Transcript STILL HUNGRY! …What's wrong in the food market and food production?

STILL HUNGRY!
…What's wrong in the food market and
food production?
Sostenibilità, commercio equo, comunicazione
Monica Di Sisto vice presidente
Some evidences
of the food crisis and more…





At the World Food Summit in 1996, when there were an
estimated 830 million hungry people, governments
pledged to halve the number by 2015. Many now predict
that the number will instead increase by 50% to 1.2
billion threatened by 4 crises: environmental, financial,
economic and social crisis.
Fao (Sofa 2008) says that “The real food price index
began rising in 2002, after four decades of
predominantly declining trends, and spiked sharply
upwards in 2006 and 2007.
By mid-2008, real food prices were 64 percent above
the levels of 2002.
Vegetable oil prices have risen twice as fast as
average incomes since 2000, and other commodity
prices have also risen substantially relative to
incomes: wheat by 61 percent, maize by 32
percent and rice by 29 percent.
These rapid increases have led to a substantial loss of
purchasing power.
The food production
is growing worldwide…
The food production
is growing worldwide…/2
What about trade?
Global food-import expenditures, in value terms, are
forecast to reach US$1 035 billion dollars in 2008, 26%
higher than the previous peak in 2007.
The bulk of the anticipated growth in the world food import bill
would come from higher expenditures on rice (77 percent),
wheat (60 percent) and vegetable oils (60 percent).
Import bills for livestock products are expected to register
smaller increases, owing to moderate rises in global prices
together with subdued trade.
Higher international commodity prices are responsible for
most of the increase, but freight costs, which have almost
doubled for many routes, also contribute.
Among economic groups, the most economically vulnerable
countries are set to bear the highest burden in the cost of
importing food, with total expenditures by least-developed
countries and low-income food-deficit countries expected to
climb 37 percent and 40 percent, respectively, from 2007, after
having risen almost as much in the previous year.
The sustained rise in imported food expenditures for
these vulnerable country groups is such that, on current
expectations, by the end of 2008 their annual food import
basket could cost four times as much as it did in 2000.
Export: still a dream for LDCs
Imports: still growing for LDCs
A fairy tale: the International Trade
Organisation




John Maynard Keynes
and Harry Dexter White
at the Bretton Woods
Conference
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) were set up at a meeting of 43 “winner
countries of the II World War” held in Bretton Woods,
New Hampshire, USA in July 1944.
Their aims were to help rebuild the shattered postwar
economy and to promote international economic
cooperation. The original Bretton Woods agreement
also included plans for an International Trade
Organisation (ITO)..
The Ito has been ratified in 1948 during the United
Nation Conference in L’Avana participated by 56
countries (32 were poor countries).
The Charter provided for the establishment of the ITO,
and set out the basic rules for international trade and
other international economic matters. The ITO
Charter, however, never entered into force; while
repeatedly submitted to the US Congress, it was never
approved.
The Gatt and then…

On December 6, 1950 President Truman announced that he would no
longer seek Congressional approval of the ITO Charter. In the
absence of an international organization for trade, a General
Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) reduced trade barriers
through progressive “rounds” of negotiations till 1995.
 The 40 years GATT agreement reduced tariffs,
introduced anti-dumping policies, tackled non trade
barriers (as quality standards…). The protections go
down by 40%.

The GATT still exists as the WTO's umbrella treaty for trade in goods.
In fact, the agreements fall into a simple structure with six main
parts: an umbrella agreement (the Agreement Establishing the
WTO); agreements for each of the three broad areas of trade that
the WTO covers: goods and investment (the Multilateral Agreements
on Trade in Goods including the GATT 1994 and the TRIMS), services
(GATS), and intellectual property (TRIPS); dispute settlement (DSU);
and reviews of governments' trade policies (TPRM).
The World Trade Organisation




