CORPORATE POLITICS & GM COTTON PRODUCTION IN AFRICA

GLOBAL AGRICULTURE AND GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) COTTON IN AFRICA

By Stephen Greenberg

for the African Centre for Biosafety

Excerpts

There is a strong push to spread the commercial planting of genetically modified (GM or
transgenic) cotton into Africa’s core cotton growing regions. Yet the language of poverty
reduction and humanitarianism that is used to justify this is a thinly veiled disguise for the global expansion of transnational corporate interests.

There are many reasons to be wary of the introduction of genetically modified organisms into agriculture. These include environmental and health concerns, lack of certainty about economic benefits, ethical and even spiritual concerns, and issues related to the use of technology for sectional interests. This paper will focus on the socio-economic and political implications of the introduction of this technology.

Africa is on the threshold of the introduction of transgenic cotton. In order to fully understand the possible implications of this development, it is useful to have an understanding of the structure of power in the global cotton industry.

This paper offers an analytical overview of the economic, social and political forces driving the introduction of genetically modified cotton in Africa. Africa as a whole is the third largest cotton exporting region in the world behind the US and
Uzbekistan. Four West African countries (Mali, Cote d’Ivoire, Benin and Burkina Faso) dominate exports, followed by Zimbabwe. Cotton has also historically been produced in East Africa, and these are targets for the introduction of GM cotton.

The rapid growth in the adoption of GM cotton across the world is used to argue that Africa will miss out on this ‘second Green Revolution’ if it does not immediately adopt the technology.

Globally, the claimed successes of GM cotton are contested. The apparent benefit of Bt cotton is that farmers save money by spraying less insecticide because the insecticide is built in to the genetic structure of the seed. An additional spin-off is the reduction in environmental damage.

The claimed benefit of Bt cotton rests more in the reduction in the use of insecticides than in higher yields. However, as with the yields, the relationship between Bt cotton and reductions in pesticide use is also not well established.

The reliance on a single gene to eradicate pests is flawed because insects develop resistance to pesticides over time. So far, evidence does not point to a definitive rise in yields as the result of the use of transgenic cotton varieties. On the other hand a number of studies show that yields have not improved or that transgenic cotton crops have failed outright (see Hitavada 2002; RFSTE 2002; Shah and Banerji 2002; Deccan Development Society 2003; Khan and Chaodhry 2003; NGIN 2003 for India and Pakistan and GRAIN 2001; ISIS 2001 for Indonesia). Questions have also been raised regarding the quality of fibres from transgenic cotton varieties, including by William Duvanant, CEO of Duvanant Enterprises, one of the largest cotton merchants in the world (GRAIN 2004c:20).

The introduction of transgenic crops cannot be separated from the perceived role of agriculture as a driver of market and private sector-led development in Africa..
.The USAID Initiative to End Hunger in Africa approaches the reduction of poverty “primarily through efforts to increase productivity and incomes in the agricultural sector” (Abt Associates Inc. 2003:3). Productivity enhancements in cash crops may raise incomes for some and thereby alleviate poverty. Yet rising cotton productivity in current conditions merely results in further depressed prices. In West Africa in particular, productivity is good by international standards and costs are low. Yields in West Africa are second only to Australia (Elbehri & MacDonald, forthcoming:29). Primary producers are also not in a position to capture a greater share of value in the context of an uneven distribution of power in the commodity chain

As with the GM debate today, local needs are reinterpreted by dominant powers to
align with dominant global interests i.e. higher incomes through greater productivity. This binds African producers into a social and economic model in which they will forever be producers of primary goods and consumers of processed goods.

Importantly, amongst the reasons for success of cotton in the region are the application of appropriate soil nutrient replenishment, and pest management and seed varieties that are well suited to local conditions (Gillson et al. 2004:45-6). Uniform seed varieties genetically altered for conditions in another country and parachuted in are not likely to solve the problems of poverty, even amongst West African cotton growers. Rising commodity prices where producers receive the benefits of those increases is a more effective short-term measure for reducing poverty.

The types of institutional, social and economic changes that are required to increase cotton productivity through transgenic seed have far greater negative effects on living conditions. In particular, poverty is exacerbated by trade liberalisation in the context of deep global inequality. With trade liberalisation, African farmers have to compete directly with the heavily subsidized and marketed agricultural products from the North (Makanya 2004). The focus on productivity has been interpreted as diverting attention from the issue of cotton subsidies that would by all accounts have a far greater impact on incomes amongst African cotton producers.

The US, EU and Chinese governments pay producers massive subsidies to continue production, even though these cost the state more than the total value of production. In the US and the EU, large-scale agribusinesses are the primary beneficiaries of state subsidies. These subsidies permit producers to adopt more expensive technology such as GM cotton and its associated chemicals and still sell their cotton on the world market cheaper than unsubsidised producers in other parts of the world including in Africa.

The subsidies can only be understood in conjunction with trade liberalisation because the World Trade Organisation (WTO) determines the legality of subsidies.
Although the WTO recently ruled against US cotton subsidies, the 2004 ‘July framework’ that aims to restart global negotiations around trade in agriculture permits the Us and EU to continue to manipulate the various categories of support. Both the US and the EU have indicated their intentions to reorganise their subsidy systems to comply with WTO regulations while not substantively reducing the subsidies.

USAID together with the largest TNCs in the seed-biotech-chemical sector are setting the research agenda by providing funding in the context of withdrawal of national state support for agricultural research. Their express intention is to produce commercially viable biotechnology products under the ownership of the TNCs. The US in particular assists biotechnology and seed companies to undermine or water down multilateral environmental agreements that seek to limit their spheres of operation. The dominant states help to construct regulatory and legal systems that protect corporate property rights and favour their insertion into new areas of operation. In the case of cotton, this is both to introduce their products (including seed) and to access commercially untapped genetic resources for future product development.

Given this multi-pronged attack on African cotton systems, it is recommended that African producers and governments reject the introduction of GM cotton, and the utilisation of existing agricultural infrastructure and institutions for the insertion of GM cotton into their systems. Far more sustainable alternatives to GM cotton exist. Pest management techniques that rely on increasing producers’ knowledge and integrating farmers’ own knowledge with environmentally sustainable best practices from elsewhere are preferable to the introduction of technology that draws pest management away from control of the direct producer. Poverty reduction is more feasible if based on the redistribution of existing resources, including secure access to land, water and locally available genetic material than if based on a single technology reliant on a vast array of external inputs only made available on the basis of payment.

Instead of privatising agricultural institutions and focusing on biotechnology that places control in the hands of distant experts, research and development could become more participatory, allowing producers to determine their own needs whether for the global market or not. In particular, dedicated support for the production of food and fibre for local need first and only then for exchange should be encouraged. At the end of the day, primary producers, farm workers and the landless need to organise themselves to press for their own demands. A rejection of the imposition of GM crops and the associated restructuring is imperative in this regard.

There is a strong push to spread the commercial planting of genetically modified (GM or transgenic) cotton into Africa’s core cotton growing regions. Yet the language of poverty reduction and humanitarianism that is used to justify this is a thinly veiled disguise for the global expansion of transnational corporate interests. There are many reasons to be wary of the introduction of genetically modified organisms into agriculture. These include environmental and health concerns, lack of certainty about economic benefits, ethical and even spiritual concerns, and issues related to the use of technology for sectional interests.

Smallholder African cotton producers, generally resource poor and lacking in adequate support, are now the targets for profit making. Building on the social devastation left by colonialism and still all too apparent across Africa, the introduction of GM crops seeks to restructure political, social and economic systems yet further to the primary benefit of corporate activity.

Nation states play an important role in facilitating these processes of technology-driven development and economic concentration by maintaining and restructuring regulatory frameworks as required. The challenge for Africa is not only how to resist this imposition, but also how the African populace can reassert control over political and economic processes that unfold in its name but seldom to its benefit.

Conditions in West Africa are not favourable for converting fibre into textiles in the face of subsidised dumping and the importing of used clothes because weaving has a high capital/labour ratio and it relies heavily on electricity, which is expensive in the region (Goreux 2004:21). A strategy of adopting targeted tariffs to limit dumping and encourage domestic industry, coupled with a focus on small scale production to meet domestic textile demand would require a shift from an export orientation in cotton production. Such a strategy would also have important implications for the introduction of transgenic cotton varieties into West Africa. Rather than requiring the adoption of transgenic technology, it would encourage the adoption of local varieties better adapted to local conditions that could provide for uniqueness in local textile production (Devlin Kuyek, pers comm., 5 Oct
2004).

GM COTTON

In the case of transgenic cotton, African farmers are to be the recipients of technologies that will increase productivity and reduce input costs for farmers. Northern governments and private companies are presented as altruistic agents with the best interests of resource poor African farmers at heart.

Field trials of transgenic cotton in Africa are proliferating and it is only a matter of time before other countries join South Africa in commercial production. Burkina Faso
has field-tested Bt cotton since July 2003 even before biosafety laws were in place (GRAIN
2004b). In mid-2003 the Burkina Faso Fibre and Textile Company (SOFITEX) announced its plan to embark on transgenic cotton production in partnership with Monsanto and Syngenta (Agencies 2003). Reports in September 2004 indicate the country has approved the commercial planting of Bt cotton (Kalibwani et al. 2004:9). In Mali, The national agricultural research institute (IER) has been negotiating with Monsanto and Syngenta for field trials of Bt cotton (GRAIN 2004a). Despite this apparently slow take-up, there is a lot of activity around biotechnology and the introduction of transgenic cotton in West Africa, as detailed in the section on introducing transgenic cotton in Africa below.

South Africa has played a key role in bringing GM crops into Africa through research and
development, legislation permitting the planting of GM crops, approval for the commercial
planting of GM maize, cotton and soya, and the export of its biotechnology thrust into Africa using NEPAD (see Biowatch 2003). Elsewhere in Southern and East Africa, field trails of GM cotton are under way. The Ugandan government’s acceptance of Bt cotton trials was adopted despite strong domestic opposition, including from the state-run Cotton Development Organisation (Ojambo 2002).

