(sociedad de Produción Rural), las UAIN donde se agrupan a las mujeres, asociaciones civiles ... Somos un movimiento social, pero tambien empresarial." (1)

(Manuel Hernández Gómez, l¡der de SOCAMA)

We thank all those who have contacted us so far. Some of them voiced critique to which we want to respond in the following.

1) The correctness of our information about the UDEPOM-SOCAMA-PAZ Y JUSTICIA complex has been confirmed by various sources.

2) We have been accused of damaging the fair trade system. This is neither out intention nor are we of the opinion that this actually happens. In our

publications we expressed that we basically support the fair trade and that our sole aim is to fight the abuse of fair trade. We believe that it is not

the exposure of this scandal that damages the idea of fair trade, but the state suppression that is profiting from it.

We do not think that it is an acceptable counter-argument, that UDEPOM is just one of 41 Mexican coffee cooperatives which carry the FLO label (as

stated by the Secretary General of TransFair Canada). The monitoring that FLO claims to perform, ought to prevent that even one cooperative with

political and organizational ties to paramilitaries receives the approval to use the label. (Translators remark: In addition UDEPOM is an economic

heavy weight within the 41 cooperatives as revealed by the TransFair Canada letter - see Appendix below).

The GEPA (German marketing organization for alternative trade) has attacked us, and has bluntly questioned the factual correctness of our

investigation, although this has meanwhile been confirmed by the General Secretary of TransFair Canada.

We consider this a very dangerous tendency, because it seems that for some of the institutions in the fair trade system it is more important to bring

the results of our investigation "into proportion" (simultaneously confirming the factual correctness of) rather than taking firm action. We

can only guess that this is driven by the fear that revealing the described involvement of ONE of their partner organizations would damage the

reputation of the whole project. We consider this a dangerous development.

The attempt to diminish or negate will exactly result into what should have been prevented: The reputation of the fair trade will be damaged. And this

is not because we provided evidence that there were obvious monitoring deficiencies in ONE particular case, but because of the attempt to cover up

this situation. Doubts will be casted on the credibility of FLO and the cooperatives by these cover-up attempts and not by exposing a single

failure. Therefore we call another time upon the fair trade institutions to draw the proper conclusions and return to transparency in their public

relations. This is what we and together with us many customers consider necessary for the restoration of the credibility of the fair trade system.

3) We complained about the lack of transparency of TRANSFAIR and we maintain this complain. Inquiries at TRANSFAIR/FLO International and

NATURLAND before the start of the campaign were not answered ("Why do you want to know particularly this ? We do not disclose information about our

trade partners.") Only the publication of our accusations forced TRANSFAIR to respond, reluctantly and contradictory.

4) We voiced concern that the UDEPOM case might not be the only one. It might be that other cooperatives, lead by SOCAMA-people or members of

paramilitary groups might be beneficiaries of the FLO label too. This caused accusations that we damage the fair trade. As already mentioned,

this is not at all our intention. As described in our earlier publication, it was by coincidence that we were able to de-mask UDEPOM. Voicing the

concern that possibly other FLO-cooperatives with connections to paramilitary groups might exist, is not a smear campaign, but a necessary step to force FLO to provide exactly that transparency that they originally were claiming. We are unable to check all FLO partner organizations, but FLO is able to do this - it is the ultimate reason for their existence!

And this monitoring needs to be performed continuously and strictly.

5) Just recently we received an unofficial message that CNOC (Mexican National Coordination of Coffee Producers) has excluded SOCAMA as a member

organization quite a while ago and that TRANSFAIR had been informed. Why did TRANSFAIR not respond?

6) We have been blamed not to distinguish between organizations loyal to the ruling system and such allied with paramilitaries. We do not accuse each cooperative that receives money from the Mexican state of participating in the repression. To the contrary, we support the demand of democratic coffee cooperatives that state subsidies should be distributed without pre-conditions. However, we have noticed that under conditions of a civil war, as in Chiapas, state subsidies are tied to clear conditions, i.e. the requirement to support the government, although not always by (para)military action, or at least show complete political inertness.

Therefore we consider it reasonable that TRANSFAIR and international NGOs support such cooperatives that lack the benefit of state subsidies. This would not only result in a more just distribution of the total amount of support money, but also guarantee that democratic cooperatives gain more independence in their political activities.

7) We addressed the point of international funding and voiced the concern that part of this money might end up in groups tied to paramilitaries. This triggered inquiries about the concrete evidence that we have in this regard. We realized that we expressed ourselves imprecisely or incorrect. We do not have concrete evidence and we do not accuse anybody. Rather do we ask any groups or individuals who have or might get access to such information, to publish it. It is crucial to clarify where the money of NGOs and foundations ends up.

The fact that PRONASOL, a program that funds counterinsurgency -militarily or economically - uses money from the World Bank is meanwhile thoroughly

documented.

8) We are grateful to CIACH and Nuevo Amancer Press for supporting our campaign. We would appreciate if other Mexican NGOs would comment on our

campaign too, we are open to critical comments.

