The makers of Tabasco Sauce, the Mc Ilhenny Company, experienced firsthand the limitations created by a lack of working capital for its distributors and farmers. Tabasco peppers are grown by over 2,000 farmers on over 3,000 hectares of land in Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Swaziland, and Mozambique. These farmers and cooperatives generally sell to small and medium traders, processors, and distributors that sell them to Mc Ilhenny in the states. As demand for Tabasco, and its heirloom peppers has grown, rural small and medium enterprises (SMEs) have not been able to scale up their production of peppers, which is very labor intensive with payment only on delivery. With the emergence of new models of social enterprise financing, such as the Sustainable Agriculture Guarantee Fund and Root Capital, some of Tabasco’s cooperatives and distributors have been able to access the working capital they need to expand their production.

In partnership with the Dutch government, the global Dutch bank Rabobank created the Sustainable Agriculture Guarantee Fund (SAGF), which decreases the risk incurred by local banks and regional financial institutions by providing partial credit guarantees for loans made to agriculture-based SMEs. This allows the local bank or financial institution to hold future sales contracts with an international buyer as collateral. The SME client pays a fee, about 2% of their loan, in addition to interest on the loan. This allows SMEs to obtain badly needed credit and establish a credit history. It also encourages local banks to lend to a sector they have long neglected. Rabobank’s goal is to get local lenders to a point where they are comfortable lending to agriculture-based SMEs and ensure a more stable system where the SAGF is no longer needed.

While taking a slightly different approach, Root Capital is another well-known hybrid fund offering capital to rural SMEs, calling itself a, “nonprofit social investment fund.” Root Capital was originally founded in 2000 to finance fair trade coffee cooperatives in Latin America. A major difference between Root Capital and SAGF is that Root Capital acts as a direct lender to farmers and cooperatives, holding future sales contracts with major coffee companies such as Starbucks and Green Mountain Coffee Roasters as collateral.  Read the full fascinating case study about Tabasco and the Sustainable Agriculture Guarantee Fund by Joshua Levin at World Wildlife Fund. Mr. Levin will be a guest speaker at IPSA’s 8^th Annual Conference this Friday, April 8^th at NYU’s Kimmel Center.

The U.S. has signed Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with dozens of countries, each of which has profound implications for quality of life and for the economies of the signatory countries. One can look to the political elites in the negotiating countries to get a better handle on who is likely to gain from the deal. Those who have disaggregated interests – farmers, the urban poor, small scale manufacturers – are the likely losers without powerful friends on the negotiating team. The largest multinational corporations with the most international flexibility and stronger negotiating terms are most likely to benefit.

For example, the U.S. has been trying to sign a free trade agreement with Panama for the better part of the last decade, but the deal has stalled. Obama has promised to pass the agreements despite many concerns about their human and environmental implications. The Republican leadership in Congress has been pushing for faster action from the Obama Administration on the deal. Senate Minority Leaders Mitch McConnell vowed to filibuster any trade related nominations to the executive, unless Obama submits the Panama, Columbia and Korean FTAs to Congress. Such efforts are clearly designed to limit debate and discussion of the contents of these different trade agreements and speed their passage.

The stalled deal made the news at the end of 2010, because Panama finally came up with a concession some hoped would move the process forward – a tax information sharing agreement with the U.S. An estimated 25-45% of holdings in Panama’s 40 year old secret banking sector are said to be American. An estimated 400,000 corporations are registered there, largely for purposes of using Panama’s tax-free realization of capital gains and legally-shielded accounts. Secret banking, also a major industry in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas, Singapore, Lebanon, Luxembourg and Bermuda, allows bank account holders to evade taxes in their home countries, safeguard stolen money, and avoid government monitoring of financial activities. Major beneficiaries of Panama’s tax havens include major U.S. banks like Citi and Chase, as well many other members of the Fortune 500 and their top management.

The U.S. and the OECD countries have made a show of cracking down on secret banking lately and the tax-information sharing agreement with Panama is one part of this effort. The agreement will allow U.S. officials to request information about accounts held in Panama, so they can prosecute people using the accounts to evade taxes. But, the deal does not require regular releases of information, leading observes to wonder to what level it will be seriously implemented. The Economist predicts that this agreement will lead to significant capital flight from Panama. It remains to be seen if Panama will succeed in getting the U.S. to ratify the deal. If it is ratified, there is concern that the FTA would destroy rural farmers who likely cannot compete with American subsidized agriculture. NAFTA’s agricultural provisions devastated Mexican corn farmers leading to heavy economic migration and urbanization.