De Grassi (2003:i) outlines five criteria that should determine the introduction of new
technologies into African agriculture. First, agricultural research must generate site-specific
varieties to accommodate different conditions of production. Second, research should be led by the self-expressed needs of poor farmers. Third, there is a need to prioritise and choose the most cost-effective technologies. Fourth, environmental sustainability requires consideration not only of the second-generation effects of the Green Revolution (for example, damage caused by pesticide use) but also soil fertility. Finally, there is a need for institutional sustainability. In a detailed study of South Africa’s smallholder cotton farmers, de Grassi found that the introduction of Bt cotton failed all of the criteria. The technology is uniform and imposed from outside without full information being provided (partly because information about long-term effects on environment and social organisation is unknown).

GM crops favor producers with large farms based on monocropping and uniformity, with a high reliance on external inputs (Makanya 2004). Yet contrary to these characteristics, most African farmers are resource-poor and small-scale farmers who will be unable to afford the ongoing costs associated with technology fees, higher seed prices, increasingly privatised water costs and chemical inputs.

Cotton subsidies

Producer subsidies in the US (52% of global subsidies in 2002/03) and to a lesser extent the EU (27%) and China (20%) serve to depress international prices while shielding subsidised producers from these lower prices. Being major players in the market, subsidies in these countries have a direct influence on the price of cotton Thus while African farmers are amongst the world’s lowest cost producers, prices received are still often below costs of production.

The US cotton export industry has been globally dominant for centuries, since 1800 when it
overtook the West Indies as the prime exporter of cotton to the engine of the textile industry, the UK (Roberts 1996:48). This history has allowed the powerful agribusiness lobby, the National Cotton Council, to draw substantial state subsidies towards the cotton industry, with cotton farmers receiving more per capita and per acre than any other group of US agricultural producers (Watkins 2003:5). In 2000 the cost of subsidies to the cotton industry was equivalent to the value added to the US economy by cotton production (Watkins 2003:4). In 2001, the value of subsidies exceeded the market value of output by around 30% (Watkins & Su 2002:2).

The floor price was maintained under the 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act where cotton producers are guaranteed a floor price of around 52c/lb, regardless of world market prices (Watkins & Su 2002:12). Over and above the guaranteed floor price, US producers receive additional payments to top up their income to a target price, set at 72.4c/lb (Watkins & Su 2002:12). This should be compared to the A-Index price of US$1.04 in 2002 (Baffes 2004:66).

An important aspect of the US subsidy is the significant export component. So-called ‘Step 2’ subsidies (the middle in a set of three) were introduced in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 to keep US cotton competitive (Baffes 2004:69). Step 2 payments are government subsidies to US companies that export or mill cotton sourced from inside the US.

Since 1995, the US government has made Step 2 payments to the value of US$1.68 billion to
cotton companies (see EWG 2004a). The subsidy offers exporters additional payments when
quoted prices for US cotton traded internationally are high relative to other cotton traded
internationally (Roberts & Jotzo 2001:28). The Step 2 subsidies are also offered to domestic mills using US cotton to eliminate any difference between US internal prices and the international price (Watkins & Su 2002:15). A cursory look at the list of subsidy beneficiaries reveals the dominance of millers, ginners, and apparel and textile manufacturers (EWG 2004a).

Simply this means the government is paying mainly large-scale agribusinesses – including multinationals – to continue supporting cotton production in the US regardless of its economic cost. The subsidies are biased towards large-scale producers and processors, with the top 10 percent of recipients accounting for over 75% of the subsidy (Watkins 2003:5). According to EWG (2004a) the top twelve recipients (4% of all recipients) accounted for half the total payments, worth US$843.9 million between 1995 and 2002. The top five, who account for over a quarter of all Step 2 subsidies are Allenburg Cotton Co (owned by Louis Dreyfus), Duvanant Enterprises, Parkdale Mills Inc, Cargill and Calcot Ltd (California Cotton) (EWG 2004a).

Cotton prices are historically low and declining. According to the Cotlook A-Index international cotton prices have been declining especially since the early 1980s in the face of growing competition from chemical fibres, rising productivity and government subsidies that encourage production regardless of cost. Real prices dropped 60% between 1980 and 2002 (Baffes2004:66). Subsidies further depress the price, with world cotton prices calculated to rise by up to 20% if subsidies were withdrawn (Goreux 2004:16). Nevertheless, one needs to ask who will benefit from higher cotton prices? It is not possible to separate the issue of subsidies from the global expansion of input supply, crucially including seed, and concentration at the trading node.

It is apparent, as will be indicated below, that transnational corporations supported by dominant states are positioning themselves to retain profits in an environment where subsidies are curtailed (even if not outright eliminated).

Politics & cotton production

The continuation of the subsidy system reveals where the interests of the US government and US agribusinesses really lie. It is just one manifestation of a close relationship between states and corporate agricultural interests, especially in the advanced capitalist economies. In the US there is a revolving door between some of the largest biotech corporations and the USDA. Ann Veneman, current Secretary of Agriculture served on the board of Calgene, a biotech company later taken over by Monsanto. A number of other top officials also have direct links to biotech
companies (Mattera 2004:26, 28). Federal funds have been used to finance the terminator
technology that helps seed companies protect their intellectual property by rendering seeds
sterile (ibid.:27). As shown above, the USDA provides massive subsidies to the cotton industry that outweigh the value of production.

In China, the government sets a reference price for cotton, usually above the world market price, and maintains import tariffs to bridge the gap between domestic and world prices.

In the EU, although the subsidy to Greek and Spanish producers is a smaller percentage of
global subsidies than the US subsidy, it is more concentrated. At more than 60c/lb (Riboux
2002:3) the subsidy is consistently more than the international price of cotton, rising as high as 253% of international prices for Spanish recipients in 2001/02 (Baffes 2004:70). Reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in 1999 imposed a ‘penalty’ of reduced subsidies once cotton production reached a predetermined maximum. However, this operated at the aggregate level rather than for individual enterprises, and has failed as a surplus containment mechanism (Baffes 2004:14).

The EU also has a general policy of support to large agribusinesses. In the mid-1980s, 60% of the EU budget was going to agriculture. Of this 80% was going to larger farmers (Brassley
1997:130). In 1999, just 2.2 per cent of the 4.5 million farms in Europe received 40 per cent of the total payments, and will continue to do so under CAP reforms proposed in 2003 and to be implemented from 2005 (Sharma 2004).

Trade liberalisation

There are two sides to trade liberalisation. On the one hand, large-scale producers need access to new markets in order to remove domestic surpluses. On the other hand, processing and value-added industries are constantly looking for new, cheaper sources of raw materials. The former encourage the reduction of barriers to market access in other countries, while the latter seek conditions that facilitate global sourcing.

Agricultural subsidies

GATT/Uruguay Round

The result of the Uruguay Round in agriculture was that the US and EU continued to provide massive subsidies to their agricultural sectors. Total support provided by Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) governments in 1999 stood at US$361 billion. After a slight decline in the 1990s, support to agricultural producers had returned to the same level as the historical peak of 1986-88 (OECD 2000:23). On the other hand, developing countries that were not organised and were railroaded into the agreement were forced to open their agricultural markets to the subsidised surpluses from these big economies.

Negotiations for a new agreement failed in Seattle in 1999 and Cancun in 2003 when developing countries resisted US and EU attempts to steamroll another agreement on their own terms. After a long effort to restart negotiations, a framework was constructed to formulate a new trade pact.

This so-called ‘July framework’ has been hailed as a victory for developing countries, with some commentators even referring to a ‘post-subsidy’ era after ‘countries agreed for the first time to abolish all forms of export subsidies’ (Lourens 2004; Njobeni 2004). However, such talk appears to be premature. French Agriculture Minister, Herve Gaymard informed the media that it would not be before 2015 or 2017 when export subsidies are completely eliminated (Sharma 2004a; Kwa 2004).

As with the Uruguay Round, the amount of the subsidy will not change but the terminology used to define its legal status will. chief US agriculture negotiator, Allen Johnson, told reporters: “The United States succeeded in shifting farm subsidies to a new WTO category (read ‘blue box’) to avoid actual reductions” (both quotes in Sharma 2004a).

Cotton received media attention during the July negotiations. Brazil took advantage of the
lapsing of the Uruguay Round peace clause to launch a complaint against US cotton subsidies. The WTO ruled that the US was in contravention of its commitments under the Agreement on Agriculture and ordered the US to take appropriate steps to remove the adverse effects or to withdraw the subsidies “without delay” (WTO 2004a:350-51). The US has announced its intention to appeal parts of the ruling (Sapa-AFP 2004).

Under the West African Cotton Initiative, four West African cotton-producing countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali) also placed pressure on the US at the WTO negotiations to the eliminate production subsidies of any sort in the cotton sector, and the payment of compensation for as long as the subsidies remained in place. But given the July framework text it appears that US counter-cyclical payments approved in the 2002 Farm Bill, including cotton subsidies, will be shuffled around to fit into the new blue box and then reduced, but not eliminated, over time (Kwa 2004; Raghavan 2004).

AGOA

Of importance to the African cotton sector is the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) in the US, concentrating as it does on providing access to the US market for textiles produced in Africa.

The Act has a two-phase approach to the liberalisation of the textile sector in Africa. The
Act allows for exports to the US of garments made from fabric produced anywhere in the world until 30 September 2004 (Clean Clothes Campaign 2002:9). Trade preferences under the Act are conditional on African governments liberalising agricultural markets, including the cotton sector (Watkins & Sul 2002:3). The Act is only open to African governments that take concrete steps towards the elimination of barriers to US trade and investment (AGOA, cited in Clean ClothesCampaign 2002:9). This first phase of liberalisation therefore serves to stimulate the African textile sector and encourages investment especially from US companies. It also provides a short-term
boost to local producers able to take advantage of growth in the export textile industry.
It goes without saying that producers with resources available with be best placed to occupy this space.

