Access to Land & the Right to Food report to UN by Olivier De Schutter

http:www.srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/984-access-to-land-and-the-right-to-food">


New Report: Access to Land and the Right to Food
[21 October] NEW YORK - Today, Olivier De Schutter presented his new report on access to land and the right to food at the 65th General Assembly of the United Nations (Third Committee).

The report shows that up to 30 million hectares of farmland is lost annually due to environmental degradation, conversion to industrial use or urbanization. A trend exacerbated by the expansion of agrofuels and the speculation on farmland.

The report identifies ways to confer legal security of tenure upon farmers, fishermen and indigenous people affected by the current pressure on land. It also asks how agrarian reform can be promoted as an alternative to the global enclosure that we are currently witnessing.

“Access to Land and the Right to Food”, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food presented at the 65th General Assembly of the United Nations [A/65/281], 21 October 2010.
Background Paper, A review of submissions received (12/2009-03/2010) and of Letters of Allegation and Urgent Appeals sent between 2003 and 2009 by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, October 2010.
Statement, Presentation of the Report "Access to Land and the Right to Food" at the 65th General Assembly of the United Nations, 21 October 2010.

IAASTD Recommendations are Vital Importance for Agriculture & Food Security of the People

Findings from the UN-led International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development

Options for Action

The IAASTD lays out a comprehensive set of options to reorient local and global food systems towards greater social equity and sustainability. These include improvements in the sustainability of farming practices on the ground as well as overhauling the institutions and policies that determine so much of what is possible. Options for effective action
include:

Support small-scale farmers

• Strengthen small-scale farmers’, women’s, Indigenous and community-based organizations, and invest in rural areas.

• Ensure farmers have secure access to land, seeds, water, information, credit, marketing infrastructure and information.

• Build capacity in participatory agroecological research, extension and education and in biodiverse, ecologically resilient farming practices to cope with increasing environmental stress.

Re-think biotechnology

• Engage all stakeholders in open, informed, transparent and participatory debate about new and emerging biotechnologies.

• Introduce long-term environmental and health monitoring programs and conduct comparative technology assessment to better understand the respective risks, benefits and costs of different technologies and production systems.

• Use full-cost accounting to evaluate and compare the social, environmental and economic costs of different agricultural production systems, guide public policy decisions and set research priorities. (By internalizing “externalities,” this approach begins to correct the market’s failure to price goods and production systems accurately.)

• Use the precautionary approach in decision-making (e.g. as per the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety), which may entail prohibiting the transfer of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) among countries that are centers of origin or of
genetic diversity.

• Limit production of GMO plants in regions that have wild relatives and show botanical characteristics that could contaminate the gene pool. Build institutions to support social equity and sustainability

• Revise intellectual property laws to prevent misappropriation of Indigenous, women’s, and local people’s knowledge; establish IP rules that recognize farmers’ and independent researchers’ rights to save, exchange and cultivate seed, particularly for purposes of livelihood and/or public interest research.

• Strengthen the capacity of farmers, Indigenous peoples, vulnerable or marginalized communities and developing countries to engage effectively in international discussions and negotiations (for example, around intellectual property,
bilateral, regional or global trade, climate change, environment, sustainable development, etc).

• More closely regulate globalized food systems for fairness and to ensure that both rural and urban poor have secure access to food and productive resources at all times.

• Establish and enforce fair competition rules to reverse harmful effects of corporate concentration and vertical integration in the food and agriculture industry.

• Establish equitable regional and global trade arrangements that enable farmers to meet food and livelihood security goals and to diversify production.

STOP LAND GRABBING NOW!