The elections in the state of Chiapas on 4 October 1998 (with supplementary voting on 06 December) gave the following results: The "Paz y Justicia"-General Samuel Sánchez Sánchez is not deputy in the state congress anymore, instead he is municipal councilor in Sabanilla, the neighbor town of Tila, where he is school director at the same time. In the Chamula XXII voting district the PRI received 90.5% of the valid votes, Martin Gómez Sánchez and as his substitute ("suplente") Silviano Hernández Gómez were elected. The latter is the brother of Manuel Hernández Gómez who in April 1998 had been publicly accused of arms trafficking ... Just another way of acquiring impunity - by parliamentary immunity.

 ... OR A FATA MORGANA - THE SOCAMA

Meanwhile we have discovered further SOCAMA projects which are funded by government money and which might receive international support and/or money

too.

In 1989 the government of Patrocinio Gonzáles Garrido privatized, besides others, the state forest industry and sold it to - SOCAMA:"Socama tiene

apoyos económicos en proyectos de agroforestales, invernadores, cultivos de cacahuate y marañón, asi como una fábrica de muebles y explotación

pesquera. El gobierno del estado le entreg¢ gran parte de los viveros de tres regiones y le vendió a bajo precio la Corporación y Fomento de Chiapas

(Corfo). Además, ha recibido est¡mulos de varios programas para la compra de insumos agr¡colas y hasta hoy recibe fuertes apoyos anuales para la

cafeticultura." (Juan Balboa, La Jornada, 17.12.1997)

Carbon Sequestration in Chiapas - Seeking investment: 400.000 hectars - in 43 of the 111 municipalities of Chiapas are affected. SOCAMA "requires $160

per hectare to implement its forest plan." This corresponds to 4.000 square kilometers, i.e. 5,4% of the total area the state of Chiapas !

* SOCAMA Centro Fraylesca, A.C. - Tuxtla Gutierrez, Chiapas (3)

* SOCAMA, A.C. - Tuxtla Gutierrez, Chiapas Presidente: Jacobo Nazar Morales (Café, CNOC(?)) (3)

* SA de CV "Solidaridad Campesina Empresarial" - SOCAEM, Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Presidente: Jose Nazar Morales (Forestal) (3)

* S.S.S. Productores Unidos SOCAMA, A.C., Jiquipilas (Agroindustrial, Alimentarias) (3)

* Solidaridad Campesina Mageristerial (SOCAMA), Presidente: Prof. Jacobo Nazar Morales, Catazaja (Planeaci¢n) (3)

* Jacobo Nazar Morales (SOCAMA), (Forestal, Viveros Forestales) (3)

* SOCAMIEL - Sociedad Cooperativa Socamiel, Cintalapa (4)

* FIDAR, S.C. - constituyen SOCAMA, COPDCH, INSA (4)

* Fondo Regional Unión de Ejidos Profesor Otilio Montaño ("Acuerdo Social para el Bienestar y el Desarrollo de la Regi¢n Sierra de Chiapas 1997-2000,

* UDEPOM ("El Banco de México o FIRA, est  trabajando con nosotros muy de cerca", Entrevista de Mantecon)

*Centro: Chiapilla, Totolapa, Villacorzo, San Fernando, Copainlá, Ocozocautla, Jiquipilas, Cintalapa, Chiapa de Corzo, Coita

*Sierra: Motozintla, El Porvenir, La Grandeza

* Frontera: Comitán, La Trinitaria, Frontera Comalapa Altos: San Cristobal

* Costa grande: Huixtla, Tuzantán, Villa Comaltitlán, Acacoyagna

* Norte: Tila, Salto de Agua

*Costa chica: Arriaga, Tonala, Villaflores (1)

Their activities: flowers, livestock breeding, coffee production, furniture factories, mushrooms, vegetables, reforestation programs (MHG: "reforestaci¢n de 100 mil hectáres en 10 años"), timber industry, marañón (nuts), potatoes, peanuts, alfalfa ... (1)

The SOCAMA carries 12 percent of the "tierra adquirida hasta abril 1998" of the "Fideicomiso 1994 y 1995", i.e. 28.000 hec. of a total of 235.460 hectares. In the Fideicomiso 1995-register alone SOCAMA appears with more than "16.158 hectares (monto $: 56.957.385,79; 195 predios; 3913 benef./productores; 94 grupos") (2)

If SOCAMA and their projects turn out to be an iceberg instead of a fatamorgana, inevitably the question arises where those millions of pesos in subsidies end up.

Questions over questions...

Germoney, 24.2.1999

(1) Entrevista Manuel Hern ndez G¢mez, La Republica de Chiapas, 22.7.96:

"Proyecto de Desarrolla Rural Integral e Inclyente" de SOCAMA

(2) WWW: http://sic.chiapas.com/ftahtml/informe/total1.html

(3) Information about corporations from the FONAES-Register:

http://db.fonaes.gob.mx/detalle_1.asp?folio=dgc:1615 (and others)

(4) SOCAMA: "Nuestra propuesta de desarrollo rural integral incluyente", Marzo 1998