1. Neo-liberal policies are directly responsible for deepening existing poverty, social inequality and environmental degradation that disproportionately affect rural people. These policies have subordinated local agricultural economies to the interests of international capital, opened markets to multinational companies, raised interest rates and dismantled public agricultural services that are fundamental to rural development.

2. Liberalization of trade has resulted in disastrously low prices for agricultural products and a massive debt which is destroying the very basis of rural communities around the world. This has forced small farmers to sell their land, deepening the inequality of land ownership. Agribusiness continues to enjoy generous state subsidies, while small and medium producers are bankrupted and few state resources go to their production and marketing needs.

3. Such policies undermine food sovereignty while increasing dependence on imported products, leaving populations more vulnerable to hunger and starvation. Rapid long-distance trade of agricultural goods produced via chemical intensive mono-cropping and factory farms threaten food safety, as exemplified with the recent outbreaks of mad cow and foot and mouth disease in Europe. Genetically engineered agricultural products combined with stringent intellectual property laws threaten biodiversity and public control of genetic resources.

4. Another consequence of unsustainable agricultural practices and the nearly unrestricted sale of natural resources such as genetic information, timber and minerals in poor countries is severe environmental degradation in general and deforestation and contamination of air and water supplies in particular.

5. When combined with insufficient investments in protective infrastructure, the above factors have magnified the human consequences of ‘natural disasters'. Such natural phenomena cause a fraction of the loss of lives and property in wealthy regions.

6. The neglect of the non-corporate agricultural economy has contributed to declining wages and increased unemployment in the rural sector. This in turn has provoked massive migration from poor rural regions to urban centers, increasing the marginalization of the countryside and social inequality and violence in the cities. Urban wages are also kept low as governments in the ‘developing’ world try to attract foreign investment by competing with each other in offering the lowest production costs. These phenomena have contributed to the increase in crime, drug abuse and prostitution.

7. The destructive effect of these policies disproportionately effects women and ethnic minorities among those with less power in society. The effect on indigenous cultures in particular approaches genocidal proportions. Thus we consider these policies to be in violation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

8. These policies are the result of undemocratic decisions taken by national elites together with International Financial Institutions (IFIs) such as the World Bank, IMF and WTO. The United States government plays a dominant role in this system which has undermined democratic institutions and practices in general, and in post-conflict societies in particular. Rural movements that confront these policies with organization, mobilization and land-takeovers are subject to violent repression at the hands of government security forces, landowners and paramilitary groups, including death threats, arbitrary arrest, torture, disappearances and killings. Thus we consider these policies and practices to be in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

1. We reject the neoliberal model of corporate globalization as exclusive, undemocratic, exploitative and destructive of rural communities and cultures. Rural development should be based on democracy and sustainability, not solely according market profitability. In other words, human and environmental values, not market values should be at the center of rural development policies. Therefore it is necessary to change the direction of the economic order as well as the specific policies discussed here. It is also essential to place a broad conception of human rights at the center of such policies – one which includes indigenous people, women and worker's rights as equals among others.

2. Thus we support alternative initiatives such as fair trade enterprises and networks, organic agriculture, cooperatives and other democratic forms of land tenure and enterprise organization, recognizing the human and environmental benefits of smaller scale, democratically organized agriculture. We support COMPREHENSIVE agrarian reforms as well as takeovers of fallow state and private lands by landless peasant movements. We oppose intellectual property laws that grant ownership of genetic resources to private corporations while promoting the use of genetically modified organisms and we support initiatives that strengthen genetic diversity and public or community control of such resources.

3. We oppose the processes and mechanisms by which neo-liberal policies have been imposed, including the GATT and WTO trade agreements, IMF Structural Adjustment protocols, NAFTA and the attempt to expand it under the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). One of the most insidious tactics used by IFIs is their use of debt repayment agreement to force compliance with structural adjustment policies.

4. We do not oppose international trade, we oppose the ‘rules of the game’ under which that trade is currently conducted which favor powerful private interests and the expense of the majority public interest. We support ‘rules’ that promote fiscal and credit policies favorable to small and medium producers, food security, effective state agricultural services, environmental protection, and infrastructure development that both strengthens the rural sector and protects against natural disasters. The current rules ‘externalize’ the costs of environmental degradation, cultural destruction and social inequality. Our rules do not.

5. Economic growth alone does not guarantee the well-being of rural peoples. The design and execution of development strategies and policies must include the active participation of local communities in a way that strengthens equality within them, especially among women and men and across diverse ethnicities.

6. We recognize that ërural developmentí does not operate in a vacuum and that issues discussed in other LASC working groups not explicitly mentioned here (particularly militarization) constitute an integral part of understanding the problems and devising alternatives to the crisis of the rural sector.

7. We affirm that our final proposal will systematically define how we will support new and existing initiatives from rural movements in the Americas. Thus we are committed to building alliances of solidarity between rural movements throughout the hemisphere.