Say NO to the principles of “responsible” agro-enterprise
investment promoted by the World Bank
State and private investors, from Citadel Capital to Goldman Sachs, are leasing or buying
up tens of millions of hectares of farmlands in Asia, Africa and Latin America for food and
fuel production. This land grabbing is a serious threat to the food sovereignty of our
peoples and the right to food of our rural communities. In response to this new wave of
land grabbing, the World Bank (WB) is promoting a set of seven principles to guide such
investments and make them successful. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO),
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development (UNCTAD) have agreed to join the WB in collectively pushing
these principles. 1 Their starting point is the fact that the current rush of private sector
interest to buy up farmland is risky. After all, the WB has just finalised a study showing
the magnitude of this trend and its central focus on transferring rights over agricultural
land in developing countries to foreign investors. The WB seems convinced that all private
capital flows to expand global agribusiness operations where they have not yet taken
hold are good and must be allowed to proceed so that the corporate sector can extract
more wealth from the countryside. Since these investment deals are hinged on massive
privatisation and transfer of land rights, the WB wants them to meet a few criteria to
reduce the risks of social backlash: respect the rights of existing users of land, water and
other resources (by paying them off ); protect and improve livelihoods at the household
and community level (provide jobs and social services); and do no harm to the
environment. These are the core ideas behind the WB's seven principles for socially
acceptable land grabbing.
These principles will not accomplish their ostensible objectives. They are rather a move to
try to legitimize land grabbing. Facilitating the long-term corporate (foreign and
domestic) takeover of rural people's farmlands is completely unacceptable no matter
which guidelines are followed. The WB's principles, which would be entirely voluntary, aim
to distract from the fact that today's global food crisis, marked by more than 1 billion
people going hungry each day, will not be solved by large scale industrial agriculture,
which virtually all of these land acquisitions aim to promote.
1 "Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment that Respects Rights, Livelihoods and Resources"
Available at:
http://www.donorplatform.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,12802
Land grabbing has already started to intensify in many countries over the past 10-15
years with the adoption of deregulation policies, trade and investment agreements, and
market oriented governance reforms. The recent food and financial crises have provided
the impetus for a surge in land grabbing by governments and financial investors trying
to secure agricultural production capacity and future food supplies as well as assets that
are sure to fetch high returns. Wealthy governments have sought to lease agricultural
lands for long periods of time to feed their populations and industries back home. At the
same time, corporations are seeking long term economic concessions for plantation
agriculture to produce agro-fuels, rubber, oils, etc. These trends are also visible in coastal
areas, where land, marine resources and water bodies are being sold, leased, or developed
for tourism to corporate investors and local elites, at the expense of artisanal fishers and
coastal communities. One way or the other, agricultural lands and forests are being
diverted away from smallhold producers, fishers and pastoralists to commercial purposes,
and leading to displacement, hunger and poverty.
With the current farmland grab, corporate driven globalisation has reached a new phase
that will undermine peoples’ self-determination, food sovereignty and survival as never
before. The WB and many governments see land and rights to land, as a crucial asset base
for corporations seeking high returns on capital since land is not only the basis for
producing food and raw materials for the new energy economy, but also a way to capture
water. Land is being revalued on purely economic terms by the WB, governments and
corporations and in the process, the multi-functionality, and ecological, social and cultural
values of land are being negated. It is thus more important than ever that these
resources are defended from corporate and state predation and instead be made
available to those who need them to feed themselves and others sustainably, and to
survive as communities and societies.
Land grabbing – even where there are no related forced evictions - denies land for local
communities, destroys livelihoods, reduces the political space for peasant oriented
agricultural policies and distorts markets towards increasingly concentrated agribusiness
interests and global trade rather than towards sustainable peasant/smallhold production
for local and national markets. Land grabbing will accelerate eco-system destruction and
the climate crisis because of the type of monoculture oriented, industrial agricultural
production that many of these “acquired” lands will be used for. Promoting or permitting
land grabbing violates the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights and undermines the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Land
grabbing ignores the principles adopted by the International Conference on Agrarian
Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD) in 2006 and the recommendations made by the
International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development
(IAASTD).
Land grabbing must be immediately stopped. The WB’s principles attempt to create the
illusion that land grabbing can proceed without disastrous consequences to peoples,
communities, eco-systems and the climate. This illusion is false and misleading. Farmer's
and indigenous peoples organisations, social movements and civil society groups largely
agree that what we need instead is to:
1. Keep land in the hands of local communities and implement genuine agrarian
reform in order to ensure equitable access to land and natural resources.
2. Heavily support agro-ecological peasant, smallhold farming, fishing and
pastoralism, including participatory research and training programmes so that
3
small-scale food providers can produce ample, healthy and safe food for
everybody.
3. Overhaul farm and trade policies to embrace food sovereignty and support local
and regional markets that people can participate in and benefit from.
4. Promote community-oriented food and farming systems hinged on local people's
control over land, water and biodiversity. Enforce strict mandatory regulations that
curb the access of corporations and other powerful actors (state and private) to
agricultural, coastal and grazing lands, forests, and wetlands.
No principles in the world can justify land grabbing!
La Via Campesina
FIAN
Land Research Action Network (LRAN)
GRAIN
22 April 2010
Endorsed by:
AFRICA
 African Biodiversity Network (ABN)
 Anywaa Survival Organisation,
Ethiopia
 Association Centre Ecologique
Albert Schweitzer (CEAS BURKINA),
Burkina Faso
 Coordination Nationale des
Usagers des Ressources Naturelles
du Bassin du Niger au Mali, Mali
 CNCR (Conseil National de
Concertation et de Coopération
des Ruraux), Sénégal
 Collectif pour la Défense des
Terres Malgaches TANY
 Confédération Paysanne du
Congo, Congo RDC
 COPAGEN (Coalition pour la
protection du patrimoine
génétique africaine)
 East African Farmers Federation
(EAFF)
 Eastern and Southern Africa Small
Scale Farmers' Forum (ESAFF)
 Economic Justice Network of
FOCCISA, Southern Africa
 Food Security, Policy and
Advocacy Network (FoodSPAN),
Ghana
 FORA/DESC, Niger
 Ghana Civil Society Coalition on
Land (CICOL), Ghana
 Haki Ardhi, Tanzania
 Inades-Formation
 IPACC (Indigenous People of Africa
Co-ordinating Committee)
 London International Oromo
Workhshop Group, Ethiopia
 ROPPA (Réseau des Organisations
Paysannes et des Producteurs de
l'Afrique de l'Ouest)
 Synergie Paysanne, Bénin
ASIA
 Aliansi Gerakan Reforma Agraria
(AGRA), Indonesia
 All Nepal Peasants' Association
(ANPA), Nepal
 Alternative Agriculture Network,
Thailand
 Alternate Forum for Research in
Mindanao (AFRIM), Philippines
 Andhra Pradesh Vyvasaya
Vruthidarula Union (APVVU), India
4
 Anti Debt Coalition (KAU),
Indonesia
 Aquila Ismail, Pakistan
 Asian Human Rights Commission
(AHRC)
 Bantad Mountain Range
Conservation Network, Thailand
 Biothai (Thailand)
 Bridges Across Borders Southeast
Asia, Cambodia
 Centre for Agrarian Reform,
Empowerment and
Transformation, Inc., Philippines
 Centro Saka, Inc., Philippines
 CIDSE, Lao PDR
 Daulat Institute, Indonesia
 Delhi Forum, India
 Focus on the Global South, India,
Thailand, Philippines
 Foundation for Ecological
Recovery/TERRA, Thailand
 Four Regions Slum Network,
Thailand
 Friends of the Earth Indonesia
(WALHI), Indonesia
 HASATIL, Timor Leste
 IMSE, India
 Indian Social Action Forum
(INSAF), India
 Indonesian Fisher folk Union (SNI),
Indonesia
 Indonesian Human Rights
Committee for Social Justice
(IHCS), Indonesia
 Indonesian Peasant' Union (SPI).
Indonesia
 International Collective in Support
of Fishworkers (ICSF), India
 Kelompok Studi dan
Pengembangan Prakarsa
Masyarakat/Study Group for the
People Initiative Development
(KSPPM), Indonesia
 KIARA-Fisheries Justice Coalition
of Indonesia, Indonesia
 Klongyong and Pichaipuben Land
Cooperatives, Thailand
 Land Reform Network of Thailand,
Thailand
 Lokoj Institute, Bangladesh
 MARAG, India
 Melanesian Indigenous Land
Defense Alliance (MILDA)
 My Village, Cambodia
 National Fisheries Solidarity
Movement (NAFSO), Sri Lanka
 National Fishworkers Forum, India
 National Forum of Forest Peoples
and Forest Workers, India
 Northeastern Land Reform
Network, Thailand
 Northern Peasant Federation,
Thailand
 NZNI, Mongolia
 PARAGOS-Pilipinas, Philippines
 Pastoral Peoples Movement, India
 PCC, Mongolia
 People's Coalition for the Rights to
Water (KruHA), Indonesia
 PERMATIL (Permaculture), Timor-
Leste
 Perween Rehman, Pakistan
 Project for Ecological Awareness
Building (EAB),Thailand
 Roots for Equity, Pakistan
 Sintesa Foundation, Indonesia
 Social Action for Change,
Cambodia
 Solidarity Workshop, Bangladesh
 Southern Farmer Federation,
Thailand
 Sustainable Agriculture
Foundation, Thailand
 The NGO Forum on Cambodia,
Cambodia
 Village Focus Cambodia,
Cambodia
 Village Focus International, Lao
PDR
 World Forum of Fisher Peoples
(WFFP), Sri Lanka
LATIN AMERICA
 Asamblea de Afectados
Ambientales, México
 BIOS, Argentina
 COECO-Ceiba (Amigos de la Tierra),
Costa Rica
 FIAN Comayagua, Honduras
 Grupo Semillas, Colombia
 Red de Biodiversidad de Costa
Rica, Costa Rica
 Red en Defensa del Maiz, México
 REL-UITA
5
 Sistema de la Investigación de la
Problemática Agraria del Ecuador
(SIPAE), Ecuador
EUROPE
 Both Ends, Netherlands
 CADTM, Belgium
 Centre Tricontinental – CETRI,
Belgium
 CNCD-11.11.11, Belgium
 Comité belgo-brasileiro, Belgium
 Entraide et Fraternité, Belgium
 FIAN Austria
 FIAN Belgium
 FIAN France
 FIAN Netherlands
 FIAN Norway
 FIAN Sweden
 FUGEA, Belgium
 Guatemala Solidarität, Austria
 SOS Faim – Agir avec le Sud,
Belgium
 The Slow Food Foundation for
Biodiversity, Italy
 The Transnational Institute (TNI),
Netherlands
 Uniterre, Switzerland
NORTH AMERICA
 Agricultural Missions, Inc. (AMI),
USA
 Columban Center for Advocacy
and Outreach, USA
 Cumberland Countians for Peace
& Justice, USA
 Grassroots International, USA
 National Family Farm Coalition,
USA
 Network for Environmental &
Economic Responsibility, United
Church of Christ, USA
 Pete Von Christierson, USA
 PLANT (Partners for the Land &
Agricultural Needs of Traditional
Peoples), USA
 Raj Patel, Visiting Scholar, Center
for African Studies, University of
California at Berkeley, USA
 The Institute for Food and
Development Policy (Food First),
USA
 Why Hunger, USA
INTERNATIONAL
 FIAN International
 Friends of the Earth International
 GRAIN
 La Via Campesina
 Land Research Action Network
(LRAN)
 World Alliance of Mobile
Indigenous People (WAMIP)
 World Rainforest Movement
(WRM)