Before GATT's 40th anniversary, its members concluded that the GATT system
was straining to adapt to a new globalizing world economy. In response to the
problems identified in the 1982 Ministerial Declaration (structural deficiencies,
spill-over impacts of certain countries' policies on world trade GATT could not
manage etc.), the eighth GATT round — known as the Uruguay Round —
was launched in September 1986, in Punta del Este, Uruguay.
It was the biggest negotiating mandate on trade ever agreed: the talks were
going to extend the trading system into several new areas, notably
trade in services and intellectual property, and to reform trade in the sensitive
sectors of agriculture and textiles; all the original GATT articles were up for
review.
The round was supposed to end in December 1990, but the US and EU
disagreed on how to reform agricultural trade and decided to extend
the talks. Finally, In November 1992, the US and EU settled most of
their differences in a deal known informally as "the Blair House
accord", and on April 15 1994, the deal was signed by ministers from most of
the 123 participating governments at a meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco.
The agreement, driven by Clinton think thanks, established the World
Trade Organization, which came into being upon its entry into force on
January 1, 1995, and replaced GATT as an international organization. It is
widely regarded as the most profound institutional reform of the world trading
system.
Trade in agriculture
is growing…






Spurred by a 14 per cent growth in prices,
agricultural exports in 2007 expanded by 19.5 per
cent in dollar terms in 2007, the highest growth rate
since 2000.
Europe, which accounts fr 46 per cent of world exports of
agricultural products, boosted exports by 19 per cent.
Asia, the second-largest supplier with a share of 19 per
cent, increased its exports of agricultural products by 20
per cent, a rate unmatched since 2000.
Exports from North America, the third-largest supplier,
rose by 17 per cent. Its share of world trade has been
progressively declining, from 21 per cent in 2000 to 16 per
cent in 2007, due to the below world average export
growth during this period (6 per cent against 11 per cent
for the world).
South and Central America registered its highest growth
rate since 2000 (23.4 per cent).
Africa?
Trade is growing
more than production…
But… what are we
talking about?
The Wto is trying to apply
to agricultural products
that are mainly traded in
internal markets, rules
designed by a “so called”
international market…
Share of agricultural products in world trade






Fruit and Vegetables: 1.4%
Cereals and preparation: 1.1%
Oilseeds, veg. oil, and oil cakes:1.0%
Meat and preparation:0.8%
Coffee, tea, cocoa, and spices: 0.6%
Milk and products and eggs: 0.5%
 Total:
5.4%
FAO explain trade myts:
free trade=fair trade
-Between 1999 and 2002 FAO undertook a series of 23 country
case studies to evaluate the impact of the WTO Agreement on
Agriculture (AoA) on agricultural trade and food security in
developing countries.
-The objectives of these studies were to assess the extent
to which the AoA commitments had led to changes in
domestic agricultural policy, to evaluate the impact on
trade flows (imports and exports) of developing countries
and to assess whether implementing the AoA commitments
had had any impact on food security.
-An important finding was that for most of the countries in the
sample, the implementation of AoA commitments did not imply
any major change to domestic agricultural policy, including trade
policy. The main reason was that most of the countries had
implemented during the 1980s and early 1990s unilateral reforms
including the liberalization of international trade, often as part of
the conditionality of IMF/WB adjustment loans.
Some of these were bound as part of their multilateral
commitments in WTO Uruguay Round.
Different countries similar
experiences…





