A MONTHLY NEWSLETTER OF FOOD SYSTEM ANALYSIS

No. 290, June-July 2012

ISSN 0827-4053

Visible State, Invisible Government

We started The Rams Horn three decades ago when we were sheep farmers. We wanted to shed some light on murkier affairs of sheep farming and marketing and larger issues such as, How come New Zealand can land lamb here in Nova Scotia cheaper than we can raise it? Since then, we have continued to study both the logic of the food system and the context within which in it operates. Now this is leading us into asking some big questions about the roles of states, governments and corporations in shaping and benefiting from the industrial food system and its injustices and inequities. It used to be that the words government and state referred to different aspects of the same entity: The state was an autonomous structure identified with a discernable territory and responsible for maintenance of public order and the protection of private property, by force of arms if necessary; Government consisted of the institutions and/or people that looked after the functioning of the state. A democratic state/government was one in which the citizens, the public, had ultimate authority and gave direction, through political structures and processes, to the government. Thus in ancient Greece the people (or at least the men) assembled in the Agora to debate politics and formulate policy for the state. Leadership came from the demos, the people. Once upon a time the citizens of Canada elected representatives who then met to decide, collectively, as the government, on how to best carry out the will of the people. Today, there are still elections, but Parliament has lost its teeth and the government really consists of the Prime Minister, his cabinet, and most importantly, the Prime Ministers Office or PMO, with a large contingent of unelected, publicly anonymous policy makers. We still talk about democracy, though, and have by and large been mesmerized by our free and fair elections to think we still inhabit a democratic country. Despite the increasing and increasingly obvious power of the PMO and the extent of corporate influence, if not control, over public policy and state practice, we still believe we can address the government and that our voices will be heard and heeded by our representatives. However, the Harper Government (formerly the Government of Canada) is doing everything it can think of to quash public participation in policy or what it calls political activism, to the point where we now enjoy, not a democracy, but an elected dictatorship. Lets not give Harper too much credit for all of this, though. A quick look at the G20 and the newer B20 can shed light on the changing relationship between corporation and government and state, illustrated by the latest in trade agreements, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The G20 is technically a group of finance ministers and central bank governors from 20 major economies (19 countries plus the European Union), formed in 1999 as a forum for cooperation and consultation on matters pertaining to the international financial system. Though it has no formal ability to enforce rules, its influence on global policy is considerable. Given that it is The Economy that dominates political life, it could be said that the G20 is really an alternative to the United Nations, with a rather different set of rules and accountability, and in practice it is the G20 rather than the UN that dictates international policy. The public, the citizens, are neither consulted nor invited to G20 meetings, the latest of which was in Mexico in June, and when they show up uninvited, as in the 2010 meeting in Canada, they are to say the least made very unwelcome.

. . . continued next page

THE RAMS HORN

PAGE

Now, behind the G-20, so to speak, we have the B20, the B standing for Business. The Business-20 Summit is an international forum aimed at fostering dialogue between governments and global business. It describes itself as composed of CEOs and Chairmen of leading global companies, as well as experts from international organizations and universities, with the main objective to provide Heads of State and other government leaders of the G20 with meaningful recommendations from the private sector, which could contribute to the achievement of its objectives of global economic growth and social development.

advance of the G20 Summit, Cargill Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Greg Page joined other business leaders in offering support for new recommendations to improve global food security, including increased public and private sector investment in agriculture, and the strengthening of national-level food security programs. Recommendations were provided in a dialogue between heads of state and CEOs representing the B20 Food Security Task Force.
Cargill.com, 20/6/12

The B20 first met in Toronto in parallel to the G20 Summit in June 2010. On this occasion, for the The Trans-Pacific Partnership was, crefirst time the dialogue between governated, not primarily to break down trade ment and corporate leaders was instibarriers, but as a gold standard to Slavery is tutionalized, allowing the private secwhich countries could aspire comthe legal fiction that tor formal access to the G20 discusparable, perhaps, to the European a person is property. sions. Since then, the B20 has gathCommon Market. The TPP was creered and met with the G20 leaders Corporate Personhood ated in 2005 by the highly unlikely four times: first in Toronto in June is simply a grouping of New Zealand, Brunei, 2010 and most recently in Mexico. Chile and Singapore. In 2008, the legal fiction United States, Australia, Peru, Malaysia Cargill describes the agenda in terms and Vietnam joined. In June, 2012, after that borrow extensively from the food movement. strenuous lobbying by Prime Minister Harper, Canada According to Cargills own account, was invited to join, along with Mexico.