The second phase of AGOA after September 2004 provides for limitless duty-free and quota-free access to the US market for garments that are made in eligible sub-Saharan countries from US, or AGOA-eligible country, fabric, yarn and thread (Clean Clothes Campaign 2002:9). This explicitly serves the interests of US cotton producers and processors since their subsidized cotton can arrive in Africa and still be cheaper than locally produced cotton.

As shown in the section on African cotton production above, a number of US producer-processors already have ginning operations in place in Africa. The provisions of AGOA will favour those that can bring subsidised cotton from the US, process it in Africa using infrastructure owned by them, and export it back to the US for further value adding or for sale. AGOA excludes the import of raw cotton to the US from Africa (Gillson et al. 2004:8). Sanctions against Zimbabwe mean that products derived from Zimbabwean cotton will not be eligible for export to the US under
AGOA. This denies the Southern African region in particular the ability to draw on a key cotton producer in one of the region’s most competitive supply pipelines (Coughlin, Rubin & Darga 2001:xiii)

PRIVATISATION AND DEREGULATION

In order to take advantage of the trade regime, multinationals require reforms to give them
access to the cotton sector in African countries. Historically these sectors have been
monopolised by state institutions, and these monopolies have to be broken down to permit the profitable entry of multinationals. African cotton production already has a well-established infrastructure that TNCs can take advantage of (GRAIN 2004b).

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND PATENTS

“Our vision is for a regulatory system that favours investment and innovation.
We will stifle innovation if our framework fails to provide sufficient financial
rewards to justify continued investment”
(Michael Pragnell, President, CropLife International and CEO of Syngenta, 3 June 2004,
quoted in CropLife International 2004)

The introduction of genetically modified crops into Africa is based on the ability of corporations to control the technology and generate a profit from it. Since these corporations have legal ownership of much of the technology, they will determine how and when it is used.

USAID has indicated its intention to play its part to “integrate biotechnology into local food systems and spread the technology through regions in Africa” (US Dept of State 2002). This is to be on a commercial basis. Once transgenic crops are in the ground and a regulatory system is in place, the threat of states outlawing their use is eliminated.

Capacity building to carry out biotechnological research is closely linked to the research agendas of private companies. Generally, USAID supported programmes to extend biotechnology into Africa are partnered by the large biotech and seed companies. Monsanto and other biotech corporations sponsor USAID (Greenpeace 2002:6). In turn, USAID has paid US biotech corporations to run GM research programmes with local research institutes in African countries.

The USAID sponsored Program for Biosafety Systems (PBS) assists in biosafety research, policy and capacity, including in East and West Africa. African partner organisations include African Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum (ABSF; Kenya), Association
for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA; Uganda), East African Regional Programme and Research Network for Biotechnology, Biosafety, and Biotechnology Policy Development (BIO-EARN; Uganda), Le Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Developpement Agricoles (CORAF; Senegal) and national agricultural research organisations.

Not only USAID and the biotech companies, but also the international agricultural research
centres organised under the Collaborative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR) are party to the biotech agenda.

In 1998 African governments adopted a model law on the ‘Protection of the rights of local
communities, farmers, breeders and regulation of access to biological resources’. Amongst its core principles are the right and responsibility to keep seed free; prior informed consent to use biological resources; local community access to gene pools; and no patents on life forms (Kalibwani et al. 2004:41).

Despite all this activity, the International Cotton Advisory Committee (n.d.) recognises that
“because of the diversity of cotton growing problems throughout the world, there is no simple approach for transfer and implementation of biotechnical knowledge. Thus, many of the cotton growing problems of the world will not receive required attention”…by biotechnological responses, it should be added. Other fields of knowledge also have a role to play in responding to the problems of cotton growing.

CONCLUSION

The US is trying to head-off African criticism of its cotton subsidies by talking about helping to improve productivity, through Bt cotton. In the meantime, it is reorganising its domestic subsidy regime to comply with the WTO while attempting to limit the actual reductions it will make.

Nevertheless, in preparation for the future reduction of cotton subsidies, the industry is the process of globalising its operations, especially through the consolidation of corporate trading interests and firming its grip over input supply. The dominant states are fully behind this agenda through using their power to force open markets in developing countries, either through the WTO or through imposing conditionalities for bilateral trade preference. The World Bank is playing a crucial role in justifying the dismantling of state-run and single channel cotton export systems, regardless of how well they are functioning.

Dominant states are also providing support for the maintenance of the corporate stranglehold over input supply, especially seed, by assisting in establishing mechanisms for the protection of intellectual property rights and by funding research agendas that favour the interests of transnational seed and biotechnology companies.

Contamination is not just a risk, it is THE mechanism, combined with patents, through which the industry will impose its agenda. This accounts for the push for the early introduction of the commercial planting of GM crops, knowing full well that once they are in the ground it will be impossible for states to reject them.

Bt cotton is on top of the list because of the greatest likelihood of commercial success in the shortest time. Once the cotton is in the ground, the floodgates for future GM varieties are opened.

Given this multi-pronged attack on African cotton systems, it is recommended that African producers and governments reject the introduction of GM cotton, and the accompanying utilisation of existing agricultural infrastructure and institutions for the insertion of GM cotton into their systems.

More sustainable alternatives to GM cotton exist. Poverty is multifaceted, cutting across economic, social and political systems and cannot be eliminated or reduced through the imposition of a single technological fix that itself is encoded within a system of increasing inequality.

Poverty reduction is more feasible if based on the redistribution of existing resources, including secure access to land, water and locally available genetic material than if based on a single technology reliant on a vast array of external inputs only made available on the basis of payment.

Pest management techniques that rely on increasing producers’ knowledge and integrating farmers’ own knowledge with environmentally sustainable best practices from elsewhere are preferable to the introduction of technology that draws pest management away from direct control by the producer.

Instead of privatising agricultural institutions and focusing on biotechnology that places control in the hands of distant experts working for giant corporations, research and development could become more participatory, allowing producers to determine their own needs whether for the global market or not. In particular, dedicated support for the production of food and fibre for local need first and only then for exchange should be encouraged.

Primary producers, farm workers and the landless ultimately need to organise themselves to press for their own demands. A rejection of the imposition of GM crops and the associated political and institutional restructuring is imperative in this regard.

LES COULISSES DU COMMERCE "EQUITABLE"

Les coulisses du commerce équitable. Mensonges et vérités sur un petit business qui monte

Christian Jacquiau


Après Les Coulisses de la grande distribution, publié en 2000, Christian Jacquiau nous livre les résultats de deux ans d’enquête sur le commerce équitable, ses acteurs et leur fonctionnement. Son livre pose des questions qui fâcheront ceux qui croient changer le monde en achetant au supermarché un paquet de café labellisé « commerce équitable ».

Qui sont les vrais bénéficiaires de ce système présenté comme alternatif ? Max Havelaar, qui a opté pour la diffusion dans la grande distribution, donne la priorité aux producteurs marginalisés du Sud, le consommateur du Nord agissant solidairement. Artisans du monde distribue dans son réseau de magasins. Minga plaide pour une « démarche alternative au commerce ultralibéral » tout au long de la filière.

Commerce de l’équitable ou commerce équitable ? Le livre fournit des clés à ceux qui veulent inscrire leur action au-delà de la solidarité, en cherchant de véritables solutions de rechange au libre-échange. Sans complaisance.


Présentation par l'éditeur

Les ravages de la mondialisation conduisent les citoyens à rechercher des moyens de peser sur l'évolution de la société. Leur consommation en est un. À la fin des années 1990, le concept de commerce équitable conquiert le grand public avec un produit-phare, le café. Très vite, tout produit se prête à sa version "équitable", l'équitable devient tendance. C'est un petit business qui monte.

Son concept repose sur un triple engagement, celui des producteurs et des consommateurs arbitré par de nouveaux intermédiaires, les "acteurs" de l'équitable : les consommateurs paient "un peu plus cher" un produit acheté à un prix supérieur aux cours mondiaux pour assurer un revenu décent aux petits producteurs du Sud. Les acteurs veillent au respect des normes sociales et environnementales.

Qu'en est-il de la promesse que les uns et les autres se font ? Les organisations relais et entreprises qui font de l'équitable tiennent-elles leurs engagements ? Qui est vraiment gagnant ? Répondre à ces questions, c'est éclairer d'un jour cru un aspect que certains "commerçants de la bonne conscience" aimeraient tenir secret.

Initié par le militantisme citoyen, largement instrumentalisé par les bureaux de marketing, le commerce équitable a été récupéré par les marchands d'illusion. En se donnant à la grande distribution et à quelques transnationales en quête d'honorabilité, les adeptes de la marchandisation de l'équitable ont ouvert la boîte de Pandore.

Christian Jacquiau a mené l'enquête pendant deux ans. Il nous invite dans l'arrière-boutique d'un secteur méconnu et nous dévoile les dérives et abus commis au nom de l'équitable.

MAX HAVELAAR: GARANTI COMMERCE "EQUITABLE" ?

Max Havelaar ou les ambiguïtés du commerce équitable

Leader mondial du commerce équitable, Max Havelaar prétend répondre à une demande de consommation « différente » placée sous le signe de la solidarité entre consommateurs du Nord et petits producteurs du Sud. Toutefois, l’entreprise semble effectuer un tournant « pragmatique » en se liant à de grands groupes très éloignés de ses préoccupations d’origine. Il n’est pas certain que les producteurs et les citoyens s’y retrouvent.