IPSA is thrilled to host the Director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, Lori Wallach, to keynote the 7th Annual IPSA Conference on Friday, April 8th. Public Citizen has consistently followed the Panama FTA, as well as the other major trade agreements currently being negotiated, reporting on their impacts on every day citizens in the U.S. and abroad. Please join us! More information at: http://www.wagneripsa.org/annual-conference.html.

The study emphasized that securing decent work for women is central to poverty reduction and is a means for achieving equitable, rural economic development (see the UN Decent Work Agenda, which frames the study). Presently women in the developing world face inequalities in all of the pillars of decent work including: standards and rights; employment creation and enterprise development; social protection and safety; and social dialogue.

As gender inequality in rural employment is reinforced by gender biased social, political and economic institutions, it is also impacted by international trade. In principle, trade and global value chains offer opportunities for creating employment, but also threaten to reinforce existing gender stereotypes by increasing generally low-skilled, labor-intensive and low value-added jobs aimed at women in developing countries.

Rural women producers experience more constraints in accessing international markets than men do, which is complicated by biased land tenure systems, poor infrastructure, the time burden of women’s unpaid work, and their lack of access to credit, education, technology and information. As far as small-scale producers are concerned, the FAO/ILO/IFAD study revealed that small farmers are often not in a position to compete in global markets (yet they must frequently compete with foreign food imports in the domestic markets).

Women dominate the rural agricultural sector in many developing countries through self or informal employment selling low-value products in local markets, yet much of their unpaid work in rural agriculture and at home is not recognized or valued, despite its important economic functions. This limits women’s access to markets, training, education and resources necessary for decent employment opportunities. The FAO/ILO/IFAD study explained that rural women benefit more from increased international trade through the labor market than through the product market, as women generally hold the lowest positions in product value chains, with little bargaining power. However, although rural women are sometimes better off seeking paid employment, the gender biases of the labor market may actually make women worse off due to employment segmentation and gender gaps in earnings.

Whether rural women benefit from trade depends on the gender division of labor, access to and control over resources within the household and community, and the extent to which women’s work is paid or unpaid. With International Women’s Day right around the corner (March 8^th), it reminds us to ensure that international and domestic markets benefit women as well as men. In order to move the conversation forward, trade policies must take into account existing gender inequalities in their implications. Before IPSA’s upcoming conference, Trade Up: Strategies for Pro-Poor Economic Development, let’s make sure we are asking the right questions. For more on gender mainstreaming and trade policies, check out the UN’s Women Watch gender resources and The Global Development Research Center’s Gender Analysis Framework.

There are several trade organizations that operate globally and monitor products for fair trade compliance (FairTrade International is arguably the most well-known), but all are based on many of the principles held dear to development enthusiasts and concerned citizens: fair trade practices provide premiums and fair wages so farmers can invest in their futures through education, healthcare and business capital and development. Furthermore, small farmers are given a voice, empowerment, and are rewarded for using environmentally sound practices.

But, if you learn one thing at Wagner (besides the fact that you can get free printing at Puck), it’s that when it comes to development, there are no panaceas. Is fair trade really all it’s cracked up to be, and does it deliver on its promises when implemented on the ground? The debate is by no means a new one. Just do a web search asking, “does fair trade work?” and you’ll see a range of opinions. Critics have long argued that the additional cost of fair trade products goes more to marketing departments than to the farmers. Others critique the model for fostering a culture of dependency on first-world markets and only leveraging farms that are large enough to afford certification and sustain business practices that meet fair trade standards.

Naturally this whole debate made me think about IPSA’s upcoming conference on pro-poor trade, “Trade Up: Economic Development Strategies to Leverage a Pro-poor World” and what the real impact popular trends like free trade have on developing-world economies. Where do you stand? Is fair trade a way to empower small farmers or a marketing ploy that plays on the social conscience? Join the conversation on April 8th, 2011 at NYU’s Kimmel Center.

In his New York Times article “Is There a Such Thing as Agro-Imperialism”, Andrew Rice writes of many proponents who support the proposition of foreign countries buying African land for agricultural production. Foreign investors, African governments, and institutions like the World Bank, all see it as a win-win situation for both the foreign countries and Africa. In exchange for buying large amounts of land to export agriculture, foreign money will build new infrastructure, create jobs, and bring advanced technology to these poor African countries.

This new trades deal could be the opportunity to promote pro-poor trade amongst African and other Third World countries, but it has its risks. Allowing foreign countries to own large swaths of other nations is tricky and could lead to unforeseen property rights conflicts in the future. There could also be a thin line drawn between this type of foreign investment and colonialism. As matters of pro-poor trade are continually being discussed, these as well as other issues will arise as investors seek to expand development in underdeveloped countries.

