessible to our marginalized community members. Van then talked about some of the programs in Oakland that have offered training to the undereducated and formerly incarcerated, and how these opportunities -- including the chance to join a union -- are helping raise people out of poverty and bring them in from the margins. The Green Jobs Act of 2007, a part of the Energy and Security Act, can help us get there, through training 30,000 people a year in skills needed for our new economy.

Van also spoke to the need for a new politics, whereby we create a movement and the political will to truly address the problems we face - a "Green New Deal" that can provide the kind of governance we need at this critical time. And finally, we need the right principles, which means sticking up for the little people and not leaving anyone behind. As Van so eloquently stated, evoking the brutal abandonment of the poor in New Orleans after Katrina, and in the process the whole principle of climate justice: "We reject the politics of sink-or-swim in the time of floods." 

For me, Van and his work reflects the real challenges we face as we try to build this new green economy -- simply replacing an inequitable fossil fuel economy with a biobased or renewable economy based on the same power and political structures won't get us where we need to go. For the green economy to truly succeed, it is clear that it needs to start and end with justice for all. That means continuing to make sure that people of all classes and races are engaged in this work, and that we build the bridges and coalitions with farmers, inner city residents, indigenous communities, and others to make sure that the solutions put forwa