I find this to be somewhere between creepy and immoral:
http://www.harvardagriculture.org/article.html?aid=129
I wouldn't be attending a seminar about investing in anything anyway, since my wealth is mighty small, but I'm sure this is not supportive of a just agricultural system. How can they call it Harvard Alumni for Agriculture? Perhaps the assumption is that if you are for something, you corner the market on it. Sigh.
So - after gasping some more I read on, exploring the web site. There is a nod to sustainability on this web site, but it may be more about economic sustainability than environmental sustainability.
There's also an annual student contest on food system innovation. It's sponsored by the Law School and the School of Public Health. Hmmm.
And so - should I join this group to find out more about what they are up to? Or would it annoy me more than I need to be annoyed.
Showing posts with label land grabs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label land grabs. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Land grab indignation
I didn't know whether to weep or scream in outrage when I heard this story about a land grab in Mozambique on NPR
http://www.wbur.org/npr/155036821/mozambique-farmland-is-prize-in-land-grab-fever
It's just colonialism in a corporate suit.
http://www.wbur.org/npr/155036821/mozambique-farmland-is-prize-in-land-grab-fever
It's just colonialism in a corporate suit.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Updating the list of web sites
which sorely needed it.
I've added the site for the California Biosafety Alliance. They are hosting an international conference on "Justice Begins with Seeds" on May 19 and 20, and promoting Food Sovereignty Week May 14-20.
I deleted the broken links, and pulled the links that include searches for local food - Local Harvest and the Meatrix - up to the top. I learned about two more at the friends of agriculture happy hour on Friday and will be adding them.
In cruising through the links I realized a number of them are keeping up with Farm Bill 2012 developments. I plan to pull these out and create a separate box for Farm Bill links soon.
And I pulled the site for the Oakland Institute up toward the top of the list since it remains the best source of info on the land grabs in Africa. OI called my attention to this recent BBC broadcast on the land grab issue: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00p5qrb
I've added the site for the California Biosafety Alliance. They are hosting an international conference on "Justice Begins with Seeds" on May 19 and 20, and promoting Food Sovereignty Week May 14-20.
I deleted the broken links, and pulled the links that include searches for local food - Local Harvest and the Meatrix - up to the top. I learned about two more at the friends of agriculture happy hour on Friday and will be adding them.
In cruising through the links I realized a number of them are keeping up with Farm Bill 2012 developments. I plan to pull these out and create a separate box for Farm Bill links soon.
And I pulled the site for the Oakland Institute up toward the top of the list since it remains the best source of info on the land grabs in Africa. OI called my attention to this recent BBC broadcast on the land grab issue: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00p5qrb
Saturday, July 18, 2009
There is always something new to learn
The fact for today:
Half of the one billion hungry people in the world are small scale farmers living in developing countries.
I learned this from a story about international land grabs on this week's "Living On Earth", an interview with Olivier De Schutter of the UN Food Programme.
A few weeks ago I posted a comment about a story I heard on Weekend Edition - about Saudi Arabians' buying land to raise feed for milk cows. This is more about the trend.
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=09-P13-00029&segmentID=2
DeSchutter points out the three major problem areas in most of these deals:
access to land
food security for the nation whose land is used
and a lack of transparency in the deals - leading to corruption in how the funds gained are spent
Apparently many of the deals are spelled out in a few pages, with no provisions for worker justice, environmental health, etc., etc., etc....
The UN's 15 pages of guidelines are here:
http://www.loe.org/images/090717/principles.pdf
DeSchutter maintains that the deals don't have to be prime examples of neo-colonialism.
Half of the one billion hungry people in the world are small scale farmers living in developing countries.
I learned this from a story about international land grabs on this week's "Living On Earth", an interview with Olivier De Schutter of the UN Food Programme.
A few weeks ago I posted a comment about a story I heard on Weekend Edition - about Saudi Arabians' buying land to raise feed for milk cows. This is more about the trend.