The 15 countries selected are representative of different regions of the world and
different stages of development, with the main concentration on low-income
countries that are likely to be at greater risk of food insecurity.
They range from developing countries with large economies (e.g. China and
India) to those that are amongst the smallest (e.g. Guyana).
Eleven of the countries remain at a per capita income of less than $1
000/year, many significantly (e.g. Malawi). Over the period of reforms, per
capita GDP has fallen in seven of the countries (all African) and increased
in the remaining countries, particularly so in the selected Asian and Latin
American countries.
The agricultural share of GDP in these countries ranges from under 10
percent (Chile, Peru) to over 40 percent (Cameroon, Tanzania). Whereas
this share would be expected to decrease as an economy develops, it has
increased in five of the selected countries. In some, this has been the result
of relatively high agricultural growth rates and relatively weak growth in other
sectors; while in others, growth in all sectors has been disappointing.
Sometimes agriculture has grown rapidly (Chile in the 1980s, Malawi and
Guyana in the 1990s); at others, it has cushioned an otherwise declining
economy (Nigeria, Guyana and Peru in the 1980s; Cameroon in the 1990s). The
sample also shows that sustained rapid growth in agriculture is possible, if not
typical. Of the 30 observations (two time periods and fifteen countries),
in six cases agriculture grew by more than 4.5 percent per annum, and in
six more it grew by at least 3.5 percent. in all the selected countries there
has been a decline in the share of the labour force employed
From policies… to market
The key agricultural sector policy and institutional reforms in the countries
studied include the followings:

elimination of state monopolies on agricultural marketing in
specified inputs and outputs. Sometimes the monopoly had controlled
both internal and external trade, and in other cases either one or the other
only.
 elimination of price controls on foods. Interpretation of the effects of
reforms is complicated by the fact that pricing reforms were sometimes
ambiguous. For example, in Kenya price controls on sugar, maize and wheat
were replaced with a set of floor prices and variable import levies designed to
enforce the floor prices.
 elimination of pan-territorial pricing and support prices for farmers;
 elimination of subsidies on agricultural inputs;
 privatization or closure of state agricultural banks, or reduction of their
lending activities (along with elimination of credit subsidies and restructuring
of loan portfolios);
 privatization or closure of state-owned agroprocessing and storage
facilities and of state agricultural marketing boards and trading companies.
Why do it happened?
One significant motivation for economic policy reform was the
slowdown of growth in the 1980s accompanied by growing debt and
the poor performance of traditional export markets.
Many of the countries in the study had experienced periods of
relatively rapid economic growth in the 1960s and 1970s, but
economic deterioration had emphasized the need for policy reforms in
more recent decades. Cameroon’s economy grew at 7 percent per annum
between 1970 and 1987 before subsequently declining. The Tanzanian
economy grew at an annual rate of 6 percent in the 1960s, as did Uganda’s,
whose balance of payments was also in surplus, but where national income
declined in the 1970s. Malawi, China and Guatemala experienced a long-term
annual growth rate of 5 percent or more between 1960 and 1982. Kenya’s
growth rate was in excess of 5.5 percent during that period but then dropped
markedly.
Sometimes the most evident cause of economic decline was internal conflict
(e.g. Uganda in the 1970s, Guatemala in the 1980s). More often, the
proximate causes of crises were macroeconomic imbalances that became a
drag on the economy (e.g. Kenya, India, Peru), unsustainable exchange rates
(Nigeria), and the gradual but definite undermining of economic efficiency as
a result of interventionist policies.
In some cases the reforms were precipitated by a specific crisis in the
economy, often signalled by a spike in inflation, shortages of foreign
exchange and imported goods, declines in export commodity prices, a
worsening of unemployment and underemployment, or a combination
of these occurrences…
Barriers off, and then?


Some of the many reasons for heterogeneity in production
responses to free market, have to do with changing world
market conditions, but some haven’t. Fao states that:
“The role of public institutions in the supply of inputs
and the marketing of crops has been left to the private
sector. The efficiency and capability of the private sector to fill
this role has been impaired by several factors. ... there is no
incentive for committing resources for longer term
investment in such things as storage facilities,
processing plants, quality assurance systems, marketing
capabilities and farmer support programmes... some
smallholder farmers have failed to purchase the required
quantity and quality of seeds, equipment and chemicals
due to the removal of subsidies. Educational crop
promotion seminars and extension services for peasants have
largely been weakened by cuts in the budgetary allocations for
such activities. ... Since infrastructure difficulties may lead to
very high transport costs hence increased prices, private
traders have concentrated business only in those areas with
better facilities. Any area with ailing infrastructure has been
deprived of marketing services...”
Winners and looser: soil