Attend IPSA’s 2010 Annual Conference to engage in a conversation on Trade and Its Effect on Development April 8th, 2011 at NYU’s Kimmel Center. Participate as a student, a professional, or an activist to discuss the impacts of trade and how it can be more pro-poor development.

In terms of the methods to support pro-poor trade, is aid the right policy to promote economic growth through trade? In the document Aid for Trade: Is it Working?, the WTO task force points to an increase in the amount of aid going to trade, while at the same time acknowledging the inherent difficultly in measuring the effectiveness of such aid. Is aid for trade going to create more dependency on donor countries and is there a way for donor countries to promote trade, by purchasing goods rather than just donating money – an act that has the potential to create a vicious cycle of dependency.

In an ODI opinion piece, Alina Menocal suggests a framework for pro-poor trade that not only recommends a participatory approach to decision making (Menocal notes the draw backs here) but also notes the need for more than just a trade policy to increase the welfare of the poor – with an increase in economic growth and pro-poor trade policies established, domestic policies may also need to be re-visited to increase the ability for a positive redistribution of wealth and decrease the likelihood that economic growth can lead to greater inequalities.

When discussing the effectiveness of pro-poor trade policies, is it all to obvious to also point out that donor countries, in particular the United States, have some of the most extreme differences between the rich and the poor. Not only should donor countries consider effective pro-poor trading policies for the developing world, they should also consider their own trading policies and look at how the distribution of wealth internally is being administered. Inequality is not only a “Southern” problem; it is a global issue affecting even the richest countries of the world.

This sentiment reflects the widening disparity of income not unique to Cairo; a trend that can be physically seen in the cross-country development of expensive high-rise housing, gated and secured from the surrounding poverty of the developing world. Mark Magnier of the LA Times reported in October on the juxtaposition of obscene wealth and poverty in the construction of a $1 billion family home in Mumbai, complete with 27 stories, its own parking garage, and two helipads within a city boasting some of the most notorious slums in the world. While I recognize the relative privileges of life in the US, like a stable supply of clean drinking water, I still find parallels in our own society’s income disparities that leave people homeless and hungry within the world’s richest economy.

Looking forward to the upcoming 2011 IPSA conference on pro-poor trade, “Trade Up: Economic Development Strategies to Leverage a Pro-poor World,” it’s apparent that the issue of unequal development must be tackled head-on if the global poor are to see economic justice. Addressing uneven development through international trade (which to date I can only see as increasing income divides) can be an important turning point in strategies targeting global poverty. The complexities and political challenges associated with the redistribution of wealth and power are monumental, and although it doesn’t take an uprising like Cairo’s to recognize the need for fundamental attention to this issue, the international media spotlight on Egypt will hopefully help us reflect on the need to find new ways of harnessing economic power to narrow the gap.

Underground Miners in Godavarikhani, India.

Here in New York City, the idea of green and clean energy is the rage.  Many parts of the U.S. and Europe are slowly beginning to look beyond traditional fossil fuel energy to explore renewable forms of energy such as wind, solar, and geothermal.  The jury is still out for the commercial viability of these new technologies, but it can be agreed upon in most circles that these new forms of energy are more expensive than traditional fossil fuels.  Yet in, the developing world, energy production is humming to a different tune, an old American tune: Coal.

Elisabeth Rosenthal wrote a provocative piece for the New York Times on Monday about the growing trade of coal being mined in the United States, Indonesia, and Australia and sent off to produce energy in China and India.  This is ironic on many levels.  Although the United States has failed to come up with a comprehensive energy policy that would enact a cap-and-trade regulation or a carbon tax, there have been many aggressive state and regional measures to limit the amount of green house gasses that are emitted into our atmosphere.  Many states have mandated that a certain percentage of their energy produced come from renewable forms of energy.

Although China might be the world’s largest producer of wind turbines and solar panels, China is powered by coal.  Half of the coal burned each day to produce energy takes place in China.  Many energy analysts posit that China builds a new coal fired power plant every week.  These plants have a production life of 30 to 50 years.  As recently as 2009, China was a coal exporter.  2010 is different as China’s demand for imported coal is growing at a breakneck pace.  To fill this demand, companies are lining up to cash in on exporting the dirty fossil fuel that is now more difficult to burn in developed countries.  Along with the United States, Australia has made it difficult for coal-fired power plants to maintain current rates of production.  Because of the political winds forecasting stricter regulations on coal powered electrice generation in the West, coal companies are naturally looking for new markets, which usually mean China and India.

