A number of Fair Trade garment companies targeting a rising number of environmentally and socially conscious consumers in the West are selling “clean” clothes– i.e, clothes supposedly produced in an environmentally sustainable manner and in a non-exploitative social manner- and labeling and marketing their garments as “organic” “ethical", "alternative" or "Fair Trade”.
As far as the environmental aspect of cotton production is concerned, companies dealing with organic cotton are indeed making a significant and positive environmental impact - as clearly documented by a number of research - by helping farmers switch from the extremely environmentally damaging conventional cotton sector to the more environmentally sustainable organic cotton sector.
“Fair” price?
What is not so clear, however, is the so-called “Fair Trade” aspect of the venture. In fact, companies that market their garments under the “Fair Trade” label claim that the farmers from whom the cotton (both organic and conventional) has been purchased have been paid a “fair” price. One such company, MAX HAVELAAR, has recently ( 2005) launched a line of “fairly” produced clothing bearing the “Fair Trade” label, although the cotton used is not organic. They claim that the West African cotton farmers from whom they purchase the cotton have been paid a “fair” price. Their definition of a “fair” price is a price which is around 20% above the “market” rate. In this case, the “fair” trade price paid by Max Havelaar to West African small-scale cotton farmers from whom they purchase the cotton is Euro 0,36/kg. The normal world market price paid to these same farmers was Euro 0,32/kg at that time. Thus, the difference or Fair Trade “premium” is only Euro 0,04/kg.
I have written to Max Havelaar and to other "ethical" Fair Trade clothing companies to inquire about this venture. Please find below a copy of my written inquiry and their responses. I welcome your comments. Thank you.
TO PAN UK: in charge of cotton project
SIMON FERRIGNO
simonferrigno@pan-uk.org
Copy: info@cleanclothes.org
IFOAM ( b.geier@ifoam.org)
FLO
MAX HAVELAAR
Sustainablecotton.org
Organic exchange: terry@organicexchange.org
Copy: m.v.esch@boweevil.nl
Re: “ Clean” clothes
A number of garment companies targeting a rising number of environmentally and socially conscious consumers in the West are selling “clean” clothes– i.e, clothes supposedly produced in an environmentally sustainable manner and in a non-exploitative social manner- and labeling and marketing their garments as “organic” “ethical", "alternative" or "Fair Trade”.
As far as the environmental aspect of cotton production is concerned, companies dealing with organic cotton are indeed making a significant and positive environmental impact - as clearly documented by a number of research - by helping farmers switch from the extremely environmentally damaging conventional cotton sector to the more environmentally sustainable organic cotton sector.
“Fair” price?
What is not so clear, however, is the so-called “Fair Trade” aspect of the venture. In fact, companies that market their garments under the “Fair Trade” label claim that the farmers from whom the cotton (both organic and conventional) has been purchased have been paid a “fair” price. One such company, MAX HAVELAAR, has recently ( this year) launched a line of “fairly” produced clothing bearing the “Fair Trade” label, although the cotton used is not organic. They claim that the West African cotton farmers from whom they purchase the cotton have been paid a “fair” price. Their definition of a “fair” price is a price which is around 20% above the “market” rate. In this case, the “fair” trade price paid by Max Havelaar to West African small-scale cotton farmers from whom they purchase the cotton is Euro 0,36/kg. The normal world market price paid to these same farmers was Euro 0,32/kg at that time. Thus, the difference or Fair Trade “premium” is only Euro 0,04/kg.
Processing of cotton and manufacturing of garments?
Furthermore, Max Havelaar and other companies marketing and selling “Fair Trade” labeled garments do not provide any information on where and how the garments were made (i.e. the processing stages relating to the production of fabrics and garments ). Although the Fair Trade movement (FLO) has (recently) defined a set of Standards for the production of garments, there is no mention or information publicly available on the actual implementation, enforcement and independent monitoring of these standards. Thus, consumers are made to believe that garments labeled as “Fair Trade” have been made according to Fair Trade non-exploitative standards, which is not always the case. It is highly dishonest, morally repressible and fraudulent to market and sell garments as “Fair Trade” simply on account of the so-called “fair” price paid to cotton farmers, and then use sweatshop practices in the processing stages of the cotton and the manufacture the garments!