The truth about who profits and who loses from our global food
system has never been more obvious. Take the most basic element
of food production: soil.
The industrial food system is a chemical-fertiliser junkie. In the
current context of tight food supplies, the small clique of
corporations that control the world’s fertiliser market can charge
what they want – and that’s exactly what they are doing.
Profits at Cargill’s Mosaic Corporation, which controls much of
the world’s potash and phosphate supply, more than doubled
last year. The world’s largest potash producer, Canada’s Potash
Corp, made more than US$1 billion in profit, up more than 70% from
2006. Panicking now about future supplies, governments are
becoming desperate to boost their harvests, giving these
corporations additional leverage.
In April 2008, the joint offshore trading arm for Mosaic and
Potash hiked the price of its potash by 40% for buyers from
Southeast Asia and by 85% for those from Latin American.
India had to pay 130% more than last year, and China 227%
more.
Winners and losers: trade
Fertilisers are just a sideline for Cargill. Its biggest profits
come from global trading in agricultural commodities,
which, together with a few other big traders, it pretty
much monopolises.
On 14 April 2008, Cargill announced that its profits from
commodity trading for the first quarter of 2008 were
86% higher than the same period in 2007. “Demand
for food in developing economies and for energy
worldwide is boosting demand for agricultural
goods, at the same time that investment monies
have streamed into commodity markets,” said Greg
Page, Cargill’s chairman and chief executive officer.
“Prices are setting new highs and markets are
extraordinarily volatile.
In this environment, Cargill’s team has done an exceptional
job measuring and assessing price risk, and managing
the large volume of grains, oilseeds and other
commodities moving through our supply chains for
customers globally”.
Absolute winners: food traders
Bunge, another big food trader, saw its profits of the last fiscal quarter of
2007 increase by US$245 million, or 77%, compared with the same
period of the previous year. The 2007 profits registered by ADM, the
second largest grain trader in the world, rose by 65% to a record
US$2.2 billion. Thailand’s Charoen Pokphand Foods, a major player in
Asia, is forecasting revenue growth of 237% this year.

The world’s big food processors, some of which are
commodity traders themselves, are also cashing in. Nestlé’s
global sales grew 7% last year. “We saw this coming, so we
hedged by forward-buying raw materials”, says François-Xavier
Perroud, Nestlé’s spokesman. Margins are up at Unilever, too.
“Commodity pressures have increased sharply, but we have
successfully offset these through timely pricing action and continued
delivery from our savings programmes”, says Patrick Cescau, Group
CEO of Unilever. “We will not sacrifice our margins and market
share.”

The food corporations don’t seem to be making these profits
off the back of the retailers. UK supermarket Tesco reports profits
up 12.3% from last year, a record rise. Other major retailers, such as
France’s Carrefour and the US’s Wal-Mart, say that food sales are the
main factor sustaining their profit increases.

Wal-Mart’s Mexican division, Wal-Mex, which handles a third of
overall food sales in Mexico, reported an 11% increase in profits for
the first quarter of 2008. (At the same time Mexicans are
demonstrating in the streets because they can no longer afford to
make tortillas).
Absolute winners: food traders



It seems that nearly every corporate player in the
global food chain is making a killing from the food
crisis. The seed and agrochemical companies are doing
well too. Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company,
reported a 44% increase in overall profits in
2007.DuPont, the second-largest, said that its 2007
profits from seeds increased by 19%, while Syngenta,
the top pesticide manufacturer and third-largest
company for seeds, saw profits rise 28% in the first
quarter of 2008.
Such record profits have nothing to do with any new
value that these corporations are producing and they
are not one-off windfalls from a sudden shift in supply
and demand. Instead, they are a reflection of the
extreme power that these middlemen have accrued
through the globalisation of the food system.
Intimately involved with the shaping of the trade
rules that govern today’s food system and tightly
in control of markets and the ever more complex
financial systems through which global trade
operates, these companies are in perfect position
to turn food scarcity into immense profits. People
have to eat, whatever the cost.
Buyer power
and the commodities