Par Christian Jacquiau

Comment apporter aux petits paysans pauvres un revenu qui leur permette de prendre en charge leurs besoins fondamentaux, de préserver leur environnement et de fonder des relations humaines sur d’autres valeurs que celles prônées par le « tout libéralisme » planétaire ? C’est lors de la première Conférence des Nations unies sur le commerce et le développement (Cnuced), en 1964, que l’idée « Trade not aid ! » (« le commerce, pas l’aide ») donne naissance au commerce équitable. Jusque-là réservée à une clientèle d’initiés, la vieille idée d’une relation plus juste entre le Nord et le Sud se popularise alors auprès d’un public que l’on qualifie volontiers d’« alterconsommateur ».

« Créé en tant que commerce solidaire, rappelle la sociologue Virginie Diaz Pedregal, le commerce équitable a été fortement marqué à ses débuts par l’humanisme des mouvements religieux chrétiens, ainsi que par une conception protestante de l’éthique (1). » D’essence caritative, mais influencé ultérieurement par une approche politique plus tiers-mondiste, ce commerce solidaire se transforme en acte d’opposition au système capitaliste. Il devient alors « alternatif ». Jusqu’à ce que...

« Nous étions et sommes toujours anticapitalistes, opposés aux transnationales », rappelle le prêtre ouvrier Frans van der Hoff, cofondateur en 1988 de la marque Max Havelaar (2). Pourtant, happé par la vague néolibérale, la démarche « solidaire » puis « alternative » a muté, au tournant des années 2000, jusqu’à devenir un « commerce équitable » largement dépolitisé. « L’heure n’est plus à la révolution mais à la réforme, souligne Diaz Pedregal. L’objectif du mouvement est de bonifier le système libéral en le modifiant de l’intérieur. »

Présent dans de nombreux pays du Nord et principal promoteur de cette mutation, Max Havelaar se trouve au cœur d’un vaste débat renvoyant la démarche à ses fondements, historiques et politiques. D’un côté, les tenants de la marchandisation des produits équitables. De l’autre, les promoteurs d’un modèle exigeant davantage de contenu social et environnemental tout au long des filières, au Sud comme au Nord, avec en filigrane une interpellation sur la question essentielle de la répartition des richesses. En ce sens, l’affaire du coton africain estampillé Max Havelaar – au-delà des polémiques qu’elle suscite – est emblématique du trouble que traverse le monde de l’équitable.

Du retrait de la France coloniale – ayant permis la nationalisation des filières cotonnières africaines au bénéfice des Etats émancipés – aux privatisations imposées à ceux-ci par le Fonds monétaire international (FMI) et la Banque mondiale, conduisant de fait à la réappropriation de leurs richesses par de puissants oligopoles privés, le coton est révélateur d’une certaine instrumentalisation du commerce équitable.

La rémunération des petits paysans africains producteurs de coton est désormais fixée par le marché, où opèrent de puissants groupes financiers ou agroalimentaires, comme la société française Dagris (Développement des agro-industries du sud), détentrice d’un quasi-monopole sur le secteur cotonnier de l’Afrique de l’Ouest. Entreprise jusque-là publique, Dagris est aujourd’hui en cours de privatisation (lire « Paris brade le coton subsaharien »). « Le maintien de Dagris dans la sphère de l’Etat [risquait] de l’exclure de certaines privatisations, les Etats africains s’opposant fréquemment à ce que des organismes majoritairement publics contrôlent les filières cotonnières privatisées », précise un rapport du Sénat français, très favorable à sa dénationalisation, en mars 2005 (3). Désormais, la volonté du groupe de servir de confortables dividendes à ses actionnaires s’opposera à l’espérance des paysans de recevoir une équitable rémunération. Pour couper court à toute contestation, Dagris s’est tourné vers le « commerce équitable » : sur les deux cent quarante mille paysans producteurs de coton pour la société, trois mille deux cent quatre-vingts ont été sélectionnés pour bénéficier du système Max Havelaar (4).
Elimination des petits paysans

Un tel compagnonnage est contesté par Mme Aminata Traoré, ex-ministre de la culture du Mali : « Le commerce équitable fait partie des solutions au drame africain, à la condition que Max Havelaar ne se mette pas avec Dagris. Dagris fait partie du problème. » Mais d’autres considérations emportent la décision de Max Havelaar. « En 2003, l’association affichait un déficit de 350 000 euros, plus 600 000 euros de dettes et un arriéré d’impôts dépassant 700 000 euros. Max Havelaar France se refait une santé financière avec la fibre textile », constate la presse française (5). De fait, l’association est aussitôt récompensée : 610 000 euros lui sont versés par le ministère des affaires étrangères français, 500 000 par le Centre pour le développement de l’entreprise (CDE). Au total, plus de 1,7 million d’euros, toutes subventions comprises, pour la seule année 2004 (6).

« Si le commerce équitable est vraiment une cause d’intérêt général, pourquoi n’est-il pas financé par l’Europe ou par l’Organisation des Nations unies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture (FAO) ? Pourquoi par le ministère français des affaires étrangères ? », interroge M. Michel Besson, directeur de l’association Minga. En tout cas, à peine le partenariat entre le trust cotonnier et Max Havelaar est-il scellé que Dagris, par la voix de son président, se livre dans les colonnes du quotidien Le Monde à un véritable plaidoyer pour des cultures génétiquement modifiées en Afrique (7). Un mode de production très lucratif pour les transnationales de l’agrochimie, mais ayant pour conséquence immédiate l’élimination des petits paysans.

McDonald’s, dont on connaît la violence des pratiques sociales, propose désormais du café équitable « logotisé » (8) Max Havelaar. Tout comme Starbucks, le leader mondial de l’« espresso bar » avec ses sept mille cinq cents points de vente répartis dans trente-quatre pays, que l’écrivaine Naomi Klein qualifie de « précurseur dans l’art moderne de l’horaire [de travail] flexible ». Accor, dont la grève des femmes de chambre a, durant de longs mois, défrayé la chronique, sert à son tour du café Max Havelaar au bar de ses hôtels. Nestlé, l’entreprise la plus boycottée par les consommateurs britanniques, revendique elle aussi son partenariat avec Max Havelaar.
Une féroce répression antisyndicale

Il n’y a dès lors plus d’obstacles pour que les produits équitables franchissent le seuil de la grande distribution, dont la politique d’approvisionnement, caractérisée par la recherche de fournisseurs socialement moins-disants, amplifie les délocalisations massives, accélère l’insécurité sociale et la précarité (9). Offres publiques d’achat (OPA), fusions, absorptions, rachats... « Sur chaque grand segment de marché, trois ou quatre firmes internationales fournissent à elles seules 80 % de l’offre vendue en hypermarché », constatent les représentants de Coopernic, la deuxième plus grande centrale d’achats européenne (10). Douwe Egberts, Kraft Foods, Nestlé, Procter & Gamble et Sara Lee se partagent ainsi le marché du café. Un phénomène de concentration qui touche également le secteur de la distribution.

Pour les détracteurs de Max Havelaar, l’approche des géants de la distribution constituerait une véritable menace. Ils en veulent pour preuve les déclarations du représentant des hypermarchés Leclerc, au moment même où plusieurs syndicats dénonçaient la « féroce politique antisyndicale » inspirée par l’enseigne à ses magasins affiliés : « Le commerce équitable ne constitue qu’un marché émergent. Avec les volumes, les fournisseurs vont pouvoir écraser leurs coûts de production et nous pourrons ainsi augmenter nos marges. » Avec l’humain (salaires et protection sociale) pour variable d’ajustement ?

« Les différents types de distribution ne sont pas nécessairement incompatibles, car ils ne conviennent pas aux mêmes types de producteurs : à petit producteur, petit magasin, à gros producteur, gros magasin », avoue un commerçant de l’équitable dont le chiffre d’affaires a été multiplié par vingt et un en cinq ans (11). Sous l’impulsion des businessmans du « charity coffee », le commerce équitable a désormais muté en commerce de l’équitable, ce que regrette le père Van der Hoff : « Dès 1990, nous étions préoccupés par la tournure que prenait le mouvement dans d’autres pays (12). Sa dimension politique a été peu à peu édulcorée, puis évincée. »

Lidl bénéficie à son tour de l’image rassurante de Max Havelaar alors qu’une campagne sans précédent est menée dans toute l’Europe autour du très révélateur Schwarz-Buch Lidl (livre noir) qui dénonce « les conditions de travail, un climat de peur parmi les salariés et des mesures répressives insupportables » dans ses magasins (13). Mais, pour Max Havelaar Allemagne – qui a vu son chiffre d’affaires progresser de 50 % pour atteindre 110 millions d’euros depuis l’arrivée de ses produits sur les rayons du distributeur à bas prix –, les critiques émises à propos des dérives du commerce équitable ne seraient pas recevables.

McDonald’s, Starbucks, Accor, Nestlé, Dagris, Leclerc, Lidl... L’expérience aurait pu aller beaucoup plus loin encore si Max Havelaar Suisse n’avait décidé de se séparer de Mme Paola Ghillani, sa directrice générale, ex-présidente de Fairtrade Labelling Organizations (FLO) (14). Peu de temps avant qu’elle ne soit distinguée par le très libéral Forum de Davos du titre envié de « global leader for tomorrow » (« leader global pour demain »), elle avait entrepris d’introduire Max Havelaar dans les services, le tourisme, la banque, les bijoux, l’électronique et même... le pétrole et les diamants (15).

« Pour traiter directement avec les producteurs, Max Havelaar n’hésite pas à organiser la disparition des petits intermédiaires locaux, ces colporteurs qui font office de commerçants ambulants en profitant de leurs déplacements pour apporter marchandises et médicaments aux villageois les plus éloignés. Il les pousse à la faillite, pour des raisons affichées d’économie et de morale. En fait, il les a fait disparaître pour prendre leur place », s’indigne Mme Anne Brochier, animatrice d’une petite structure d’aide au développement. Aux 6 centimes d’euro que les « coyotes » (intermédiaires) prenaient sur le prix d’un paquet de café se sont substitués les 5 centimes d’euros exigés par Max Havelaar.