In view of the above, the following questions arise:
1) Does the so-called “fair” price paid to small-scale cotton farmers in sub-Saharan Africa by Max Havelaar and other such companies labeling and marketing “Fair Trade” garments REALLY contribute to the economic and social welfare of the small-scale cotton farmers, as they claim? (no quantitative data available.)
2) The “market” rate which is used by Max Havelaar as a reference in setting the “fair” price paid to cotton farmers is distorted by global cotton subsidies, and as such is not an appropriate parameter to determine or set the so-called “fair” price. A “fair” price should rather be set based on the actual cost of production of the farmers, taking into account the realities of the global Terms of Trade faced by the farmers.
3) Under this scheme, who benefits the most? The farmer who is paid a Fair Trade “premium” of Euro 0,04 cents/kg of seed cotton or Max Havelaar who labels and markets the garments at a much greater price in proportion to the “fair trade premium” paid to the farmers? What percentage does the “fair” price paid to cotton farmers represent in the final retail price of Fair Trade labeled garments sold to consumers in the West?
4) Simply buying the raw cotton from African cotton farmers and shipping it abroad for further processing (beyond ginning, and to a limited extent spinning as is currently done in sub-Saharan Africa), as is the case with Max Havelaar in Mali ( only ginning done locally- not organic), Boweevil in Uganda ( ginning and spinning to a limited extent) and Biore in Tanzania ( ginning only), fails to add-value locally to the cotton and as such fails to create much needed local employment and generate income along the supply chain and create economic growth within the sector – thus failing to “fight” poverty, contrary to claims made by these companies.
5) Fair Trade labels tend to limit their considerations strictly to the so-called “fair” price they pay the farmers and pay little attention in practice to the way the cotton is further processed along the supply chain ( i.e. spinning, weaving, knitting, dyeing & printing, garment manufacturing, etc.) Although Max Havelaar says that Fair Trade Standards have been recently defined for the processing stages of the cotton by FLO, no mechanisms have been put in place to effectively monitor and enforce these standards, as is reflected in the Clean Clothes Campaign overview presentation and remarks of “ethical” companies. ( see www.cleanclothescampaign.org).
6) Finally, as noted above, Fair Trade labeled garments do not necessarily integrate the environmental or ecological standards within their supply chains. Thus, while pretending to help the farmers, they do not help farmers improve the environment in which they work, by failing to help the farmers adopt organic sustainable practices in farming methods.
7) Similarly, “organic” labeled textiles and garments fail to take into account the Fair Trade non-exploitative social aspect of production. Thus, while improving farming methods, they do not necessarily improve the working conditions of those involved in the processing stages of the cotton and the manufacture of textiles and garments.
Are there any companies that respect both the ecological standards of organic cotton production as well as the non-exploitative Fair Trade social standards throughout their entire supply chain in the production of garments and textiles in sub-Saharan Africa?
I have written to Max Havelaar several months ago to get feedback on these issues, but have been met by utmost silence…Boweevil also admits that it processes only 30-35% of its organic cotton locally in Uganda and claims that it is processing its garments according to “Fair Trade” Standards, although it fails to provide any information on how and where the garments are made, and to describe what mechanisms are in place to effectively monitor and enforce Fair Trade Standards in the processing stages of the cotton. Failure to reveal this information - which ought to be made widely and openly available to environmentally and socially global whom they target and sell their garments to -would tend to indicate that these companies have a lot to hide about their “clean” activities. Hopefully you can shed some light on these issues…
Response from Pan-UK
Thank you very much for your very interesting and well-informed email. We are aware of all the issues you have raised, and are considering all of them. It is true that the multiplication of “eco” or “Fair” standards and labels may sometimes lead to confusion for the consumer. This is one of our main concerns. It is also true that a lot of work still need to be done with both Organic and Fairtrade textiles, which should be viewed as good (if not perfect) steps in the right direction.
I will assess your comments and discuss them with the direction, and get back to you.
Best Wishes
Damien Sanfilippo
Cotton Project Officer
Pesticide Action Network UK
Development House
56-64 Leonard Street
London
EC2A 4JX
www.pan-uk.org
Tel: +44 20 7065 0905/Fax: +44 20 7065 0907
Direct: +44 20 7065 0915
I have not forgotten about your letter expressing your concerns about fairtrade cotton. I am preparing a response to the issues you have raised. However, I would like to discuss some of those with the fairtrade organizations, before responding. I will meet with Fairtrade Foundation (UK) soon, and I am hoping to discuss those issues with max Havelaar France as well in the near future.