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=09-P13-00029&segmentID=2
DeSchutter points out the three major problem areas in most of these deals:
access to land
food security for the nation whose land is used
and a lack of transparency in the deals - leading to corruption in how the funds gained are spent
Apparently many of the deals are spelled out in a few pages, with no provisions for worker justice, environmental health, etc., etc., etc....
The UN's 15 pages of guidelines are here:
http://www.loe.org/images/090717/principles.pdf
DeSchutter maintains that the deals don't have to be prime examples of neo-colonialism.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
I wonder if they'll have time for Slow Food
at their meeting in Italy. The G8, that is.
I finally took a moment to read the articles John posted. I also read an article posted today by Anuradha Mittal on the "G8 Italian Gala". (Love the title.)
http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/?q=node/view/512
And all of this against the backdrop of listening to the General Convention forum on the global economy, and the Diocese of Los Angeles lunchtime forum on economic empowerment.
I'm suffering a bit of mental indigestion - yet it seems like it's the same old story, too.
We need some radical changes in the way we consider economy, and a revival of moral values.
First, a comment on the article below by Prime Minister Aso (Japan). I appreciate his noble goal of eschewing "land grabs" in favor of "renovated agro-industries" - but wait - what's the key word there? "Industries" I would suggest - a word at war with the policies he suggests would be important, like respect for local land rights and local food security issues. I think there are way too many loopholes in his proposals - especially when one thinks about putting them into practice in countries of great poverty (and probably because of it great stress and great corruption). What starts as a noble effort to partner with folks in other countries, who have the land Japan does not, might well end up just another land grab. Think about the missionary movement of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Mittal reminds us that those 800 million or so hungry people that we intended to halve - the number, not the people - were 963 million by the end of 2008. Even with some amelioration in the staple food prices over the last six months or so, the number is now estimated by some to be rapidly approaching one billion, and by Mittal and her sources to be 1.02 billion.
If you think about those much touted millennium development goals -we have 6 years to reverse the trend by 600 million people. And if we want to look at sustainable hunger reduction 6 years probably is not possible without great will and a mobilizing of human effort and education on an unprecedented scale. Transforming industrial ag land to smaller scale diversified farms takes years.
But I digress.
The main points in Mittal's report as I see it are
1) As long as the global food crisis is framed as simply a supply and demand problem, the need for more industrial ag, more chemical inputs, and more GMOs will be the go to solution. In my language - it's a triple bottom line concern. And it must be addressed systemically, with regard for social and environmental health, as well as provisioning food stuffs.
2) Free global trade in food only works for those who have money to buy it. For rural folk whose livelihoods and way of life have been destroyed by the colonizing effect of global agribusiness, there is no money and little food.
Here's a phrase I liked from Canterbury's presentation: "local level community regeneration".
Surely this is the goal, with restoring healthy and healthful food systems as part of it.
I finally took a moment to read the articles John posted. I also read an article posted today by Anuradha Mittal on the "G8 Italian Gala". (Love the title.)
http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/?q=node/view/512
And all of this against the backdrop of listening to the General Convention forum on the global economy, and the Diocese of Los Angeles lunchtime forum on economic empowerment.
I'm suffering a bit of mental indigestion - yet it seems like it's the same old story, too.
We need some radical changes in the way we consider economy, and a revival of moral values.
First, a comment on the article below by Prime Minister Aso (Japan). I appreciate his noble goal of eschewing "land grabs" in favor of "renovated agro-industries" - but wait - what's the key word there? "Industries" I would suggest - a word at war with the policies he suggests would be important, like respect for local land rights and local food security issues. I think there are way too many loopholes in his proposals - especially when one thinks about putting them into practice in countries of great poverty (and probably because of it great stress and great corruption). What starts as a noble effort to partner with folks in other countries, who have the land Japan does not, might well end up just another land grab. Think about the missionary movement of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Mittal reminds us that those 800 million or so hungry people that we intended to halve - the number, not the people - were 963 million by the end of 2008. Even with some amelioration in the staple food prices over the last six months or so, the number is now estimated by some to be rapidly approaching one billion, and by Mittal and her sources to be 1.02 billion.