Autre sujet de débat, la question légitime de savoir qui paye pour l’équitable ? Le consommateur, assigné en réparation des dommages subis par les petits paysans. Culpabilisé par des slogans publicitaires jouant sur le registre misérabiliste, qui tentent de lui faire oublier que ce sont les mêmes torréfacteurs et distributeurs qui, après avoir exploité et plongé des millions de petits paysans dans une misère extrême en leur imposant des prix réduits depuis tant d’années, reviennent avec cynisme sur les lieux de leurs forfaits. A peine dissimulés sous leurs tout nouveaux masques équitables, encore étiquetés made in sweat shops.

Comme les paysans payent pour être certifiés en agriculture biologique, comme les fournisseurs de la grande distribution acquittent un droit d’entrée pour être référencés, les petits producteurs pauvres doivent s’acquitter d’un quasi-« droit au référencement » auprès de FLO - Max Havelaar pour espérer être un peu moins maltraités par ceux qui achèteront leur production. Les honoraires varient d’une coopérative à l’autre, en fonction du nombre de paysans et de salariés... bien que les plus pauvres, travailleurs saisonniers, journaliers, paysans sans terre et autres précaires, aient été exclus du champ de l’équitable par le système. Le prix d’achat aux producteurs de café a été fixé une fois pour toutes, en 1998, par FLO - Max Havelaar : 0,76 euro la livre pour le robusta et 0,88 euro pour l’arabica, quel que soit par ailleurs le prix auquel il est vendu au consommateur final.

On précisera que Max Haavelar n’achète pas de produits. Il n’en vend pas non plus. Son rôle se limite à garantir aux consommateurs l’application d’un cahier des charges élaboré par FLO. Les entreprises qui diffusent les produits garantis « équitables » par Max Havelaar s’engagent à le respecter et à payer ce prix minimum aux producteurs. Sans s’engager sur les volumes... Dès lors, les entreprises qui revendiquent leurs prétendues bonnes pratiques peuvent arbitrer entre l’équitable, payé à peine plus cher, mais permettant de communiquer « responsable », et les cours du marché mondial leur garantissant d’engranger de substantiels profits. Combien d’équité dans l’équitable ? Un peu plus de 4 euros mensuels de revenu supplémentaire par paysan, selon les chiffres de Max Havelaar, sur lesquels il leur faut déduire les frais de coopérative, de transports locaux et de douane.

Vingt ans après la création de Max Havelaar, le constat de Van der Hoff est amer : « Sur le plan économique, nous nous portons un peu mieux qu’en 1988. Mais notre situation reste très précaire. Nos producteurs de café [équitable] gagnent en moyenne 2,18 euros par jour – moins que le minimum légal de 3,28 euros au Mexique », lui-même déjà très bas.

« Quand Rica Lewis vante les vertus équitables de ses jeans, on oublie qu’il n’y a que le coton qui est labellisé. Malongo [café certifié par Max Havelaar] fait aussi du non-équitable, la démarche n’est pas complète. C’est du marketing », reconnaît M. Michel-Edouard Leclerc. Seul le coton en provenance du Cameroun (tissé en Italie) ayant servi à sa fabrication (en Tunisie) mérite l’appellation « équitable ». « FLO-Cert garantit la traçabilité et la conformité de ce jean, fabriqué selon les règles établies par la convention de l’OIT [Organisation internationale du travail] », tient à préciser Rica Lewis. Comme si l’équitable pouvait se résumer au seul respect de ces règles plus que minimales...

En l’état actuel, aucun label, aucune réglementation n’apportent de garanties officielles aux consommateurs d’équitable, qui doivent s’en remettre à la confiance qu’ils placent dans les acteurs du secteur. Le terme « label » ne peut en effet être utilisé qu’à la condition de répondre à une triple exigence : disposer d’un cahier des charges soumis à des contrôles indépendants, certifiés par un organisme lui-même indépendant et agréé par les pouvoirs publics. Aucune organisation du commerce équitable ne répond à ces exigences.

Les grands bénéficiaires de l’ingénierie actuelle sont avant tout les structures d’audit et les intermédiaires de la certification, avec les transnationales de l’agroalimentaire, de la torréfaction et de la distribution. Il n’en coûte en effet rien à ces dernières puisqu’elles se contentent de payer un peu plus cher une quantité infime de matières premières, réputées équitables, qu’elles s’empressent aussitôt de surfacturer à des consommateurs en quête d’équité. En l’absence d’une réglementation les définissant et en codifiant le contenu, la faiblesse des contrôles garantissant le commerce équitable prête également à toutes les controverses. En contrôlant cinquante-cinq acteurs parmi les plus représentatifs du secteur, la direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes (DGCCRF) a observé dix-sept démarches différentes, dont certaines se caractérisent par l’absence de cahier des charges, voire de traçabilité.

Faute d’inspecteurs en nombre suffisant, le système pousse les petits paysans à se regrouper en coopératives, puis les coopératives en unions de coopératives (coopératives faîtières). Ne disposant que de deux inspecteurs indépendants pour tout le Mexique, un seul pour les autres pays, FLO-Cert en arrive à ne plus contrôler que les coopératives de coopératives, ce qui a pour effet d’éloigner un peu plus les inspecteurs de ceux qu’ils sont censés contrôler.

« La Fédération artisans du monde doit se distinguer des opérateurs commerciaux n’ayant pas d’objectifs d’éducation ou de transformation économique et pour lesquels le produit équitable prend le dessus sur la filière équitable », prône Mme Carole Reynaud-Paligot, sa présidente. Comme Minga et Nature et progrès, elle préconise une garantie basée sur le partenariat, l’autoévaluation et l’évaluation croisée.

Surmédiatisé, disposant de moyens financiers sans commune mesure avec ceux de ses concurrents, Max Havelaar se retrouve immanquablement sous les feux de la contestation. Pour autant, ses concurrents, plus petits, moins médiatiques et donc moins exposés, et n’ayant pas commis l’imprudence de se prétendre « label » – ce qu’ils ne peuvent pas davantage revendiquer —, ne sont pas pour autant à exempter de toute critique.

On voudrait croire le commerce équitable propre à juguler la domination exponentielle de ceux que Jean Ziegler nomme « les nouveaux maîtres du monde », mais glisser un paquet de café réputé équitable sur le sommet d’un chariot débordant de produits inéquitables, fabriqués le plus souvent par de quasi-esclaves dans les sous-sols du tiers-monde, peut-il suffire à satisfaire la demande d’éthique de citoyens de plus en plus avisés ?

Les déviances, abus et excès commis en son nom ne sauraient pour autant conduire à rejeter l’idée d’une véritable démarche équitable. Chaque jour, le consommateur vote pour un modèle de société productiviste, intensif, polluant et déshumanisé ou pour un type de production respectueux de l’humain, des animaux et de leur environnement. Partout des voix s’élèvent pour exiger un véritable commerce équitable, libéré de l’emprise des manipulateurs de la communication et du marketing. Les « alterconsommateurs » représenteraient déjà de 15 % à 25 % de la population (16).

« Au Japon, 25 % des foyers sont engagés dans le mouvement des coopératives de consommateurs dont font partie les fameux Teikei (17), inspirateurs des AMAP [Associations pour le maintien d’une agriculture paysanne] françaises », explique la journaliste Noriko Hanyu. Ces modèles ne recourent pas à la publicité, n’arborent aucun logo, encore moins de label, pourtant ils tendent vers ce que pourrait être un véritable commerce équitable.

Deux logiques s’affrontent dans ce paysage tourmenté. Celle de la marque Max Havelaar et de ses partenaires commerciaux, se caractérisant par le traitement d’importants volumes de produits de niche et d’exportation (café, thé, cacao, etc.), au détriment parfois des cultures vivrières et de la souveraineté alimentaire des populations locales, et celle de réseaux du type Nature et progrès, Artisans du monde ou Minga, qu’accompagnent des milliers de sympathisants-militants, se positionnant résolument dans une approche de filières (18), de relocalisation des activités et de généralisation d’échanges véritablement équitables, au Nord comme au Sud.

Seul un cadre universel s’imposant comme la norme permettra de subordonner définitivement le commerce et l’économique à l’humain. A quand une Organisation mondiale du citoyen et de son environnement ?

source de l'article: Le Monde Diplomatique, edition Septembre 2007
www.monde-diplomatique.fr

Auteur de l'article: Christian Jacquiau, Economiste, auteur du livre Les coulisses du commerce équitable. Mensonges et vérités sur un petit business qui monte, Mille et une nuits, Paris, 2006.

Reponse de Max Havelaar

A la suite de la publication de l’article « Max Havelaar ou les ambiguïtés du commerce équitable », de Christian Jacquiau (Le Monde diplomatique, septembre 2007), qu’il conteste, M. Jean-Pierre Doussin, président de Max Havelaar France, nous communique le droit de réponse suivant :

Qui sommes-nous ? Nous ne sommes pas une entreprise mais une association (loi de 1901) sans but lucratif, fondée et toujours animée par des organisations nationales et régionales consacrant leur action à la solidarité internationale. C’est donc une organisation composée de bénévoles militants. Notre association est un acteur pionnier (et non leader), à l’origine du premier système international de labellisation dans le cadre du commerce équitable. Son budget est alimenté par une redevance payée par les entreprises mettant le logo de l’association sur leurs produits et, jusqu’à l’année dernière, par des subventions publiques. Le ministère français des affaires étrangères, cité dans votre article, n’a pas contribué au sauvetage financier d’une association en péril mais à financer des projets précis, assortis de procédures d’évaluation, permettant le développement du commerce équitable. C’est en particulier grâce à ce financement que notre association a pu faire face aux coûts importants de l’organisation d’une filière coton équitable qui assure maintenant un revenu décent et un soutien organisationnel à plus de trente-cinq mille producteurs (et non pas trois mille deux cent quatre-vingts).