I will then be able to respond to your letter. I am considering publishing your letter and our response in our newsletter, or on our website, providing that you agree of course. Our goal is to provide fair and balanced information to consumers, as it will benefit the market for organic cotton. I need to emphasize on the fact even though we do share some of your concerns to some degree, we support fairtrade cotton initiatives. We aim to collaborate with them, and we hope that they will consider our comments, in the interest of small-scale cotton farmers.
Thank you for your patience,
Best Wishes
Damien Sanfilippo
Cotton Project
Pesticide Action Network UK
Development House
56-64 Leonard Street
London
EC2A 4JX
www.pan-uk.org
Tel: +44 20 7065 0905/Fax: +44 20 7065 0907
Direct: +44 20 7065 0915
Response from Max Havelaar
Dear Mr. Tajdin
Enclosed you find the answers to your challenging questions. To our view there is no competition between organic and fair-trade-movements, neither one between Clean Clothes and Fair-Trade. We all have the same idea – more equality for developing countries – but we start from different positions and points of view. Max Havelaar Switzerland is in close contact with the responsible person of Clean Clothes in Switzerland . Let’s work together!
Kind regards
Regula Weber
---------------------------------------------
Regula Weber Engweiler
Marketing/ Kommunikation
Max Havelaar-Stiftung (Schweiz)
Hornbachstrasse 50
CH-8034 Zürich
Tel.: ++41 (0)44 389 84 73
Fax: ++41 (0)44 389 84 14
Mail: r.weber@maxhavelaar.ch
Web: www.maxhavelaar.ch
Arif Tajdin
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:51:21 +0100 (CET)
De: Arif Tajdin
Objet: "CLEAN" CLOTHES...?
À: simonferrigno@pan-uk.org
Cc: info@cleanclothes.org, b.geier@ifoam.org, terry@organicexchange.org,
info@fairtrade.net
TO: PAN-UK
ATT: SIMON FERRIGNO ( in charge of cotton issues)
Mr. Ferrigno,
Re: “ Clean” clothes
A number of garment companies targeting a rising number of environmentally and socially conscious consumers in the West are selling “clean” clothes– i.e, clothes supposedly produced in an environmentally sustainable manner and in a non-exploitative social manner- and labeling and marketing their garments as “organic” “ethical", "alternative" or "Fair Trade”.
As far as the environmental aspect of cotton production is concerned, companies dealing with organic cotton are indeed making a significant and positive environmental impact - as clearly documented by a number of research - by helping farmers switch from the extremely environmentally damaging conventional cotton sector to the more environmentally sustainable organic cotton sector.
“Fair” price?
What is not so clear, however, is the so-called “Fair Trade” aspect of the venture. In fact, companies that market their garments under the “Fair Trade” label claim that the farmers from whom the cotton (both organic and conventional) has been purchased have been paid a “fair” price. One such company, MAX HAVELAAR, has recently ( this year) launched a line of “fairly” produced clothing bearing the “Fair Trade” label, although the cotton used is not organic. They claim that the West African cotton farmers from whom they purchase the cotton have been paid a “fair” price. Their definition of a “fair” price is a price which is around 20% above the “market” rate. In this case, the “fair” trade price paid by Max Havelaar to West African small-scale cotton farmers from whom they purchase the cotton is Euro 0,36/kg. The normal world market price paid to these same farmers was Euro 0,32/kg at that time. Thus, the difference or Fair Trade “premium” is only Euro 0,04/kg.
Answer
Information about the FT-prices paid by the producers clients (not MH is paying) you will find in the Fairtrade standards of FLO (www.fairtrade.net). The Fair-Trade-Price for cotton as well as for other products is fixed by FLO for a certain period (around two years). Every region (Africa, India ) has its own price. The price is counted bottom-up according to the costs of living in a region. The price is fair because it is counted bottom-up and because it is stable. If the world market price rises above the FT-Price, the buyers have to pay the higher price. Additionally there is also a Fair-Trade-Premium which goes to a special fund. Thus, the farmers have some extra money which is invested in better living and working conditions. For example wells, roads, medical treatment etc. So, the farmers get a stable price and the whole region can profit from the premium-projects.
Processing of cotton and manufacturing of garments?