With the B20 meeting to draw up the policies and programs to be carried out by state governments, then sitting with the G20 to help them carry the policies forward, a more-than-trade agreement is now called for. Enter the TPP.

Twenty organizations from the private sector and civil society, including Cargill, came together to form the B20 Food Security Task Force, with the goal of developing recommendations and securing commitments for tackling the complex issues impacting food security. The Task Force is now asking for G20 government commitment to work with the private sector to make these recommendations policy. Among the specific B20 Food Security Task Force recommendations are creating an enabling environment for investment, optimizing agricultural productivity and nutrition, and ensuring sustainability through effective resource management. . . As a company dedicated to being the global leader in nourishing people, Cargill is working to address the complex challenge of feeding the world while at the same time protecting the planet. Cargill advocates for policies that let markets work and enable farmers to thrive; helps expand access to food, improves nutrition and pursues partnerships to end hunger; and works to increase agricultural productivity and incomes while ensuring responsible land use. Over the past five years, Cargill has contributed more than $55 million to reduce hunger and improve nutrition globally. . . (emphasis added) At the Mexico Business 20 (B20) Summit held in

There has been one authenticated leak, the draft chapter on investment, indicating negotiators have already agreed on measures dealing with the rights and privileges of foreign corporations (and given the extent of these rights and privileges, what corporation would not identify itself as foreign by one sleight of hand or another?). According to Public Citizen in the US, the trade deal would limit the extent to which signatory countries could regulate foreign firms operating within their boundaries, effectively giving them greater freedoms than domestic firms. Another issue is that of Tribunals established to arbitrate disputes. They would be staffed by private-sector lawyers who would rotate between acting as judges and acting as advocates for the investors who might be suing a particular government over a TPP-related matter. In other words, there is to be a permanent structural conflict-of-interest between investors and states or corporations and the public. The utter backwardness of the whole deal is evident in the way supporters of the TPP (as of other trade agreements) are complaining about Canadas supply management systems for dairy and poultry. Food manufacturers such as McCains and Saputo want to sell their products in the Asian market but complain that they cant buy dairy ingredients here at competitive prices.

THE RAMS HORN PAGE 3

They also spread the falsehood that somehow farmers can set whatever price they want for supply-managed foods, when in fact prices are set at a level which will assure the price of production (not including profit!) for a reasonably well-managed operation. Why the interests of corporations such as Saputo and McCains should get any special consideration at all may be obvious to their profit-seeking shareholders, but such special interests should certainly not take any precedence over the welfare of dairy and poultry farmers and the Canadian public. It is high time we just kicked the absurd ideas of corporate rights to trade, export, make a profit or anything else right out the door.

Kirk demanding to see a copy of the high-level confidentiality agreement signed by negotiating parties, and to have more access to negotiations, like the roughly 600 special advisers (who are almost entirely industry representatives).

Corporate perspective
When it was announced that leaders of the current TransPacific Partnership had invited Mexico and Canada to join the TPP trade negotiations, Cargill applauded. According to its press release (21/6/12), Cargill already has investments in Australia, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia, the United States, Canada and Mexico. Currently TPP includes nine countries: Singapore, Brunei Darussalam, United States, New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia, Peru, Chile, and Vietnam.

NAFTA on Steroids
Think of the TPP as a stealthy delivery mechanism for policies that could not survive public scrutiny. Indeed, only two of the twenty-six chapters of this corporate Trojan horse cover traditional trade matters. The rest embody the most florid dreams of the 1% grandiose new rights and privileges for corporations and permanent constraints on government regulation. They include new investor safeguards to ease job offshoring and assert control over natural resources, and severely limit the regulation of financial services, land use, food safety, natural resources, energy, tobacco, healthcare and more. Countries would be obliged to conform all their domestic laws and regulations to the TPPs rulesin effect, a corporate coup dtat. The proposed pact would limit even how governments can spend their tax dollars. . . Failure to conform domestic laws to the rules would subject countries to lawsuits before TPP tribunals empowered to authorize trade sanctions against member countries. The leaked investment chapter also shows that the TPP would expand the parallel legal system included in NAFTA. Called Investor-State Dispute Resolution, it empowers corporations to sue governments outside their domestic court systemsover any action the corporations believe undermines their expected future profits or rights under the pact. Three-person international tribunals of attorneys from the private sector would hear these cases. The lawyers rotate between serving as judges empowered to order governments to pay corporations unlimited amounts in fines and representing the corporations that use this system to raid government treasuries.
Lori Wallach, The Nation magazine