Abolition of IRRI sought

IRRI has done lot harm to the traditional, local rice varieties in many part of the world, specifically in Asia. Some farmer's movements in Asia have come forward to fight against the IRRI's actions of promotion of biotechnological rice seeds and also the chemicals in the farming fields. The group has formed call YORA [Year Of Rice Action] to preserve traditional rice varieties and to protect the bio diversity.
It is important to see the struggle is extended against the multi national seed cooperations, fertilizer cooperations and also the other chemical cooporations.

We were also part of the YORA campaign which was initiated at the PANAP conference held at PENANG Malaysia last year. I would like to see how the Sri Lankan organizations, lead by VIKALPANIE and MONLAR work together on this process.

Herman Kumara,
13 04.10


By Abigail Kwok

Filed Under: Agriculture, Science & Technology, Health, Environmental Issues

MANILA, Philippines – An international group has called for the abolition of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) 50 years after its creation, saying the agency threatened the biodiversity and indigenous rice varieties.

Citing IRRI’s campaign for genetically-engineered rice, the group, identified as Year of Rice Action (YORA), said that IRRI also allegedly exposed farmers to the dangers of agro-chemicals.

YORA, headed by the militant peasant group Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP, Peasant Movement of the Philippines), is an international campaign organization composed of the Philippines, Malaysia, India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Nepal, Laos PDR, Cambodia, Thailand, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

The group, in a statement, vowed to protect traditional and indigenous varieties of rice against genetically-engineered ones such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow AgroSciences, and BASF.

"IRRI had enough existence and opportunities of exploiting farmers globally. It should be abolished immediately if we want to save bio-diversity of rice varieties and preserve the lives and health of farmers who have been exposed to deadly agro-chemicals it promotes," said Wilfredo Marbella, Deputy Secretary-General of KMP.

"All IRRI invented were the chain and shackles put to farmers, forcing them to use expensive and fatal agro-chemicals so that agro-chem TNCs could rake up super-profits," he added.

For his part, Erpan Faryadi, vice-chairman for Internal Affairs of APC and AGRA secretary general from Indonesia, said that IRRI should be held liable for the “significant extinction of traditional rice varieties.”

“While environmentalists are staking their lives to protect the environment and bio-diversity, IRRI, with all its multi-billion dollar funds, power and influence are consciously wiping-out natural genus of rice native to different countries. This is a ferocious crime against mother earth and against the future of mankind," he said.

URL: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/regions/view/20100413-264037/Abolition-of-IRRI-sought

We are committed and Determine to continue the Sustainable Agriculture in the Blue Green garden

NAFSO's ecological Agriculture Training Center, Blue Green Garden which is situated at Neela Bamma Development project at Karuwalagaswewa, Puttlam face various difficulties time to time. Once it was a drought in the area and all of our cultivation was dried up.

Next, our farm was attacked by Elephants. Almost all the cultivations, including coconut trees were destroyed by the elephants. Our enthusiasm was decreased to the work but continue with the paddy farm with organic agriculture practices.

Next time, we cultivated ground nut which was grown very well and we had lot of hopes to cover the expenses. But, this was our bad luck and wild boars were attacked the cultivation and uprooted all the ground nut plantations. What a disappointment? But, we were not disturbed too much and continue our education work with the farmers in the area and also with the agricultural members at the partner organizations.
The center was renovated and two cabanas were constructed. Farmers in the area were helped voluntarily and did an excellent work for the BGG.