Furthermore, Max Havelaar and other companies marketing and selling “Fair Trade” labeled garments do not provide any information on where and how the garments were made (i.e. the processing stages relating to the production of fabrics and garments ). Although the Fair Trade movement (FLO) has (recently) defined a set of Standards for the production of garments, there is no mention or information publicly available on the actual implementation, enforcement and independent monitoring of these standards.
Answer
There is no “standard for processed product situations” at the moment; but FLO is working on it. The overall aim of this project is to develop a standard that enables FLO to extend the impact of Fairtrade along the supply chain and to improve traceability of products in the chain. FLO expects to get stakeholders’ feedback during the next weeks on a first concept paper. The standard should be finished by the end of this year.
Max Havelaar Switzerland works with the FLO standard for fair-trade cotton. Furthermore we have our own monitoring system in order to control also the supply chain. The whole supply chain is controlled through external audits.
According to information published on FLO's website: "FLO guarantees that products sold anywhere in the world with a Fairtrade label marketed by a National Initiative conforms to Fairtrade Standards and contributes to the development of disadvantaged producers and workers."
Thus, consumers are made to believe that garments labeled as “Fair Trade” have been made according to Fair Trade non-exploitative standards, and " contributes to the development of disadvantaged producers and workers." However, there is no publicly available data to prove that claim. It would seem senseless ( if not dishonest ) to market and sell garments as “Fair Trade” simply on account of the so-called “fair” price paid to cotton farmers, and then use sweatshop or other exploitaive labor practices in the processing stages of the cotton and the manufacture the garments!
Answer
This is certainly not the case. Max Havelaar and FLO are well aware the process has to be controlled as well and we are working on this issue in order to consolidate the system.
In view of the above, the following questions arise:
1) Does the so-called “fair” price paid to small-scale cotton farmers in sub-Saharan Africa by Max Havelaar and other such companies labeling and marketing “Fair Trade” garments REALLY contribute to the economic and social welfare of the small-scale cotton farmers, as they claim? (no data available)
Yes, there is a contribution on two sides: The stable price is for the farmer, the fair-trade-premium is for projects. Furthermore the fair-trade-certification functions as a door to the European market. Take for example Senegal . Since they are fair-trade-certified they can sell their cotton to a big licencee in Switzerland . Since the cotton-project is new, we do not have impact stories on our website yet. But we know that in India f.e. they started first premium projects such as drinking water facilities.
2) The “market” rate which is used by Max Havelaar as a reference in setting the “fair” price paid to cotton farmers is distorted by global cotton subsidies, and as such is not an appropriate parameter to determine or set the so-called “fair” price. A “fair” price should rather be set based on the actual cost of production of the farmers, taking into account the realities of the global Terms of Trade faced by the farmers.
Answer
The price is calculated bottom-up and differs from country to country. You can check the actual minimum prices in the cotton-standards on www.fairtrade.net
3) Under this scheme, who benefits the most? The farmer who is paid a Fair Trade “premium” of Euro 0,04 cents/kg of seed cotton or Max Havelaar who labels and markets the garments at a much greater price in proportion to the “fair trade premium” paid to the farmers? What percentage does the “fair” price paid to cotton farmers represent in the final retail price of Fair Trade labeled garments sold to consumers in the West?
Answer
Max Havelaar does not market products. The final retail price is defined by our licencees, we can not influence the sales prices. The cost structure is similar to conventional imported products.
4) Simply buying the raw cotton from African cotton farmers and shipping it abroad for further processing (beyond ginning, and to a limited extent spinning as is currently done in sub-Saharan Africa), as is the case with Max Havelaar in Mali ( only ginning done locally- not organic), Boweevil in Uganda ( ginning and spinning to a limited extent) and Biore in Tanzania ( ginning only), fails to add-value locally to the cotton and as such fails to create much needed local employment and generate income along the supply chain and create economic growth within the sector – thus failing to “fight” poverty, contrary to claims made by these companies.
Answer
The complete supply chain of some of our partners is located in Africa (Marokko).
5) Fair Trade labels tend to limit their considerations strictly to the so-called “fair” price they pay the farmers and pay little attention in practice to the way the cotton is further processed along the supply chain ( i.e. spinning, weaving, knitting, dyeing & printing, garment manufacturing, etc.) Although Max Havelaar says that Fair Trade Standards have been recently defined for the processing stages of the cotton by FLO, no mechanisms have been put in place to effectively monitor and enforce these standards, as is reflected in the Clean Clothes Campaign overview presentation and remarks of “ethical” companies. ( see www.cleanclothescampaign.org).