Cargill has supported the inclusion of Mexico and Canada in the TPP from the start. We also support Japans entry into the negotiations, said Greg Page, Cargill chairman and chief executive officer. We have believed all along that in order for the agreement to be commercially meaningful, TPP must include other significant trading partners, and we are pleased with the decision on Mexico and Canadas entry. The TPP negotiations present an opportunity for greater economic growth through trade and investment liberalization among Pacific economies. The negotiations create the potential to simplify trade in the region, to unravel the complexities of each countrys standards and regulations, while setting in place a higher standard of trade and investment provisions and protocols. The agreement will lead to employment growth as well as enhanced economic opportunity. It is estimated that every $1 billion in agricultural exports supports 9,000 jobs. TPP commitment to free trade supports Cargills business purpose of addressing the issue of food security. The agreement will address regional food security concerns. Trade barriers will be eliminated so that food can move unencumbered from places of surplus to places of cargill.com deficit, added Page.
Of course, all this is perfectly reasonable if you are the agency (corporation) that will happily, and profitably, move food unencumbered from places of surplus to places of deficit while also engaged in buying, selling and speculating in this same food.

More than 130 members of the United States Congress have sent a letter to US Trade Representative

THE RAMS HORN

PAGE

University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist commented, . . . why aggressively pursue entry into the negotiations? The reason stems less from gaining barrier-free access to a handful of relatively small economies and far more about using the TPP as a backdoor mechanism to promote regulatory changes [deregulation, that is] in Canada. . . Canada will not be able to open any chapters where agreement has already been reached among the current nine TPP partners. .. . Since the TPP remains secret, the government cannot even tell us what has been agreed upon. Second, Canada has second-tier status in the negotiations as the US has stipulated that Canada will not have veto authority over any chapter. OC, 26/6/12

increase smallholder incomes and promote better health and nutrition in developing countries by stimulating private sector agricultural innovation. The primary objective of the initiative is, however, to overcome market failures impeding the establishment of sustainable markets for developmentally-beneficial agricultural innovations, by offering results-based economic incentives (pull financing) to competing private actors to develop and ensure the uptake of new agricultural technologies. (emphasis added) AgResults has attracted pre-launch funding of $100 million from the governments of Canada ($40 million, according to the Western Producer), the United Kingdom, the United States, [and] Australia [and Italy], and from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
for program details, see http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ CFPEXT/Resources/AgResults_concept_note.pdf

Private Solutions
One outcome of the Mexican G20 meeting at the end of June was the announcement of AgResults, a pull mechanism intended to encourage private solutions to food security. The language of the Draft Concept Note is a good example of the party line of neoliberalism that only the private sector can get measurable (and therefore meaningful) results. More and smarter investment is needed if agriculture is to keep pace with the needs of both the developed and developing world, it says. Most of this must come from the private sector but, in many developing countries, markets for agricultural inputs, products and services are underdeveloped or non-existent, limiting private investment and slowing technological innovation. . . . There is an emerging consensus in favour of trialing pull mechanisms that use public financing to reward agricultural innovation and, in the process, build sustainable markets for agricultural goods and services. . . . (emphasis added) AgResults, first mentioned at the November 2011 G20 meeting, has been developed by Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, working in partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Bank and the advisory firm Dalberg. Bill Gates, in a commissioned report, commented, I believe this concept of pull mechanisms has real promise in the agricultural sector. According to the concept paper, AgResults will call upon the ingenuity and drive of the private sector to identify and execute the most effective and efficient strategies to achieve development outcomes. By linking payments to demonstrated results, it will achieve guaranteed impacts and maximum value for money. It says its goal is to enhance food security and food safety,

Brazil: Royalties on Soy

Brazil is the second-largest producer of geneticallymodified (GM) crops, after the United States, with 30.3 million hectares of GM crops last year, mostly soya beans, but also corn and cotton. It legalized the growing of GM crops in 2005, after it became clear that about three-quarters of the soya crops produced in the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul were already being grown from Roundup Ready seeds that had been smuggled in from Argentina. Since the legalization, Monsanto has charged Brazilian farmers 2% royalty on their sales of Roundup Ready soy, which now account for an estimated 85% of the nations soy crop. The company also tests Brazilian soya beans that are sold as non-GM; if they turn out to be Roundup Ready, the company charges the farmers responsible for the crops some 3% of their sales.