Two and a half billion people make their
living by producing primary agricultural
commodities. As many as 48 developing
countries depend on two agricultural
commodities export for more than 20
percent of their total export revenues.
38 developing countries depend on a
single commodity export for more than 50
percent of their total export revenues
Despite recent price rises for some
commodities, there is debate about how long
this peak will last, and for many tropical
products the long term price trend continues to
be downwards, punctuated by increasingly
volatile short term price fluctuations.
In addition, commodity producers also
appear to be receiving a low and declining
proportion of the final product price
A picture,
better than much words
Small producers suffer when
they are unable to resist retailer
buyer power, forcing them to
cut prices to the point where
only the most efficient can
survive.
The longer-term effect will be to
threaten the viability even of
efficient producers when
investments are undermined by
inability to recover fixed costs
as a result of being forced to
price at (shortterm)
marginal cost
Buyer power:
the banana case study
Least but not last: biofuels!



In the words of Jean Ziegler, the United Nations special
rapporteur on the right to food, the switch to biofuels at the
expense of traditional forms of agriculture is nothing less
than a “crime against humanity.”
Initially championed as a means of protecting the
environment, biofuels have become increasingly identified by
big business as a profitable alternative to increasingly
expensive oil. Within the space of a few years, biofuel has
become a booming private industry capable of generating
large rates of profit.
Huge tracts of land across the planet have in recent
years been switched from food crops to the production
of ethanol or biofuel, aimed primarily as a supplement
to oil-based gasoline. Next year, the use of US corn for
ethanol is forecast to rise to 114 million tonnes—nearly
a third of the entire projected US crop.
Least but not last: biofuels!



Although maize production worldwide is growing, the
increase is being more than absorbed by biofuel
diversification. According to the World Bank,
global maize production increased by 51 million
tonnes between 2004 and 2007. During that
time, biofuel production in the US alone (mostly
ethanol) rose by 50 million tonnes, absorbing
almost the entire global increase.
Subsidised by the US government, American farmers
have diverted fully 30 percent of corn production into
the ethanol scheme, driving up the cost of other,
more expensive, grains that are being bought as
substitutes for animal feed.
The European Union, India, Brazil and China all
have their own targets to increase biofuels. The
EU has declared that by 2010, 5.75 percent of
all gasoline sold to motorists in Europe must
stem from biofuel production.
Least but not last: speculation!



Increases in global population and the switch to biofuels are important factors in the rise of food prices,
these long-term factors are important, but they are
not the real reasons why food prices have doubled or
why India is rationing rice, or why British farmers are
killing pigs for which they can’t afford feedstocks. It’s
the credit crisis.
The food crisis has developed over an incredibly short
space of time, essentially over the past 18 months
The reason for food ‘shortages’ is speculation in
commodity futures following the collapse of the
financial derivatives markets. Desperate for
quick returns, dealers are taking trillions of
dollars out of equities and mortgage bonds and
ploughing them into food and raw materials. It’s
called the ‘commodities super-cycle’ on Wall Street,
and it is likely to cause starvation on an epic scale.
Least but not last: speculation!



Under conditions of growing debt defaults arising from the US subprime
crisis, speculators and hedge fund groups have increasingly switched
their investments from high-risk “bundled” securities into so-called
“stores of value,” which include gold and oil at one end of the
spectrum and “soft commodities” such as corn, cocoa and cattle at
the other. The article in the New Statesman points out that “speculators are
even placing bets on water prices” and then concludes:
“Just like the boom in house prices, commodity price inflation feeds on itself.
The more prices rise, and big profits are made, the more others
invest, hoping for big returns. Look at the financial web sites:
everyone and their mother is piling into commodities.... The trouble is
that if you are one of the 2.8 billion people, almost half the world’s
population, who live on less than $2 a day, you may pay for these
profits with your life.”
Investment in “soft commodities” is currently highly recommended
by leading market analysts. According to Patrick Armstrong, a
manager at Insight Investment Management in London, “Raw
materials can prove to be the best investment class for hedge funds
because the market is so inefficient. This results in more chances for
profit.”
Least but not last: speculation!