What a surprize? The farmer of adjacent land was fired his land which spread upto our land and burnt our cultivation, two cabanas, one summer house,water motor, and the other properties inside the cabans. The damage when we estimated, it was around one million loss to NAFSO. ut, we did not get any compensation for the properties we lost.
We had to think what has happened to the land and why this difficulties all the time?????
At the management committee, the farmers decided to construct one cabana with their own labour and contributions, which gave us lot of hopes and high energy to continue the work among ecological agriculture towards sustainable future.
During the last season, farmers completed the construction and we were able to cultivate the paddy land again. There were 13 farmers got 400 Kg of seed paddy from Praja Shakthi Development Foundation, our parnter organization work in the area and the care taker of the BGG. Also, they have cultivated the land and collected 40 Buschells of traditional paddy [2000 Kg] call Muppamgam.
This time, the BOM of BGG met again and planned out how to develop the BGG for sustenance of the work. The main focus was to have an income which will allow NAFSO movement to continue the work even in the future.
There were Five suggestions and consensus at the BOM:
1. Cultivate traditional paddy varieties in BGG for one acre land by mid May.
2. Plant coconut as a major crop to have some sort of income to run the BGG.
3. Organize a paddy buying system at BGG, from the traditional rice farmers who cultivate local paddy varieties. NAFSO need to explore to invest some money for the same practice.
4. Organize a system for selling the paddy among the partner organizations of NAFSO.
5. Explore the possible cultivations parallel to coconut in the BGG.

So, we expect the team will work for the achieve these goals by coming months of the Yala Season.

Herman Kumara,
12.04.10

Land, Poverty and Food Security: Without Political Struggle, there is no food security Says, Mohommed Ali Sha, PFF chair person, Pakistan

Land grabbing is one of the most serious threat to the marginalized poor in many countries. However, this has become serious issue in South Asia where the poverty and food insecurity is highly prevailing among millions of poor people in our region. Pakistan is also focussing this issue and we are happy to see our brother/sister organization in WFFP, the PFF is highly engaged in this process with many other organizations such as PILER in Pakistan.
Praja Abilasha, which is also focussing the land issue in different angle need to focus our attention to the land tenure issues seriously as the share holder farmers[Anda Govi] are facing serious evictions due to introduced new laws on land tenure.

I am uploading the message I got from SAAPE list serve as it shows how our Pakistani friends engage in Land Issue as a collective manner.

Herman Kumara,
10.04.10

PRESS RELEASE
Land Reforms and Distribution of Agricultural Land Among Landless Peasants Demanded
KARACHI, Apr 09, 2010: Activists of trade unions, labour organizations and non-governmental organizations on Friday demanded to introduce land reforms and distribution of agricultural land among landless peasants to eradicate bondage and food insecurity from Pakistan. They identified big landholdings by feudal and landlessness a major cause of poverty and food insecurity in the country.
They were speaking at the first day of the two-day Consultation on ‘Linkages between Land Rights, Food Security and Bondage’ organized by the Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research (PILER) at the PILER Centre, Karachi. Chairman Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum (PFF) Mohammad Ali Shah, Senior Economist Dr Shahida Wizarat, labour rights leader Mannu Bheel, Pakistan Food Security Coalition Representative Jabbar Bhatti, Executive Director PILER Karamat Ali, Joint Director of PILER Zulfiqar Shah, Dr. Ghulam Haider Malookani of Green Rural Development Organization, Ramazan Memon of Bhandar Hari Sangant and others spoke at the day-long session.
Speaking on the occasion, PILER Executive Director Karamat Ali said people of this country are suffering at the hands of poverty and food insecurity due to lack of a public distribution system. He recalled that ration system was effectively providing essential food items to all the citizens at affordable prices, but the government abolished this system. “This system is still being effectively practiced in India,” he said adding that instead Pakistan government has introduced a faulty system of providing essential items through Utility Stores, which has failed to benefit a major section of the population.
Mr. Ali said that though the colonial system has been condemned, there were many good features of the governance that the colonial rulers introduced, which were abolished after the independence. “During the British rule, whoever was cultivating the agricultural land was the owner of the land. Zamindars or feudal were only collecting a portion on behalf of the government. However, following independence, successive governments in Pakistan did not provide land to the poor people. Feudal became stronger, expanding their control over a majority of agricultural land.”
Chairman Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum (PFF) Mohammad Ali Shah said that without political struggle we cannot achieve food security. “Uneven and unjustified distribution of resources are creating food insecurity.” He said that it is the duty of the state to facilitate the provision of food to its citizens. “We have to move from food security to food sovereignty,” he added.
He observed that feudalism continues to act as an obstacle to development of the country. “Without the abolition of this system, we cannot achieve food security.” Shah emphasized that land reforms are the key to poverty eradication. “If land reforms are implemented in a systematic and judicious manner, every citizen will have enough land to overcome poverty.” Shah also stressed that a formal movement along the lines of a political movement, to pursue land reforms is critical to achieving the objective of a just and even distribution of land.
Senior Economist Dr. Shahida Wizarat presented a study in progress on food security in Pakistan. She observed that rising inflation that is eroding real wages, water shortage, weak planning and institutional set up linked to the production and marketing of agricultural products, and pressure from international financial institutions for unconstructive intervention in agricultural sector has resulted in serious challenges in food security and access to food for the poor. She said that the government is planning to provide uncultivable land to big corporations, which would further deprive the poor peasants from their landholdings.
The other participants of the consultation meeting, who are mainly working for bonded labour pointed out that most of the rights-based organizations are focusing on the release of bonded peasants. However, little efforts is being made for their rehabilitation or welfare.
The two day long consultation on ‘Linkages between Land Rights, Food Security and Bondage’ shall continue till April 10, 2010.