Notre logo est-il un label ? Nous n’avons jamais prétendu que ce logo était représentatif d’un label au sens de la loi française applicable aux labels de qualité des produits agricoles et alimentaires. Il s’agit d’un label international garantissant une démarche de développement au bénéfice d’acteurs marginalisés et applicable à toutes sortes de produits. Conformément à la jurisprudence des tribunaux français, l’utilisation du mot « label » est autorisée si deux conditions sont respectées : un cahier des charges définissant des exigences particulières et un contrôle du respect de ces exigences par un organisme indépendant. Ces conditions sont bien respectées : le cahier des charges est élaboré par notre fédération internationale FLO avec la participation des producteurs bénéficiaires et le contrôle est opéré par FLO-Cert, qui respecte les dispositions posées par la norme internationale ISO 65 sur les organismes certificateurs et donnant un maximum de garanties aux consommateurs français sur l’application de nos engagements.

Quels sont nos choix ? La justification de la création du système que nous représentons a, depuis l’origine, été que les consommateurs puissent contribuer de manière simple et efficace au développement des producteurs et travailleurs des pays du Sud en achetant des produits issus du commerce équitable dans tous les endroits où ils s’approvisionnent ou consomment habituellement. Le label MH permet ainsi de faciliter cet acte d’achat responsable en donnant aux consommateurs l’assurance de l’efficacité de ce geste simple. Cette relation d’un type nouveau n’a pas pour seul objet de fournir un revenu supplémentaire à des producteurs ou travailleurs défavorisés. Elle s’adresse avant tout à des organisations (une partie du prix, appelée prime de développement, est d’ailleurs d’usage obligatoirement collectif) qui deviennent de vrais partenaires, acteurs de leur propre développement. L’implication de ces organisations des pays du Sud dépasse le simple contrat commercial puisque leurs représentants participent également aux décisions stratégiques et politiques de notre fédération internationale FLO.

Contrairement à ce qui est dit, le développement du commerce équitable sur des cultures d’exportations ne se fait pas au détriment des cultures vivrières. Ce développement rend souvent possible au contraire, par les moyens supplémentaires qu’il donne, un développement de ces cultures et une diversification des activités. Une véritable restructuration régionale et parfois nationale, permise par le commerce équitable, est même constatée dans de nombreux pays : des acteurs autrefois complètement ignorés ou rejetés sont maintenant des partenaires incontournables tant des organisations commerciales privées ou des banques que des instances politiques. Mais un tel changement, comme celui, plus large, des pratiques du commerce international, n’est possible que si les transactions se prévalant du commerce équitable atteignent un niveau suffisant pour que ces « nouveaux » acteurs soient reconnus et respectés. La crédibilité du commerce équitable se verra d’autant plus renforcée que le nombre de familles agricoles qui en bénéficient atteint des niveaux plus importants.

Nous sommes tout à fait favorables aux actions engagées par diverses petites entreprises commerciales ou structures associatives qui souhaitent un commerce équitable « tout au long de la chaîne ». De telles démarches contribuent grandement à la sensibilisation du public, mais le niveau des transactions ainsi induites est insuffisant pour atteindre les objectifs précités. Notre association a donc fait le choix de s’insérer dans les structures commerciales existantes mais sans pour autant perdre son âme et sa culture militante. L’exemple du coton cité dans votre article peut à nouveau être repris. L’organisation de la filière, pour l’Afrique, a en effet été rendue possible grâce à une collaboration avec un acteur que ses compétences et la connaissance du milieu rendaient incontournable : la société Dagris. Que le président de cette entreprise ait pris des positions réelles ou supposées en faveur des OGM n’a rien à voir avec notre action puisque le cahier des charges que nous avons contribué à élaborer dans le même temps interdit totalement l’emploi des semences OGM et organise dans le détail le contrôle du respect de cette interdiction.

Nous saluons les entreprises qui ne vendent que des produits équitables mais nous saluons aussi celles, petites ou grandes, qui, peu à peu, décident de s’impliquer, même partiellement mais de manière croissante, dans le système ainsi mis en place. Avons-nous fait les bons choix ? C’est aux consommateurs d’en décider et sans attendre une modification fondamentale de notre organisation économique, et en tout cas bien avant l’avènement bien problématique à court ou moyen terme de l’Organisation mondiale du citoyen et de son environnement souhaitée par l’auteur de l’article. La progression constante des ventes de produits labellisés et l’impact constaté par les études menées dans les pays concernés nous engagent à penser que nous sommes bien sur la bonne voie.

Source: Le Monde Diplomatique, edition d'octobre 2007. www.monde-diplomatique.fr

LE COTON GENETIQUEMENT MODIFIE: LE CHEVAL DE TROIE DES MULTINATIONALES POUR OGM-ISER L'AGRICULTURE EN AFRIQUE

Les enjeux et dangers du coton génétiquement modifié (GM)


Le coton génétiquement modifié (GM) imposé et frauduleusement introduit au Mali et dans la sous-région par les Multinationale Américaines/Occidentales de biotechnologie ( Monsanto, Dow Agro Sciences, Syngenta) - avec le soutien et l’appui de l’administration Américaine - est une véritable politique génocidaire économique, sociale et écologique, avec comme objectif machiavélique le contrôle total de la filière et de toute la chaine alimentaire au Mali et dans la sous-région.

Comme écrit GRAIN dans son rapport sur les enjeux du coton GM en Afrique de l’Ouest : source: www.grain.org

« Le coton Bt est le cheval de Troie des multinationales ; leur porte d’entrée en Afrique de l’Ouest, pour assurer leur mainmise sur les semences cotonnières, et, éventuellement, pour contrôler toute l’agriculture de la sous-région. Le but est d'introduire en Afrique de l'Ouest les cultures génétiquement modifiées brevetée.

Les compagnies d'agrochimie les plus importantes dans le monde et le gouvernement des
Etats-Unis s’empressent d'introduire en Afrique de l'Ouest, les cultures génétiquement modifiées, à commencer par le coton. Les dangers liés à cette agriculture et les controverses qu’il a soulevés, tant sur le plan scientifique, économique, socioculturel qu’éthique sont si énormes que les débats font rage partout dans le monde."

"La filière coton est bien organisée dans tous les pays de l’Afrique de l’Ouest, et les multinationales veulent en profiter. Le coton est une espèce essentielle pour la région, et il est déplorable que les chercheurs du secteur public jouent avec le gagne-pain des citoyens, car les technologies qu'ils apportent n'ont rien à offrir aux agriculteurs, sauf une plus grande dépendance vis-à-vis des compagnies étrangères … »

« Monsanto, Syngenta et Dow Agro Sciences, soutenus par l’USAID, ont élaboré avec le gouvernement du Mali, des plans pour remplacer dans les cinq prochaines années [2004-2009] le coton local par des variétés transgéniques. Le coton est le principal produit d’exportation du Mali, et pourtant, ni les agriculteurs, ni les exportateurs, ni le public ne sont au courant de ces plans."

"Les chercheurs de l'Institut d'Economie Rurale sont en train de mettre la dernière touche au projet quinquennal qui doit développer et commercialiser le coton transgénique avec l’USAID, Monsanto, Syngenta et Dow Agrosciences. D'après les termes de l'accord, les essais au champ de coton transgénique Bt importé commenceront en 2004. Le projet est en train d'être négocié, sans que les agriculteurs maliens producteurs de coton, qui sont le plus menacés par le transfert imminent de la technologie de modification génétique n’aient été consultés, alors que la Convention sur la diversité biologique ratifiée par
tous les pays d’Afrique de l’Ouest, oblige à l’information du public."

"Dans une étude collective sur les résultats probables de l'introduction du coton Bt en Afrique de l'Ouest, GRAIN a démontré que cette technologie est absolument inappropriée pour les agriculteurs de la région. Contrairement à ce que ses champions prétendent, le coton Bt n’est pas en mesure de réduire l'usage des pesticides, et ne fournira aucun avantage économique aux agriculteurs. Entre temps, l’USAID promet des millions de dollars pour les programmes d’OGM au Mali, si le pays accepte le coton transgénique.”

Les dangers du coton GM

Le coton Bt est un cadeau empoisonné : Quand les pratiques paysannes deviennent des actes criminaux


En général, les semences de coton ne sont pas vendues dans la plupart des pays d’Afrique de l’Ouest; elles sont distribuées gratuitement. Pour les paysans, les semences leur appartiennent dans la mesure ou elles sont issues de leurs champs, et dans la mesure ou les paysans ont déjà payé des cotisations pour la sélection des variétés cotonnières. De plus, les paysans ont l’habitude d’échanger leurs semences avec leurs voisins, leurs amis et les membres de leur famille. Or, l’introduction du coton Bt va faire basculer ces pratiques traditionnelles. Les paysans vont être obligés de payer les semences et de signer le fameux contrat d’utilisation de technologie de Monsanto. Ce contrat est basé sur certains points essentiels :

- L’agriculteur ne peut pas conserver de semences pour les replanter.

- Il est interdit à l’agriculteur de fournir des semences à quiconque.

- L’agriculteur devra payer 120 fois la redevance due pour l’utilisation de la technologie, plus les amendes légales si il ne respecte pas le contrat

Coton Bt et la contamination : La boîte de Pandore

Le coton Bt n’est pas visiblement différent du coton conventionnel, et le mélange est alors inévitable. Ainsi des quantités importantes de coton Bt pourront se glisser facilement dans les stocks de coton conventionnel. La contamination peut aussi se produire à travers le croisement des cotonniers transgéniques et ceux conventionnels, facilité par les insectes pollinisateurs. La contamination a de lourdes conséquences :

- Une fois que le transgène est introduit dans l’environnement, il est difficile, si non impossible de le retirer, si des effets nocifs pour la santé humaine et l’environnement sont découverts.

- Monsanto détient des brevets sur les transgènes du coton Bt et elle réclame des droits de propriété intellectuelle sur toutes plantes contenant ces transgènes, même si ils ont été intégrés dans des plantes par un flux de gènes involontairement.