Much of the international speculation in food commodities takes place on the
Chicago Stock Exchange (CHX), where a number of hedge funds, investment
banks and pension funds have substantially increased their activities in the
past two years. Since January of this year alone, investment activity in
the agricultural sector has risen by a quarter at the CHX, and,
according to the Chicago firm Cole Partners, involvement by hedge
funds in the raw material sector has trebled in the past two years to
reach a total of $55 billion.
Large-scale investors such as hedge and pension funds buy futures—shares
in basic goods and foodstuffs to be delivered at a fixed date in the future.
When the price of the commodity rises significantly between the time of the
investment and the time of delivery, the investor is able to take home a large
profit.
In light of the current food crisis, substantial returns of profit are
guaranteed. According to CHX figures, wheat futures (for delivery in
December) are expected to rise by at least 73 percent, soybeans by
52 percent, and soy oil by 44 percent.
Major ecological disasters, such as the recent drought in Australia, which hit
food production and drive up basic commodity prices, are good news for the
corporate investor.
Least but not last: speculation!
 An article headlined “Deadly Greed” in the current edition of
the German weekly Der Spiegel gives some details of the
activities of hedge funds in food market speculation. The
magazine cites the example of the hedge fund Ospraie, which
is generally regarded as the biggest of the management funds
currently dealing in basic foodstuffs.
 The manager of the fund, Dwight Anderson, is
nicknamed “the raw materials king.” Already, in the
summer of 2006, Anderson was recommending the
“extraordinary profitability” of agricultural crops to his
shareholders. While Ospraie is reluctant to publicise its profit
levels from speculation in basic commodities, a leading
German investor is less reticent.
Least but not last: speculation!



Andreas Grünewald started up his Münchner Investment Club
(MIC) in 1989 with seed capital equal to just €15,000. MIC
now controls a volume of €50 million, of which €15 million is
from investment in raw materials.
According to Grünewald, “Raw materials are the mega-trend
of the decade,” and his company intends to intensify its
involvement in both water and agricultural stocks. MIC
investment in wheat alone has already yielded profit levels of
93 percent for the 2,500 members of the club.
The Spiegel points out that MIC and its members give little thought
to the catastrophic consequences of their speculative investment
policy for undeveloped countries. “Most of our members are rather
passive and orientated to profit,” Grünewald notes.
Least but not last: speculation!



MIC, with its €50 million, is a minor player
compared to the finance giant ABN Amro,
which recently acquired a unique certificate
allowing it to speculate on behalf of smaller
investors on the CHX.
In the wake of the hunger revolts that took
place a few weeks ago, ABN Amro put out a
prospectus noting that India has enforced a
ban on exports of rice, which, together with
poor harvests in a number of countries, has led
to a worldwide decline in rice reserves. “Now,”
ABN Amro notes in its prospectus, “it is
possible for the first time to have a share in
the number one foodstuff in Asia.”
According to the Spiegel report, those
responding to the ABN Amro appeal were
able to realise a 20 percent rate of profit in
the space of three weeks—a period that
saw a huge increase in investment in rice
in Chicago and other major centres.
From food security…
The Right to Food
The right to food is a fundamental right included in the universal Declaration of Human Rights
(United Nations – 1948), under Article 25: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living
adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food…” This right
was later clarified in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted in 1966
and which took effect in 1976: “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone
to an adequate standard of living… including adequate food,… The States Parties will take appropriate steps
to ensure the realization of this right”. (Article 11)
In its General Comment 12, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights clarified this right: “The
right to adequate food is realised when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others,
has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement.”
The Special Rapporteur on the right to Food, Jean Ziegler, clarified this definition with the following: “The
right to food is the right to have regular, permanent and unobstructed access, either directly or
by means of financial purchases, to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food
corresponding to the cultural traditions of the people to which the consumer belongs, and
ensuring a physical and mental, individual and collective, fulfilling and dignified life free from
anxiety.” (E/CN.4/2001/53, para. 14).
Food Security
The definition of food security adopted at the World Food Summit (Rome - 1996) was the following:
“Food Security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to
sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs, as well as to culturally acceptable
food preferences for an active and healthy life”.
Extract from the declaration adopted at the World Food Summit held in Rome from 13th to 17 th
November 1999
To Food Sovereignty!