THE RAMS HORN PAGE 5

In 2009, a consortium of farming syndicates from Rio Grande do Sul mounted a legal challenge to the levy, arguing that it is effectively an unjust tax on their businesses, and that it has proved impossible to keep Roundup Ready soya beans separate from conventional varieties. Monsanto argued that most Brazilian farmers still use smuggled seeds, and that the company is consequently being deprived of revenue and must recoup its costs through the levy. But the Brazilian Association of Seeds and Seedlings says that 70% of soya-bean farmers now buy their Roundup Ready seeds legally. Others point out that farmers are using seeds produced many generations after the initial crops from the genetically modified Monsanto seeds were grown. Farmers claim that Monsanto unfairly collects exorbitant profits every year worldwide on royalties from renewal seed harvests. Renewal crops are those that have been planted using seed from the previous years harvest, and Monsanto claims its patent on its genetically-engineered seed allows it to not only charge an initial royalty on the sale of the crop produced, but a continuing two per cent royalty on every subsequent crop, even if the farmer is using a later generation of seed. In April, Giovanni Conti, a judge in Rio Grande do Sul, decided that Monsantos levy was illegal, noting that the patents relating to Roundup Ready soya beans have already expired in Brazil. He ordered Monsanto to stop collecting royalties, and return those collected since 2004 or pay back a minimum of US$2 billion. Monsanto appealed, and Contis decision has been suspended, pending consideration by the Justice Tribune of Rio Grande do Sul. However, in 2011 Monsanto had also made a parallel legal bid to the Brazilian Supreme Court of Justice, the countrys highest federal court. The company argued that the syndicates had no legal status to bring their case, and also that any final ruling should be limited to Rio Grande do Sul. On 12 June, the Brazilian Supreme Court of Justice ruled against Monsanto, deciding unanimously that the ruling by the Justice Tribune of Rio Grande do Sul, once it is made, should apply nationwide. Some scientists at the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa), which is affiliated with the Ministry of Agriculture and has a research partnership with Monsanto, fear that if the company is forced to repay royalties, it could trigger cuts in funding for biotech research.
Times of India, 12/6/12; Nature News, UK, 15/6/12

Coup in Paraguay: about seeds and profits

Landlocked Paraguay in the middle of South America is a long way from Canada, but the corporate players in the June 25 coup in Paraguay that overthrew President Fernando Longo are distressingly familiar: Monsanto, Syngenta, Cargill, USAID. . . The issues are complex, ranging from the obvious desire of the US to maintain the upper hand over geopolitical developments, particularly in Latin and South America, to the corporate interests of Monsanto and others in maintaining the profit flow from transgenic soybean seed sales and royalties and soybean trading. To pull off a coup, however, required an incident. In this case it was the carefully managed shooting of several police officers by paramilitaries mixed in with peasants who were trying to reclaim their land from a major landowner and soybean grower. For a detailed, careful account of events and players in this sorry tale, see the article written two days before the actual coup by journalist Idilio Mndez Grimaldi, posted on our website at ramshorn.ca/documentation.

Food Secure Canada Assembly

Food Secure Canadas biennial Assembly will be held in Edmonton in November. Under the title Powering Up! Food for the Future, the conference will focus on three major themes:

Food, Energy, and Climate Change Local Food and Food Justice Reslience and the Food Movement

The deadline for proposals for workshops, panel discussions or other sessions has just been extended to July 23rd. More information at www.foodsecurecanada.org .

