lisers and fossil fuels, thus increasing foreign exchange outflow and leading to increased climate instability.

In the case of one export slaughter house Al Kabeer, based in Andhra Pradesh, the State could have saved foreign exchange worth Rs. 360 million per year from the first lot of animals which were be killed. Taking into account their average remaining life span to be 5 years more, they would have saved forex worth Rs. 360x5 - Rs. 182 billion.

Following the same argument, if all the animals which are going to be killed during (say) 5 years of Al-Kabeer's operation live out their natural life span, then they will be able to save forex worth Rs. 182.05 x 5 = Rs. 910 billion. This means that against a projected earning of Rs. 200 million by Al-Kabeer through the killings, the state can actually save Rs. 9.1 billion in foreign exchange by non-killing.

In the case of shrimp exports, every Rupee of export earnings has generated more than five rupees of ecological destruction of water, biodiversity, agriculture and fisheries. Industrial shrimp farming destroys 200 times more area than the actual size of ponds through salinisation of ground water, pollution of coastal waters, destruction of agriculture and mangroves. For every job created, fifteen livelihoods are destroyed. More food production is destroyed through destruction of domestic agriculture and fisheries than can be purchased by the export earnings from industrially farmed shrimp. Further, export earnings go to rich industrial houses, and the price of destruction is paid by poor peasants and artisanal fisherman.

Thus, as a society, we are paying more in terms of food insecurity and ecological destruction than we are earning through exports of luxury crops such as shrimps, flowers and meat.

Farmers of Andhra Pradesh are protesting against Vision 20/20 an export led policy for which envisions no role for the small holder but sees agriculture as the export business of agribusiness.

Finally, export liberalisation is bad for exports. Not only do people and the environment loose out in an unregulated trade regime, exports too suffer. India known as the pepper queen, which tempted waves of colonisers can no longer export pepper because of dumping and downward competition in prices. Further, competitive devaluation of national currencies forces countries to export larger and larger volumes of export commodities for lower and lower incomes. Higher exports do not therefore mechanically translate into higher incomes, falsifying the central premise of Oxfam's report that 1% increase in exports world contribute to 100b$. Even if countries have doubled their export volumes, they have had no increase in foreign exchange earnings because of declining terms of trade. Changing the terms of trade requires structural change in the global economy -- the kind the anti-globalisation movement is calling for. With this structural change, trade is no longer the "engine of growth". West Bengal increased its agricultural productivity and growth not through exports but through land-reforms. Putting resources in people's hands, and guaranteeing small producers access to local markets is the most secure, sustainable and inclusive way to remove poverty. Small producers need market access to local markets which are being destroyed as global corporations dump falsely priced, artificially cheap, subsidised products using import liberalisation rules. International trade built on a foundation of strong local economies and resilient ecosystems will play a positive role. Export oriented economies built by alienating peoples resources, destroying local livelihoods and destroying ecosystems and local economies creates poverty at the societal level, even though a small number of displaced people get jobs in the export sector.

By decontextualising trade, Oxfam has become blind to the context in which export led national policies shift from food first to export first policies, agriculture moves from a peasant occupation of millions to a handful of agribusiness corporations, and natural resources are no more owned and used by local communities for their livelihoods and welfare but by corporations to service the luxury consumption of the rich.

These are the issues on which Oxfam is silent -- there are no small farmers and peasants in the report, only "producers", there is no sustainable agriculture in the Oxfam vision, only market access, even though shifting from external inputs to internal inputs has been established to be the most effective means of improving farm incomes.

These are the issues at the heart of food and agriculture debates worldwide. Everywhere a call is being made to re-imbed agriculture in ecology, culture and basic needs of food and livelihoods. Movements are