Indian companies get large areas of agricultural land

The land grabbing becoming a global phenomena under the Neoliberal economic Globalization policies. India also becoming a big giant competing with China have approached African states to grab land.
The following information from Ms.Meera Velayudhan explains what is happening in Ethiopia.
Herman Kumara.
08.04.10


Two Indian companies, Verdanta Harvest Pvh and Shapoorji Pallonji, are set to sign an agreement with Ethiopia's Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development to rent large areas of land.
Addis Fortune reports the land will be used to grow tea and Pongamia Pinnata, a plant used for biofuel and industrial chemical production.
Verdanta Harvest Pvh received 5,000 hectares of land while Shapoorji Pallonji was allocated 10,000 hectares.
The lease period for both companies will be 20 years or less.

Ms. Meera Velayudhan, Ph.D.
email: meera_velayudhan@hotmail.com

Today morning, I was listening to the radio program at SLBC, "Rata Yana Atha". One UNP MP Lakshman Seneviratne, of Mahiyanganaya spoke to the program and said, there the farmers paddy harvesting season and they do not get the proper price as government says and the farmers get only 24 Rupees per KG while government rate is 30 Rupees per Kg. Also, MP Seneviratne said, govt can buy only 2-3% of paddy from the overall harvest and this will give some motivation to farmers to negotiate with higher rates with the private businessmen. But, today even 1.5% is not buying by the paddy marketing board and this is the main reason for private business people to reduce the paddy prices. He promised, he is ready to undergo any kind of punishment if any body prove this otherwise.

Hudsan Samarasinghe, the chairperson of SLBC who was the presentor of the program asked what is the suggestion to solve the problem.
What Lakshman Seneviratne proposed is as follows;
1. Provide allocated money to particular district secretariat at the time of harvest.
2. Stop import of rice when the harvesting season started.
3. Put high tarriff barrier to rice if the traders import rice during the season.
4. Provide storage facilities to the store paddy.

All of sudden Maithripala Sirisena,the minister of agriculture interviewed and buldozed the whole idea of MP Lakshman Seneviratne, saying all these are not true and the paddy marketing board is buying the rice with the proposed rate, at the same time when the farmers bring the paddy to the marketing centers, they will get even the transport costs.
Minister rejected the idea of transactions to the district secretariat saying this is factually incorrect information as there is no financial transactions to the DS, as the paddy marketing board only buying the paddy from the farmers.

My assessment on both the interventions are as follows;
> When the politicians are in the opposition, they can see all the difficulties of the people and highly articulate on them.
> When the politicians are in the power, they have solved all the problems and have reliable mechanisms to solve the problems of the people.
> People need to understand this situation and should work accordingly as politicians are playing with people's issues to capture the power as well as maintain the power.

We, Sri Lankan social movements, NGOs, People's organizations, individuals need to initiate a dialogue on this.

Herman

Small Family Farms in Tropics Can Feed the Hungry and Preserve Biodiversity

I got this message from Third World Network and add to my blog as this is very important and want to share this with my friends who work on sustainable agriculture and fisheries.
All these stories are strengthening our ideology of small food providers could feed the hungry in the world.
Thanks to my friends at TWN.
Herman

ScienceDaily (Feb. 22, 2010) — Conventional wisdom among many ecologists is that industrial-scale agriculture is the best way to produce lots of food while preserving biodiversity in the world's remaining tropical forests. But two University of Michigan researchers reject that idea and argue that small, family-owned farms may provide a better way to meet both goals.

In many tropical zones around the world, small family farms can match or exceed the productivity of industrial-scale operations, according to U-M researchers Ivette Perfecto and John Vandermeer. At the same time, smaller diversified farms are more likely to help preserve biodiversity in tropical regions undergoing massive amounts of deforestation, Perfecto and Vandermeer conclude in a paper to be published online Feb. 22 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

"Most of the tropical forest that's left is fragmented, and what you have are patches of forest surrounded by agriculture," said Perfecto, a professor at the School of Natural Resources and Environment. "If you want to maintain biodiversity in those patches of forest, then the key is to allow organisms to migrate between the patches.

"And small-scale family farms that adopt sustainable agricultural technologies are more likely to favor migration of species than a huge, monocultural plantation of soybeans or sugar cane or some other crop."

Some ecologists have suggested that the history of eastern North American forests provides a preview of what's likely to happen in the tropics. European colonization of eastern North America led to massive deforestation that accompanied the expansion of agriculture. Later, industrialization drew people to cities from the rural areas, and the forests recovered.

This scenario is known as the forest transition model. It has been argued that if a similar progression occurs in the tropics, then the decline in rural populations would make more land potentially available for conservation. A corollary of the forest transition model states that if you consolidate agriculture into large, high-tech farms, productivity increases and more land is freed up for conservation.