Answer
Not true. See answer above.
6) Finally, as noted above, Fair Trade labeled garments do not necessarily integrate the environmental or ecological standards within their supply chains. Thus, while pretending to help the farmers, they do not help farmers improve the environment in which they work, by failing to help the farmers adopt organic sustainable practices in farming methods.
Answer
Some farmers are producing organic cotton and some conventional cotton. From the point of foreign aid it would not be a good point to restrict Fair-Trade to organic production since one would exclude many producers. The system wants to be open for all small farmers. However, the fair trade-standards and the criteria for the supply chain which takes SA 80000 as a reference include also ecological criteria. The farmers are assisted by promoting bodies.
7) Similarly, “organic” labeled textiles and garments fail to take into account the environmentally sustainable and the Fair Trade non-exploitative social aspect of production in the processing stages of the cotton. Thus, while improving farming methods, they do not necessarily improve the working conditions of those involved in the processing stages of the cotton and the manufacture of textiles and garments or the production methods themselves.
See answer above. The production chain is always controlled.
Are there any companies that respect both the ecological standards of organic cotton production as well as the non-exploitative Fair Trade social standards throughout their entire supply chain in the production of garments and textiles in sub-Saharan Africa ?
Answer
If you buy organic Max Havelaar-certified cotton you have both.
My response to Max Havelaar
Dear Mr. Weber,
Thank you for responding to my email dated 14 January with reference to the issue of “clean clothes”. I have noted down your answers and wish to briefly say the following.
It seems evident from your responses that the fair trade movement has yet to consolidate its action throughout the entire processing stages of the cotton supply chain in the production of textiles and garments to achieve a perfect balance between both the ecological aspects of (organic) cotton production and the social non-exploitative aspects relating to the processing stages of the cotton. However, I am happy to learn that Max Havelaar, FLO and other fair trade organizations are working towards achieving this end.
I. As far as the “fair” trade price of cotton is concerned:
I understand from your response that it is determined by FLO “bottom-up according to the costs of living in a region.”
According the FLO: "FLO guarantees that products sold anywhere in the world with a Fairtrade label marketed by a National Initiative conforms to Fairtrade Standards and contributes to the development of disadvantaged producers and workers."
However, it would be useful to evaluate the REAL impact this price has on improving the living standards of the small-scale cotton farmers in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) using quantitative data. To my knowledge, there is no available quantitative statistical data to measure the real impact of the “fair” price vis-à-vis the cotton farmers, the cotton sector and the economies of the cotton producing nations in sub-Saharan Africa .
Finally, FLO should publish and make openly and publicly available the cost structure of the fair trade pricing mechanism along the entire supply chain so as to make the pricing process fully transparent. Furthermore, it would be useful to know what percentage the “fair” trade price paid to cotton farmers in SSA actually represents vis-à-vis the final retail price of the fair trade labeled garments sold to final consumers?
II. As far as the processing stages of cotton are concerned, you say:
You say:
There is no “standard for processed product situations” at the moment; but FLO is working on it. The overall aim of this project is to develop a standard that enables FLO to extend the impact of Fairtrade along the supply chain and to improve traceability of products in the chain. FLO expects to get stakeholders’ feedback during the next weeks on a first concept paper. The standard should be finished by the end of this year.
Max Havelaar Switzerland works with the FLO standard for fair-trade cotton. Furthermore we have our own monitoring system in order to control also the supply chain. The whole supply chain is controlled through external audits.
Unfortunately, Max Havelaar does not provide any information relating to the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of these external audits relating to the processing stages of the cotton along the entire supply chain. This information aught to be made publicly available to the public and to socially conscious consumers who purchase “clean” clothes.
Finally, you cite “Marokko” as an example of complete vertical-integration within the entire supply chain of cotton production in Africa: “The complete supply chain of some of our partners is located in Africa (Marokko).
Could you please tell me where I can get more information on “ Marokko”?.
My previous email and the following observations are not meant as criticism. They are only issues that I feel need to be raised and solutions found to if the Fair Trade movement is to effectively and successfully achieve its mission of combating poverty and helping the millions of small-scale farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and around the globe break free from the vicious (and ever-widening) cycle of poverty, misery and hunger.
