STILL HUNGRY!

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

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.

John Maynard Keynes and Harry Dexter White at the Bretton Woods Conference

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 wetalking 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 marketThe 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: tradeFertilisers 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 tradersBunge, 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 bio-

fuels 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 FoodThe 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 SecurityThe 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 17th November 1999

To Food Sovereignty! Food SovereigntyIn 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 low-

priced, 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 reportsThey’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]

Professionisti capaci di futuro – Monica Di Sisto vice presidente