But after reviewing case studies from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Panama, Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, Perfecto and Vandermeer conclude "there is little to suggest that the forest transition model is useful for the tropics" and that it "projects an overly optimistic vision."

Instead, the U-M researchers propose an alternative model, which they call the matrix quality model. They say it provides a solid foundation for conservation planning in tropical regions.

If you think of the fragments of remaining tropical forest as islands in an ocean of agriculture, the ocean is what Perfecto and Vandermeer call the matrix---it's the area between the patches of undisturbed natural habitat.

A high-quality matrix is one that enables plants and animals to migrate between the remaining patches of forest, increasing the likelihood that a given species will be able to survive, helping to preserve biodiversity.

Small, family-owned farms that use agroecological techniques come closest to mimicking natural forest habitat, thereby creating corridors that allow plants and animals to migrate between forest fragments. Agroecological techniques can include the use of biological controls instead of pesticides, the use of compost or other organic matter instead of chemical fertilizers, and the use of agroforestry methods, which involve growing crops beneath a canopy of trees or growing crops mixed with fruit trees such as mangoes or avocados.

"If you're really interested in conserving species, you should not just concentrate on preserving the fragments of natural habitat that remain, even though that's where many species are," said Vandermeer, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and a professor at the School of Natural Resources and Environment. "You also need to concentrate on the areas between the fragments, because those are the places that species have to migrate through."

Vandermeer said he advocates the break-up of large-scale farms in the tropics, as well as incentives to encourage "a large number of small-scale farmers, each managing the land to the best of his or her ability, using agroecological techniques."

Perfecto said these goals are in line with the findings of the 2009 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development synthesis report. The report concluded that small-scale, sustainable farms are the best way to alleviate world hunger while promoting sustainable development. Perfecto was one of the report's authors.

THE MULTIPLE ASPECTS OF THE CRISES AND THE WAY OUT FOR SMALL FOOD PRODUCERS and the HUMAKIND

The financial crisis has concentrated the attention in most of the countries, because of its immediate effects. We all know that it is not only a financial crisis, but an economic one, affecting the fundamentals of the economy, typical of the capitalist system. However what characterizes the present day is not only its global dimension, but the coincidence between various crises having the same logical origin.

The food soaring crisis of the years 2008 and 2009 have been strongly related to speculative forces playing on a reduction of stocks, but not so much of production. This has been a conjectural dimension of the question. Structurally it is due to gradual destruction of peasant’s agriculture to be replaced by productivist capitalist agriculture (monoculture). There is a new concentration of land property and a real counter-land reform, the agriculture becoming one of the new frontiers of accumulation. The Coastal fishery and coastal lands are being replaced by industrial fishery, industrial aqua culture and promotion of tourism, free trade zones and special economic zones. New laws have been introduced to grab the land and invest in developing countries. A double logic is at stake: rapid profits and ignorance of externalities.

The energy crisis is related with the fact that within 50 years, mankind will have to change completely of energy cycle (from fossil to other sources). This means the necessity of strong contraction of the demand and considerable investments in new technology. Already the financial crisis has retarded this last process. One immediate solution is proposed by the capital: agro fuel, which means to devote hundred of millions of hectares (mostly in the South) to monocultures of sugar canes, palm oil trees, soya, jatropha... and the expulsion of millions of peasants and communities from their land. It is clearly not a solution for the climate, because the general balance of emission of gases is not positive. It is marginal for the use of energy. But it is highly profitable on short and middle term. Again the capitalist logic is playing the dominating role: rapid accumulation and disregard of externalities.

Finally the climatic crisis, with both ever more emission of greenhouse effects and the destruction of the carbon wells (forests and oceans) is bringing about very damaging phenomena: higher temperature, with drought and famines and increasing levels of the seas. If strong measures are not taken the middle of the century could count between 150 and 200 million climatic migrants. Again this is the fruit of capitalist logic, ignoring ecological externalities (less now because it affects the rate of profit) and it has been accelerated with the neoliberal phase of capitalism (Washington’s Consensus), because of overexploitation of natural resources, more good’s circulation and individualization of behavior (transport and habitat).