THE RAMS HORN PAGE 6

Control of Africas Seeds

In July 2009 at the G8 meeting at LAquila, just north of Rome, US$ 22 billion was pledged to support and improve African agriculture over the following 3 years. Of course this is a pittance compared to the estimated $250 $350 billion annually paid in market distorting agricultural subsidies within the OECD. . . . Only 12% of that amount was new money which would not have been donated anyway. Accordingly, a Faustian bargain was made at the June 2012 G8 meeting by President Obama. Instead of delivering on commitments, he changed tack and roped in a $3 billion pledge of corporate assistance for African Agriculture. Introducing The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition Obama made a hugely condescending yet sinister promise that corporations would somehow magically assist Africa to overcome its systemic production challenges, when the G8, the green revolution and pretty much everything else has failed to date. To pile cynicism onto condescension Obama then warned that African nations would have to make tough reforms and refine policies in order to improve investment opportunities, in order that they could attract this investment. . . . Well, who did Obama bring to the party to save Africa? For starters we have Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer and BASF . . . . This hints at why Pioneer Hi-Bred, a DuPont subsidiary and the worlds second biggest seed company after Monsanto, was recently given the green light to purchase Africas largest remaining independent seed company, Pannar. This South African based seed multinational, with a presence in at least 14 African nations, as well as South America and the USA, was a rich jewel indeed. . . . The result is that South Africas seed industry is now effectively controlled by a duopoly of two US multinationals, Monsanto and Pioneer. Pioneer openly states its wish to expand into Africa; Pannar provides the ideal framework. Who controls the seed, controls the food.
Glenn Ashton, South African Civil Society Information Service, South Africa, 27/6/12

Indias Adoption of Bt Cotton: A Sign of Success or Failure?

Very often it is argued by biotech proponents and others that the very adoption of Bt cotton in India is an indicator of its success, but adoption of a technology cannot be an indicator of its success or desirability: pesticides have also been adopted in large quantities by Indian farmers but that by no means makes it a desirable or successful technology.
Adoption of Bt cotton is actually an indicator of the failure of a similar technology chemical pesticides. In this context, it has to be underlined that the science of pesticides and Bt crops is in fact similar. It is also striking that the same corporate entities which promote GM crops are also involved in promoting chemical pesticides! Farmers are certainly frustrated and fed up with the failure of and problems from synthetic pesticides, including the costs to be borne. Anything that appears to be a solution to their pesticides problem is a welcome thing for farmers, as can be seen with NPM (Non Pesticide Management of crops) adoption too. In fact, NPM spread more rapidly than Bt cotton, led by community-managed extension support in the case of Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture in Andhra Pradesh. In this large scale state-supported programme of ecological farming, it is not just reduction of pesticides that is aimed at but elimination! Seed adoption by farmers is increasingly being understood as irrational and even as fads by academics studying the issue. . . No seed has ever been advertised and marketed as aggressively as Bt cotton in India (to this day, it is not clear how many millions of rupees have been spent by the biotech seed industry on this). There is, not by accident, very little non-Bt seed available for farmers. Farmers or groups wanting to access non-Bt cotton seed have to place an order well before time with seed companies directly since the normal supply channels dont provide non-GM seed anymore. The retailers also have a higher margin on Bt cotton seed than the non-GM version. Coalition for a GM-free India, 15/6/12

Members of the G8:

Canada France Germany Italy Japan Russia United Kingdom United States

These are also members of the G20, along with:

Argentina Australia Brazil China European Union India Indonesia

Mexico Saudi Arabia South Africa South Korea Turkey

THE RAMS HORN PAGE 7

The agricultural gains by Bt cotton farmers seems to be at the cost of other farmers. The bollworm, which the Bt cotton is resistant to, has now found new hosts in other varieties of plants, putting them at risk. Bt cotton is poisonous for the cotton bollworm and it cannot survive on its leaves. So the insect, which belongs to the butterfly family, has migrated to non-Bt plants such as tomato, pigeon pea, chickpea, sorghum and maize. The agricultural loss, which cotton growers suffered earlier, is now being experienced by farmers growing food crops. This has led to increase in the use of pesticides by non-Bt cotton farmers to reduce the additional loss. There are no reports of reduction in the population of cotton bollworm and this indicates that it has adapted to non-Bt cotton crops to lay eggs and populate its species. There have been no scientific studies on the additional loss to farmers growing other crops. However, field observations show that the shifting of bollworm from Bt cotton to food crops has resulted in farmers losing at least 20 per cent of their yield. Thanks to the pest migration, the bollworm has found a continuous life, from one season to another, said M.A. Qayyum, who has conducted field research studies on Bt cotton for about a decade now. Dr P.V. Satheesh, national convener of Southern Action on Genetic Engineering, said that given a choice between cotton and red gram, the bollworm prefers red gram. If you control the pest using Bt technology, it will find new sources of food to survive. We have to assess the damage caused to other crops with the shift in plant hosts, he said. Red gram seems to be the most affected crop with the shift in the pests preference. Earlier, farmers used to grow a few layers of red gram along with cotton to detract the attention of the bollworm from cotton to red gram. Farmers stopped this practice after the introduction of Bt cotton.
Deccan Chronicle, India,23/6/12