- Un flux de gènes peut se produire entre le coton Bt et les variétés locales ou espèces sauvages de coton, importantes réserves de biodiversité

- La contamination par le coton Bt pourrait compromettre toute production de coton biologique de la sous-région car les critères de la certification biologique interdisent les OGM.

Malgré ces risques, l’IER, USAID, Monsanto, Syngenta et Dow Agrosciences viennent de conclure (en 2004) un plan de 5 années pour l’introduction et le développement du coton Bt au Mali et dans la sous-région. Source: www.grain.org

Coton GM : Une arme pour le contrôle de l’agriculture vivrière et de la chaine alimentaire au Mali et dans la sous-région.


« Enfin, la dernière, et peut-être la principale question que posent les OGM en Afrique concerne le « brevetage du vivant », c'est-à-dire l'appropriation par le secteur privé du patrimoine variétal africain. Si l'identification d'un gène ou d'une séquence génétique est considérée comme une découverte (c'est-à-dire non brevetable), la mise en évidence de sa fonction (l'introduction réussie du nouveau gène) est considérée comme une invention et permet, à ce titre, le dépôt d'un brevet. Ainsi, chaque OGM est « breveté » et nombre de pays du Sud craignent une « confiscation du vivant » par les pays du Nord, ou plus exactement par leurs multinationales. Là est le principal enjeu des années à venir. »

Source: Jeune Afrique L'Intelligent 2004

Malgré les dangers liés aux OGM ci-haut résumé, Monsanto et d’autres Multinationales Américaines/Européennes de biotechnologie introduisent frauduleusement le coton GM au Mali et dans toute la sous-région, avec l’appui et le soutien de l’administration Américaine et la complicité du gouvernement Malien.

Compte tenu de ce qui précède, il est donc urgent de sensibiliser les cotonculteurs et les populations Maliennes/africaines sur les dangers et les conséquences lies aux OGM afin de prévenir le génocide économique, social et écologique qui se prépare au Mali et dans toute la sous-région.

Pour lire le rapport de GRAIN, cliquer sur le lien du titre ci-dessus.

BLACK GOLD ( Video): WAKE UP AND SMELL THE INJUSTICE IN YOUR COFFEE CUP...

The coffee sector has collapsed worldwide following a crash of coffee prices on the world market from 2000-2005 - reaching their lowest levels in over a century in 2001 - leading to the economic ruin and the mass economic genocide of millions of coffee farmers and coffee plantation workers and their families in more than 50 coffee producing & exporting countries around the world.

Cynically, however, meanwhile coffee multinationals, traders and retailers are making millions in profits each year from coffee sales worldwide...

As Mr. Nestor Osorio - Executive Director of the International Coffee Organization (ICO) - himself clearly stated:

“The world coffee economy has evolved over the last few years in a manner which may be qualified as erratic, disorderly and even contradictory. The relative supply scarcity of the mid 1990s, caused largely by climatic conditions, was followed by a short period of moderately high prices that compensated for the losses incurred by the dismantling in 1989 of the International Coffee Agreement’s quota system. However this situation prompted a surge in production that altered substantially the global supply structure and was the cause of the worst coffee crisis ever seen in terms of growers’ incomes.

In contrast, the evolution of the coffee economy in importing countries has shown a completely different and in fact very positive pattern. The industry has flourished, new products have been developed, the value of the retail market has more than doubled, and profits have risen. This is something to celebrate, but the question must nevertheless be
asked as to how long such a state of affairs can be sustained.

The extent of the drop in prices and earnings in the crisis years 2000 - 2004 is very clear In the ten years 1980 – 1989 the ICO Composite Indicator Price for coffee averaged127.92 US cents per lb. and coffee-producing countries earned an average of US$10.2 billion in annual export revenues from coffee. In the five years 2000 – 2004 the average price had dropped to 54.33 cents - the lowest in real terms for 100 years - and annual export earnings to US$6.2 billion.

Certainly the figures for coffee are clear : In the late 1980s and part of the 1990s earnings by coffee producing countries in terms of exports f.o.b. were around US$10-12 billion per year but they have now dropped to around US$5.5 billion. This contrasts with the continued growth in the value of retail sales in consuming countries from around US$30 billion in the 1980s to around US$80 billion at present." Nestor Osorio, Executive Director, ICO.

Source: www.ico.org

This excellent documentary reveals the injustice of the global coffee trade and its impact on coffee farmers.

Please click on the title above to view the entire documentary on google video, and share it with as many people as you can . Thank you.

Note: I have recently filed a formal complaint with the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the mass economic Genocide of millions of coffee farmers, plantation workers and their families around the world resulting from the collapse of the coffee sector worldwide. You can read a copy of the complaint published on my blog at the following link:

http://yajnacentre.blogspot.com/2008/10/letter-of-complaint-to-international.html

I welcome your comments and support.

Thank you!

MONEY BANKSTERS: ENSLAVING AND ROBBING THE WORLD SINCE 1694...

"The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole...Their secret is that they have annexed from governments, monarchies, and republics the power to create the world's money..." THE MONEY MASTERS is a 3 1/2 hour non-fiction, historical documentary that traces the origins of the political power structure that rules our nation and the world today. The modern political power structure has its roots in the hidden manipulation and accumulation of gold and other forms of money. The development of fractional reserve banking practices in the 17th century brought to a cunning sophistication the secret techniques initially used by goldsmiths fraudulently to accumulate wealth. With the formation of the privately-owned Bank of England in 1694, the yoke of economic slavery to a privately-owned "central" bank was first forced upon the backs of an entire nation, not removed but only made heavier with the passing of the three centuries to our day. Nation after nation, including America, has fallen prey to this cabal of international central bankers."

video source: www.themoneymasters.com

And As Nathan Mayer Rothschild - the principal architect of the FED/Private Central Banking - arrogantly stated:

“The few who can understand the system [Central Banking & Fractional Reserve Banking) will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of the people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.” Rothschild Bros. of London, 1863

And as Tolstoy said:

“ Money is a new form of slavery, distinguishable from the old simply due to the fact that there is no personal and visible human relationship between master and slave.”

“While boasting of our noble deeds, we are careful to conceal the ugly fact that
by our iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression,
which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery.” — Horace Greeley

And as Henry Ford rightly stated and warned:

“It is well that the people of the Nation do not understand our banking and monetary
system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow
morning.” Henry Ford

That day is not far. The world is now too small for anything but Truth and Justice.

I encourage all those who wish to live as free men/women to urgently and actively carry out their own research on the fraudulent workings of the both Federal Reserve Bank (FED) and of the global financial architecture (i.e. Central Banking & Fractional Reserve Banking).

As Goethe said:

“None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe to be free.”

It (the banking system) is the most important subject intelligent persons
can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization
may collapse unless is widely understood and the defects remedied very soon.”
— Robert Hemphill, former credit manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of
Atlanta

Click on the title above to view the entire documentary on Google Video and share it with as many people as you can. Thank you.

PETITION FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE FED

To: U.S. Congress

This petition calls for the abolishment of the US Federal Act, the Federal Reserve Bank (FED)and its Board of Governors by Congress. (read article below: What is the FED by Greg Hobbs.)

“The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against
the principles and form of our Constitution. I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance.

The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied.”

- Thomas Jefferson

Tragically, this prophecy has already materialized...

“Money is the creature of law and the creation of the original issue of money
should be maintained as an exclusive monopoly of National Government.
Government possessing the power to create and issue currency . . . need not and
should not borrow capital at interest as the means of financing governmental work
and public enterprise.

The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the
currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and
the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not
only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government’s greatest
creative opportunity. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums in interest. . . . Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.

The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires
against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent
than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis
approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.
Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow,
and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by
working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few
hands and the Republic is destroyed. -Abraham Lincoln

“Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers and rich and predatory money lenders.

Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, hereinafter called the Fed. The Fed has cheated the Government of these United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the Nation's debt. The depredations and iniquities of the Fed has cost enough money to pay the National debt several times over. .... This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it. " - Congressman McFadden on the Federal Reserve Corporation Remarks in Congress, 1934 Floor of the House of Representatives by the Honorable Louis T. McFadden of Pennsylvania. Mr. McFadden served as Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee for more than 10 years. There were two assassination attempts against McFadden.

“This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth, such as the Sherman
Antitrust Act would dissolve if Congress did not by this act expressly create what
by that act it prohibited. When the President signs this act the invisible government
by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust investigation, will be legalized. The greatest crime of Congress is its currency system. The schemiest legislative crime of all the ages is perpetuated by this new banking and currency bill.” — Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh

“And the control of the system of banking and of issue which our new laws are to
set up must be public, not private, must be vested in the Government itself, so that the banks may be the instruments, not the masters, of business and of individual enterprise and initiative.” Woodrow Wilson, 1913

Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote:

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great
industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is con-centrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world — no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the
majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant
men.” Woodrow Wilson, 1916

And As Nathan Mayer Rothschild - the principal architect of the FED - stated:

“The few who can understand the system [Central Banking & Fractional Reserve Banking) will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of the people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.” Rothschild Bros. of London, 1863

And as Henry Ford rightly stated and warned:

“It is well that the people of the Nation do not understand our banking and monetary
system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow
morning.” Henry Ford

That day is not far. The world is now too small for anything but Truth and Justice.

I encourage all those who wish to live as free men/women to urgently and actively carry out their own research on the fraudulent workings of the both Federal Reserve Bank (FED) and of the global financial architecture (i.e. Central Banking & Fractional Reserve Banking).

It (the banking system) is the most important subject intelligent persons
can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization
may collapse unless is widely understood and the defects remedied very soon.”
— Robert Hemphill, former credit manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of
Atlanta

As Goethe said:

“None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe to be free.”

As Tolstoy rightly stated:

“ Money is a new form of slavery, distinguishable from the old simply due to the fact that there is no personal and visible human relationship between master and slave.”