Some Adaptation and Mitigation measures for Climate Change in the fisheries sector
Firstly, support to all types of fishing vessel operations that are based on alternative sources of fuel such as wind, solar power and sea waves. Demand improvements in design and in making available to the fisheries sector at no cost advancements in wind and solar energy.
Secondly, the fishing sector should scale down use of fossil fuel and seek use of propulsion techniques that are more fuel efficient. Use of natural gas, liquidified gas, etc. should be considered in fishing vessels. Fishing vessels should be granted one-time subsidy to replace all fuel-guzzling truck engines with new fuel efficient engines. These replacements are confined only to active fishing vessels. There should be some energy balance between input costs in catching and supplying fish to the market and the quantum of output, independent of market price. There should be a campaign against fish for the highest income group who can pay any price to show off their consumer power.
Thirdly, reduce the total number of fishing trips and fishing days so that total fuel consumption in the fisheries sector is brought down around 20 per cent.
Fourthly, campaign to stop indiscriminate dumping of broken pieces of nylon-webbed fishing gear at sea. The sector should also see if it can look for gear material made from non-hydrocarbon sources. Seek subsidies to promote use of such material in the fabrication of webbing.
The fish processing and marketing can reduce their dependence on carbon dioxide emissions. Reduce the carbon footprint of the transport industry between the fishing vessel and the final consumer.
In terms of adaptation, ensure better protection from coastal erosion, from high rainfall precipitation leading to flooding of fishers' habitats, latitudinal shift of fishing grounds (this may involve training in new fishing techniques, travelling greater distances for fishers to fish and fish vendors to procure fish for marketing, etc).

The sector also needs to join the campaign against acidification of oceans that might have implications for bone formation of fish as well as the survival of coral reefs.

All this is associated with a deep social and humanitarian crisis, characterized by an acceleration of social distances and encouraged by the fact that it is more profitable to invest in sophisticated products (goods and services) with a high added value able to be bought by a minority than to produce for categories with law purchasing power or with no marketable income.

Three solutions are proposed. First, to change the actors (week or incapable) and continue like before. Second, to regulate the system, more or less definitely of strongly according to the proposals and third, to find alternatives and new parameters. This is the only real post capitalist position. The question is to redefine such parameters, according to practical experiences existing partially in the whole world and to a theoretical reflexion. The parameters should envisage the fundaments of mankind’s existence on the planet: relation with nature, production of life (physical and cultural), social and political organization and world vision, including ethics.

The Small Scale Fisheries & IFAD

4SSF Bangkok,2008.
We as SSF organizations pay our gratitude to IFAD for the support for Small scale artisanal fishers to unite and raise their alternative views on;
 Securing Human rights,
 Securing access rights,
 Securing post-harvest rights, at the Securing Small Scale Sustainable Fisheries [4SSF] conference held at Bangkok, Thailand on 13-18 October 2008.

There were 114 civil society organizations, who gathered at Thailand in October 2008, came out with their own solutions as Civil Society Statement for 4 SSF Conference which was the out come of the Civil Society Preparatory Workshop to the Global Conference on Small-Scale Fisheries (4SSF). This was lead to the present the report of Small Scale Fisher’s contribution to the 28th Session of the COFI on 2-6 March 2009 at the FAO.


Global Farmers Forum
We congratulate IFAD for their commitment to consult farmers, peasants, fishers, women in all the sectors as well as the rural youth prior to the IFAD governing body council. This will be a good opportunity to learn the concerns of the small scale food producers, women and youth in many of the developing and developed countries. We have seriously discussed about the issues of the poor and marginalized communities in the world due to the multiple crises of financial, soaring food prices and the climatic crises in the world. Much have been proposed and have adopted certain measures as solutions too. The saddest part is the negligence of basic understandings, conventions, etc. by the powerful countries putting the vulnerable groups in to further crisis and serious danger.

However, we demand from IFAD governing body to consider the following;

1. IFAD engage to promote Land Reform and Aquatic Reform schemes so that small farmers and small fishers and all the small food producers will be feeding the humanity with cheap and nutritious food. This will eventually leads to end rural poverty in the developing countries. The ICARRD process which initiated in Brazil, 2007 would be a good starting point, particularly for Asia and Africa.
2. IFAD must promote to produce energy that is not polluting the mother earth, like solar energy, wind energy contributing the solution to energy crisis and also as a solution to the climatic changes.
3. We believe, Small farmers and small fishers are the back bone of every country, and they promote FOOD SOVERIEGNTY of Every country. IFAD should help them to continue their lives and livelihoods in a sustainable manner.
4. Article 6.18 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries goes much further by recognizing the important role of small-scale and artisanal fisheries in providing the economic needs of coastal fishing communities in the realms of culture, employment , income and food sovereignty. It requests States to protect the rights of fishers and fish workers, especially in subsistence, small-scale and artisanal fisheries to a secure and just livelihood. States are further requested to protect the rights of subsistence, small-scale and artisanal fishers to preferential access to traditional fishing grounds.
5. Support to the initiatives of the small food producer organization’s solutions for the energy crisis and soaring food prices crisis to come out from it.
6. While acknowledging some support to small food producer organizations in the past, we demand from IFAD to support further to strengthen the small scale food producer organizations in independent manner to advocate their rights.

We do hope, the out come of the FAFO will be a reference point to the IFAD governing body when they gather after this forum & consider the important proposals came out from the Farmers Forum.

Thank You,
Herman Kumara, General Secretary-World Forum of Fisher Peoples’[WFFP]


15.02.2010.