with big expensive machinery, reduce purity and hence value of crop, and cause fields to be unsightly (particularly those along the highway). Industrial agriculture cant stand weeds, but the weeds dont take it laying down. They learn to resist the control measures the police of the farmers. In a recent poll commissioned by agroxin-biotech company BASF, 75% of Canadian producers said that herbicide resistant weeds are having either a small or large impact on their earnings. 37% of the farmers polled across the country reported herbicide-resistant weeds on their land. Agriculture Canada has found that 31% of the fields it surveyed had herbicide-resistant WP, 14/6/12 weeds. A major cause of the problem farmers face was (is) caused by the attitude inculcated by companies like

BASF, Syngenta and Monsanto that their GE seeds would eliminate the weed problem and that the weeds could not adapt to their sophisticated technology.

Weed Resistance
Theres a really important lesson here to be learned from Mother Nature: The powerful wealthy are certain (they have to be certain in order to sell shares and raise capital ) that they have, or will come up with, a patented technological solution for whatever problem. Weeds in monocrops, for example. Weeds are what can cause any number of problems, from suppressing growth of the monocrop, such as corn, cotton, soy or canola, causing harvesting problems

Grain Trade Update

Marubeni Corp of Japan is buying Gavilon Group LLC for $3.6 billion. Gavilon is the 3rd largest US grain handler behind ADM and Cargill. Marubeni will take on Gavilons $2 billion debt as part of the cash-andloans deal. Japans largest agricultural trader, Marubeni will become a match for Cargill on a global scale.
Bloomberg, 30/5/12

Bunge and Dreyfus are the other two giant grain traders.

THE RAMS HORN PAGE 8

Africa: Reading the Script

Excerpts from Malawi President Bandas State of the Nation Address; no mention of who wrote it.

Into the World Food Chain

Cargill will invest in a 5-10-year program with the government of Mozambique to make farming in Africa commercially successful as part of President Obamas New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. Cargill and other multinational corporations will team with small African businesses, advocacy groups, banks and African governments and the rich, developed nations of the G8 to try to raise 50 million Africans out of poverty in the next decade. . . More boldly, the initiative hopes to transform Africa into a major food exporter. Michael Fernandez, Cargill Vice-President for corporate affairs, tellingly pointed out: This is really about how we bring them into the world-wide food chain.
ST, 19/5/12 A STATUE IN THE PORT OF NO RETURN, BENIN, WEST AFRICA, SHOWING A SLAVE IN CHAINS ABOUT TO BE SHIPPED TO AMERICA

Government will encourage technology and innovation adaptation by promoting and supporting genetic modification in agriculture. Genetic modifications have many benefits: farmers will not be troubled to weed their gardens; farmers will not have to buy pesticides; and GM helps improve soil carbon and moisture content. Genetically modified foods are pests resistant; they require fewer chemicals and are normally drought resistant. Government will invite and engage strategic investors to drive these investment opportunities. Hence the need, Mr. Speaker, Sir, to have close collaboration between the Ministry of Agriculture and that of Trade and Private Sector Development. This Administration will mobilise, motivate and support the growth of strong private sector participation as a strategy to realise these goals.
Nyasa Times, Malawi, 18/5/20

Published by

Brewster and Cathleen Kneen

phone/fax: (613) 828-6047 email: brewster@ramshorn.ca www.ramshorn.ca

Subscriptions: Canada, $25(regular), $50 (patron) United States: US$25, CDN $27 outside North America: $28 (airmail)
cheques payable to The Rams Horn

If you would like a paper copy of The Rams Horn, please subscribe (see rates and address above). You are also invited to suppport our work through a donation to help cover costs of research, writing, and circulation of the print version for free to people who cannot afford it, especially those in the global south.
The publishers of The Rams Horn do not claim copyright protection for this material. It is in the public domain to be freely used and built upon. We appreciate mention of the source. Line drawings not otherwise identified are the work of Cathleen Kneen.

Published 10 times a year; subscriptions expire with the issue number on the label.