Food Sovereignty
In 2001, Via Campesina specified their definition of food sovereignty: “Food sovereignty is the right
of peoples to define their own food and agriculture; to protect and regulate domestic
agricultural production and trade in order to achieve sustainable development objectives; to
determine the extent to which they want to be self-reliant; to restrict the dumping of products
in their markets”;
Food sovereignty requires:
- Placing priority on food production for domestic and local markets, based on peasant and family
farmer diversified and agro-ecologically based production systems;
- Ensuring fair prices for farmers, which means the power to protect internal markets from lowpriced, dumped imports;
- Access to land, water, forests, fishing areas and other productive resources through genuine
redistribution;
Recognition and promotion of women’s role in food production and equitable access and
control over productive resources;
- Community control over productive resources, as opposed to corporate ownership of land, water,
and genetic and other resources;
- Protecting seeds, the basis of food and life itself, for the free exchange and use of farmers, which
means no patents on life and a moratorium on genetically modified crops; and
- Public investment in support for the productive activities of families, and communities, geared
toward empowerment, local control and production of food for people and local markets…”
Why do we have to change
the rules?
KPMG 2008 CSR report stated
that:
Over the largest 250 companies,
nearly 80% issued CSR reports
They’re only 45% if we consider
the whole target of the report
(2200)
TNCs are 64.000 worlwide and
at least 10% issued CSR
reports.
Only half of the top 250
disclosed the details of the
monitoring for their supply
chain code of conducts
When will the poor
start getting richer?
Quick answer from fair trade
principles&practices…
Adam Smith prize for fair trade!!
- Helps reduce trade imbalances
- Supports access to credit
- Stabilizes prices
- Establish long term relationship
- Invests part of the income in social
goods and services
- Offers parallel distribution
opportunities through the world
shops
- More and more builds win-win
north-south and south partnerships
Trying to innovate supply chains
Fair (www.faircoop.it) is a small organization born with the
mission to create and support innovative fair trade and solidary
economy supply chain’ schemes.
 MADE in NO (www.made-in-no.com) (as NOvara but also as No to
exploitation of small scale producers), for instance, is a new
project that connect:
- The “Sartoria Giuseppe Bruzzese” of Galliate (province of Novara,
Italy), it’s a small scale enterprise specialized in tailoring
swimsuits, that lead a group of artisans and manufacturers of his
territory, to share and analyze impacts of the delocalization and
liberalization of the textile sector.
Justa Trama, a brand-new textile brand that process fibers
following ecological and solidary criteria, a dream became reality
through the efforts of workers of different regions of Brazil. Over
700 families, farmers and artisans, have decided to take the lead
of their lives and develop an economy that respects and preserves
the environment and themselves.
Remei AG that promote organic farming, fairness, ecological
processing, top quality, and full transparency of supply chain
linking over 6000 family farmers in India and Tanzania
World shops and Solidary purchasing groups in Italy (we call
them GAS, Gruppi d’acquisto solidale)

Result? Small steps…
 Clean food and better
wages to the brazilian and
indian farmers;
 Access to solidary
economy networks and
opportunities to survive to
crisis for brazilian, indian
and italian producers;
 A fantastic organic, fair
trade and “participated”
cotton underwear!!!
But a growing
solidary economy movement!
Still hungry?
Thanks for your
patience/Grazie
per la pazienza!
Infos: [email protected]
www.faircoop.it
Professionisti capaci di futuro – Monica Di Sisto vice presidente