Back to the ironic part.  How is India currently financing all of these new coal-fired power plants?  By the west of course.  About 75 percent of adults over 25 are invested in the stock market one way or another.  Either through 401k, 503b, or savings accounts that you might not even be fully aware of, nearly all of us are tied to the market in one way or another.  Recently, Coal India, a huge government coal company offered an Initial Public Offering to investors from all over the world.  The response was overwhelming.  484 foreign funds, 195 mutual funds, 44 insurance companies, and many banks all invested in Coal India.  A large percentage of the capital from these funds are the savings that our generation has put away for our retirement.  What does this mean?  Our generation, the one that rallies to fight climate change is bank rolling the construction of new coal-fired power plants, one of the largest emitters of green house gasses that many scientists believe is a main reason for climate change.  It is hard to think of anything more counterproductive.

Sylvia Maier, from NYU’s Center for Global Affairs, argued against efforts to ban the niqab and burqa in various European countries. Many Muslin women choose to wear such garments as expressions of their faith. Throughout the event, Maier repeatedly emphasized women’s agency and choice. To her, the way the West discusses Muslim women as being oppressed by the burqa/niqab is patronizing to those women.

Anushay Hossain, a blogger and writer, expanded on the same themes as Maier, but with particular attention to Afghanistan. She questioned why the fight for Afghan women’s rights seems to be rolled out when it’s convenient for drumming up support for the war, but then falls to the side in everyday policy. In Afghanistan, women’s rights are used to assert American/Western cultural superiority. Meanwhile, in Europe, the burqa/niqab becomes an easy target for Europeans’ concerns about Muslim integration. Hossain made the point that we should be talking about that integration, not wardrobe. Sadly, bans are likely to further marginalize Muslim minorities, even leading more women to choose to wear the niqab in defiance.

Sunita Viswanath, co-founder of Women for Afghan Women (WAW), discussed a different set of issues altogether. Her organization has about 150 staff in Afghanistan working on a variety of women’s rights and protection issues. WAW also operates a center in Queens. Viswanath told phenomenal stories about the positive changes happening in the communities where WAW works, and the support they often receive from religious leaders, ministries, schools and other institutions in Afghanistan. It’s hard to do her stories justice in blog form. She described a father who went to great lengths to secure justice after his young daughter had been raped. She also discussed the bravery of Bibi Aisha, who had stayed at a WAW facility, to tell her story of being brutalized by the Taliban to the world (Bibi Aisha appeared on a recent cover of Time next to the headline, “What Happens If We Leave Afghanistan”).

The panelists were impressive in their insights and depth of experience. However, two issues were left glaringly unaddressed. The first issue is the question of choice. The panelists emphasized the importance of a woman’s choice to wear the niqab, burqa, hijab or whatever else they’d like – but they failed to grapple with what “choice” really means in a context of strongly held social/cultural/religious norms. We can hardly say that a woman has a choice in situations where social sanctions dictate that only one option is available.

The second issue is the role of the US intervention in Afghanistan. Viswanath and Hossain both spoke strongly in favor of continued US presence. Although Hossain criticized the use of women’s rights as rhetorical cover for the US intervention, she has no doubt about what a return to Taliban rule would mean for Afghan women. Viswanath was especially concerned for WAW’s ability to do its work. The panelists argued for a re-thinking of US strategy in Afghanistan, including an expansion of security, shifting more resources to development, and reducing corruption. They seemed to describe this as a way to create space, so that changes could come from within the communities themselves. However, Viswanath also described how the women’s rights provisions in the Afghan constitution often seem trumped by tribal law or sharia law. It’s clearly a long, slow process. The question remains: How can outsiders (the US, NATO, etc.) best support that process? Is a presence of troops and development funding really sufficient?

Of course, I didn’t expect our wonderful panelists to detail a new strategy for Afghanistan. That would be a tall order for a Friday afternoon. Still, if the US presence is so vital to progress for Afghanistan’s women, but the current policies simply use women’s rights as rhetorical window dressing, I would have liked more depth on what the US should be doing differently. As it was, the panel ran 15 minutes over. The longer conversation will have to wait for another day.

Dave Algoso is getting a Master in Public Administration, with an international policy and management focus, at NYU Wagner. He normally blogs at Find What Works.

Flip to the two-page spread on pages 34 and 35 and you will find drawings of how to breastfeed and the benefits for you baby clearly outlined. "Mother’s Milk is Irreplaceable" reads the headline.

Happy World Breastfeeding Week! Leave your examples of how your country is celebrating in the comments to this post!

The more I thought about this article, the more enamored I became with the idea. The main newspaper is its own little ministry of health – printing detailed, useful information available to the public for 3Q (less than 50 cents) or free from any Pollo Compero (as demonstrated by a business teacher in one of my previous posts).