However, I do not limit myself to pointing out the weaknesses within the system. I am also actively working at finding solutions. In fact, I have been conducting research on the collapse of both the cotton and the textile sector in sub-Saharan Africa . As you well know, the conventional cotton sector in SSA is near collapse mainly as a result of massive illegal cotton subsidies paid to cotton farmers in rich cotton producing nations and is seriously threatening the survival of both the cotton sector in SSA and the millions of farmers who rely on cotton farming for their livelihoods.
Structural over supply of cotton on the world market resulting from trade distorting cotton subsidies are driving down prices of conventional cotton on world markets, making it unprofitable for non-subsidized African farmers to grow conventional cotton, despite their absolute Comparative Advantage in growing cotton. As a direct result, the cotton sector in sub-Saharan Africa is near collapse and millions of small-scale cotton farmers throughout sub-Saharan Africa have been thrown deeper into poverty as they cannot sell their cotton on the world market.
Furthermore, the influx of cheap clothing from China and other high-volume/low-cost garment producing nations in the Far East coupled with the massive influx of cheap used clothing “dumped” across Africa over the last three decades have led the collapse of the entire textile sub-sector in SSA, further deepening the crisis within the entire sector. This has led to massive job losses within the entire textile sector, from cotton growing to garment manufacturing.
Finally, the expiry of the Multi Fiber Agreement (MFA) on 01 January 2005 and the expiry of the 3rd Country Clause of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) in September 2007 is further threatening the future of the textile sector in SSA and the jobs of those employed within this industry.
Given the grim future prospects facing both the cotton sector and the textile industry in SSA, it is crucial and urgent to find and implement solutions to prevent the total collapse of these vital sectors.
I am presently working on a project to revive both the cotton and the textile sector in sub-Saharan Africa . Based on the findings and the evidence from organic cotton projects worldwide and in Africa, organic cotton production is proving to be an economically, socially and environmentally viable alternative to revive the cotton sector in sub-Saharan Africa . However, although organic cotton provides an economically viable and environmentally sustainable alternative for cotton farmers in Africa, efforts must be made to further process the organic cotton locally, from spinning yarn to weaving cloth to manufacturing garments, so as to create employment and generate income along the entire supply chain.
Processing the organic cotton locally would add-value to the cotton thus enabling African cotton producing and exporting nations to break free from the vicious cycle of cotton subsidies and from the dictates of the world market. Furthermore, adding value locally would create local employment and generate income throughout the local supply chain –from cotton growing to garment manufacturing – and enable African cotton producing nations to achieve self-sufficiency in garment production and consumption, thus saving much needed scarce foreign exchange currently being depleted to import (used) garments for local consumption. Thus, the production and local processing of organic cotton would revive both the cotton and the textile sector and positively reduce poverty among the local population.
I wish and aim to lay the foundation for the revival of both the cotton and the textile sector in sub-Saharan Africa through the development of a vertically-integrated economically viable, socially non-exploitative and environmentally sustainable textile and garment industry in sub-Saharan Africa- from organic cotton growing to garment manufacturing- for both local & regional consumption and export markets, while respecting both the ecological standards of production as well as the non-exploitative social standards set by the Fair Trade movement, thus reaching a perfect balance between ecological standards of organic production and Fair Trade standards throughout the supply chain in the production of garments and textiles. This would set a new standard and an example in the global textile industry and garments thus produced would find a ready local, regional and export market within the growing number of socially and environmentally conscious consumers worldwide.
Hopefully my observations will serve as constructive input for both the organic and the fair trade movement for the welfare of the cotton farmers and cotton producing nations in sub-Saharan Africa and throughout the world.
Regula Weber
Dar Mr. Tajdin
Thanks for your response which I am going to forward to the communication department of FLO.
Kind regards
Regula Weber
----------------------------------------------
Regula Weber Engweiler
Marketing/ Kommunikation
Max Havelaar-Stiftung (Schweiz)
Hornbachstrasse 50
CH-8034 Zürich
Tel.: ++41 (0)44 389 84 73
Fax: ++41 (0)44 389 84 14
Mail: r.weber@maxhavelaar.ch
Web: www.maxhavelaar.ch
No comments:
Post a Comment