“While boasting of our noble deeds, we are careful to conceal the ugly fact that
by our iniquitous money system we have nationalized a system of oppression,
which, though more refined, is not less cruel than the old system of chattel slavery.” — Horace Greeley

What is the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) and why do we have it? By Gregg Hobbs

The FED is a central bank. Central banks are supposed to implement a country's fiscal policies. They monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable. Central banks also do business, such as currency exchanges and gold transactions, with other central banks. In theory, a central bank should be good for a country, and they might be if it wasn't for the fact that they are not owned or controlled by the government of the country they are serving. Private central banks, including our FED, operate not in the interest of the public good but for profit.

There have been three central banks in our nation's history. The first two, while deceptive and fraudulent, pale in comparison to the scope and size of the fraud being perpetrated by our current FED. What they all have in common is an insidious practice known as "fractional banking."

Fractional banking or fractional lending is the ability to create money from nothing, lend it to the government or someone else and charge interest to boot. The practice evolved before banks existed. Goldsmiths rented out space in their vaults to individuals and merchants for storage of their gold or silver. The goldsmiths gave these "depositors" a certificate that showed the amount of gold stored. These certificates were then used to conduct business.

In time the goldsmiths noticed that the gold in their vaults was rarely withdrawn. Small amounts would move in and out but the large majority never moved. Sensing a profit opportunity, the goldsmiths issued double receipts for the gold, in effect creating money (certificates) from nothing and then lending those certificates (creating debt) to depositors and charging them interest as well.

Since the certificates represented more gold than actually existed, the certificates were "fractionally" backed by gold. Eventually some of these vault operations were transformed into banks and the practice of fractional banking continued.

Keep that fractional banking concept in mind as we examine our first central bank, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). It was created, after bitter dissent in the Congress, in 1791 and chartered for 20 years. A scam not unlike the current FED, the BUS used its control of the currency to defraud the public and establish a legal form of usury.

This bank practiced fractional lending at a 10:1 rate, ten dollars of loans for each dollar they had on deposit. This misuse and abuse of their public charter continued for the entire 20 years of their existence. Public outrage over these abuses was such that the charter was not renewed and the bank ceased to exist in 1811.

The war of 1812 left the country in economic chaos, seen by bankers as another opportunity for easy profits. They influenced Congress to charter the second central bank, the Second Bank of the United States (SBUS), in 1816.

The SBUS was more expansive than the BUS. The SBUS sold franchises and literally doubled the number of banks in a short period of time. The country began to boom and move westward, which required money. Using fractional lending at the 10:1 rate, the central bank and their franchisees created the debt/money for the expansion.

Things boomed for a while, then the banks decided to shut off the debt/money, citing the need to control inflation. This action on the part of the SBUS caused bankruptcies and foreclosures. The banks then took control of the assets that were used as security against the loans.

Closely examine how the SBUS engineered this cycle of prosperity and depression. The central bank caused inflation by creating debt/money for loans and credit and making these funds readily available. The economy boomed. Then they used the inflation which they created as an excuse to shut off the loans/credit/money.

The resulting shortage of cash caused the economy to falter or slow dramatically and large numbers of business and personal bankruptcies resulted. The central bank then seized the assets used as security for the loans. The wealth created by the borrowers during the boom was then transferred to the central bank during the bust. And you always wondered how the big guys ended up with all the marbles.

Now, who do you think is responsible for all of the ups and downs in our economy over the last 85 years? Think about the depression of the late '20s and all through the '30s. The FED could have pumped lots of debt/money into the market to stimulate the economy and get the country back on track, but did they? No; in fact, they restricted the money supply quite severely. We all know the results that occurred from that action, don't we?

Why would the FED do this? During that period asset values and stocks were at rock bottom prices. Who do you think was buying everything at 10 cents on the dollar? I believe that it is referred to as consolidating the wealth. How many times have they already done this in the last 85 years?

Do you think they will do it again?

Just as an aside at this point, look at today's economy. Markets are declining. Why? Because the FED has been very liberal with its debt/credit/money. The market was hyper inflated. Who creates inflation? The FED. How does the FED deal with inflation? They restrict the debt/credit/money. What happens when they do that? The market collapses.

Several months back, after certain central banks said they would be selling large quantities of gold, the price of gold fell to a 25-year low of about $260 per ounce. The central banks then bought gold. After buying at the bottom, a group of 15 central banks announced that they would be restricting the amount of gold released into the market for the next five years. The price of gold went up $75.00 per ounce in just a few days. How many hundreds of billions of dollars did the central banks make with those two press releases?

Gold is generally considered to be a hedge against more severe economic conditions. Do you think that the private banking families that own the FED are buying or selling equities at this time? (Remember: buy low, sell high.) How much money do you think these FED owners have made since they restricted the money supply at the top of this last current cycle?

Alan Greenspan has said publicly on several occasions that he thinks the market is overvalued, or words to that effect. Just a hint that he will raise interest rates (restrict the money supply), and equity markets have a negative reaction. Governments and politicians do not rule central banks, central banks rule governments and politicians. President Andrew Jackson won the presidency in 1828 with the promise to end the national debt and eliminate the SBUS. During his second term President Jackson withdrew all government funds from the bank and on January 8, 1835, paid off the national debt. He is the only president in history to have this distinction. The charter of the SBUS expired in 1836.

Without a central bank to manipulate the supply of money, the United States experienced unprecedented growth for 60 or 70 years, and the resulting wealth was too much for bankers to endure. They had to get back into the game. So, in 1910 Senator Nelson Aldrich, then Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, in collusion with representatives of the European central banks, devised a plan to pressure and deceive Congress into enacting legislation that would covertly establish a private central bank.

This bank would assume control over the American economy by controlling the issuance of its money. After a huge public relations campaign, engineered by the foreign central banks, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was slipped through Congress during the Christmas recess, with many members of the Congress absent. President Woodrow Wilson, pressured by his political and financial backers, signed it on December 23, 1913.
Recommend you all read “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by Edward Griffin, so you understand the FED and how it was created and by whom.

The act created the Federal Reserve System, a name carefully selected and designed to deceive. "Federal" would lead one to believe that this is a government organization. "Reserve" would lead one to believe that the currency is being backed by gold and silver. "System" was used in lieu of the word "bank" so that one would not conclude that a new central bank had been created.

In reality, the act created a private, for profit, central Banking Corporation owned by a cartel of private banks. Who owns the FED? The Rothschilds of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel Moses Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany; and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York.

Did you know that the FED is the only for-profit corporation in America that is exempt from both federal and state taxes? The FED takes in about one trillion dollars per year tax free! The banking families listed above get all that money.

Almost everyone thinks that the money they pay in taxes goes to the US Treasury to pay for the expenses of the government. Do you want to know where your tax dollars really go? If you look at the back of any check made payable to the IRS you will see that it has been endorsed as "Pay Any F.R.B. Branch or Gen. Depository for Credit U.S. Treas. This is in Payment of U.S. Oblig." Yes, that's right, every dime you pay in income taxes is given to those private banking families, commonly known as the FED, tax free.

Like many of you, I had some difficulty with the concept of creating money from nothing. You may have heard the term "monetizing the debt," which is kind of the same thing. As an example, if the US Government wants to borrow $1 million ó the government does borrow every dollar it spends ó they go to the FED to borrow the money. The FED calls the Treasury and says print 10,000 Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) in units of one hundred dollars.

The Treasury charges the FED 2.3 cents for each note, for a total of $230 for the 10,000 FRNs. The FED then lends the $1 million to the government at face value plus interest. To add insult to injury, the government has to create a bond for $1 million as security for the loan. And the rich get richer. The above was just an example, because in reality the FED does not even print the money; it's just a computer entry in their accounting system. To put this on a more personal level, let's use another example.

Today's banks are members of the Federal Reserve Banking System. This membership makes it legal for them to create money from nothing and lend it to you. Today's banks, like the goldsmiths of old, realize that only a small fraction of the money deposited in their banks is ever actually withdrawn in the form of cash. Only about 3 or 4 percent of all the money that exists is in the form of currency. The rest of it is simply a computer entry.

Let's say you're approved to borrow $10,000 to do some home improvements. You know that the bank didn't actually take $10,000 from its pile of cash and put it into your pile? They simply went to their computer and input an entry of $10,000 into your account. They created, from thin air, a debt, which you have to secure with an asset and repay with interest. The bank is allowed to create and lend as much debt as they want as long as they do not exceed the 10:1 ratio imposed by the FED.

It sort of puts a new slant on how you view your friendly bank, doesn't it? How about those loan committees that scrutinize you with a microscope before approving the loan they created from thin air. What a hoot! They make it complex for a reason. They don't want you to understand what they are doing. People fear what they do not understand. You are easier to delude and control when you are ignorant and afraid.

Now to put the frosting on this cake. When was the income tax created? If you guessed 1913, the same year that the FED was created, you get a gold star. Coincidence? What are the odds? If you are going to use the FED to create debt, who is going to repay that debt? The income tax was created to complete the illusion that real money had been lent and therefore real money had to be repaid. And you thought Houdini was good.

So, what can be done? My father taught me that you should always stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand up alone.

If "We the People" don't take some action now, there may come a time when "We the People" are no more. You should write a letter or send an email to each of your elected representatives. Many of our elected representatives do not understand the FED. Once informed they will not be able to plead ignorance and remain silent. This petition will be sent to all members of Congress, do your part and sign this petition.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically says that Congress is the only body that can "coin money and regulate the value thereof." The US Constitution has never been amended to allow anyone other than Congress to coin and regulate currency.

Ask your representative, in light of that information, how it is possible for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and the Federal Reserve Bank that it created, to be constitutional. Ask them why this private banking cartel is allowed to reap trillions of dollars in profits without paying taxes. Insist on an answer.

Thomas Jefferson said, "If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Jefferson saw it coming 150 years ago. The question is, "Can you now see what is in store for us if we allow the FED to continue controlling our country?"

"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he breaks, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt." John P. Curran

Click on the title above to sign the petition.