If you think about those much touted millennium development goals -we have 6 years to reverse the trend by 600 million people. And if we want to look at sustainable hunger reduction 6 years probably is not possible without great will and a mobilizing of human effort and education on an unprecedented scale. Transforming industrial ag land to smaller scale diversified farms takes years.
But I digress.
The main points in Mittal's report as I see it are
1) As long as the global food crisis is framed as simply a supply and demand problem, the need for more industrial ag, more chemical inputs, and more GMOs will be the go to solution. In my language - it's a triple bottom line concern. And it must be addressed systemically, with regard for social and environmental health, as well as provisioning food stuffs.
2) Free global trade in food only works for those who have money to buy it. For rural folk whose livelihoods and way of life have been destroyed by the colonizing effect of global agribusiness, there is no money and little food.
Here's a phrase I liked from Canterbury's presentation: "local level community regeneration".
Surely this is the goal, with restoring healthy and healthful food systems as part of it.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Taro Aso: The world must learn to live and farm sustainably (FT.com)
The world must learn to live and farm sustainably
By Taro Aso (Japan’s prime minister)
Published: July 5 2009 20:08
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d6e93cf6-6995-11de-bc9f-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
Food security will be the highlight of the discussion when the heads of 27 countries and 11 organisations meet on Friday at the Group of Eight summit in L’Aquila. I expect substantial progress to be made, particularly on aid to countries affected by the food crisis. I will also make a new proposal to promote responsible foreign investment in agriculture, in the face of so-called “land grabs” – the growing trend for large-scale investment in farmland across the developing world.
A year has passed since this phenomenon first gained attention, and new deals continue to hit the headlines. The United Nations special rapporteur called for a set of principles, and the African Union discussed the issue at its summit last week. What is needed now is for concerned parties to frame a co-ordinated global response.
Japan, as the world’s largest net food importer and a major donor in agricultural development, believes it has a role to play.
...
We believe non-binding principles would promote responsible investment and sustainable farmland management. They should include, among other things:
● International agricultural investments, particularly sovereign interventions, must be transparent and accountable. Investors should ensure that key stakeholders, including local communities, are properly informed. Agreements should be disclosed.
● Investors must respect the rights of local people affected by investments, in particular land rights. They should also ensure the benefits are shared with local communities in the form of employment, infrastructure, skills and technology transfer.
● Investment projects need to be integrated into recipient countries’ development strategies and environmental policies.
● Investors must take into account the food supply and demand situation in recipient countries. Foreign investment must not aggravate local food insecurity.
● Deals for land and products should adequately reflect market values. Trade arrangements must adhere to World Trade Organisation rules.
Japan will work with key partners to develop a global platform to agree on principles and compile good practices. We call on interested parties to meet in September. We need a grand coalition with a common vision, for our interests are all entwined.
%^)
By Taro Aso (Japan’s prime minister)
Published: July 5 2009 20:08
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d6e93cf6-6995-11de-bc9f-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
Food security will be the highlight of the discussion when the heads of 27 countries and 11 organisations meet on Friday at the Group of Eight summit in L’Aquila. I expect substantial progress to be made, particularly on aid to countries affected by the food crisis. I will also make a new proposal to promote responsible foreign investment in agriculture, in the face of so-called “land grabs” – the growing trend for large-scale investment in farmland across the developing world.
A year has passed since this phenomenon first gained attention, and new deals continue to hit the headlines. The United Nations special rapporteur called for a set of principles, and the African Union discussed the issue at its summit last week. What is needed now is for concerned parties to frame a co-ordinated global response.
Japan, as the world’s largest net food importer and a major donor in agricultural development, believes it has a role to play.
...
We believe non-binding principles would promote responsible investment and sustainable farmland management. They should include, among other things:
● International agricultural investments, particularly sovereign interventions, must be transparent and accountable. Investors should ensure that key stakeholders, including local communities, are properly informed. Agreements should be disclosed.
● Investors must respect the rights of local people affected by investments, in particular land rights. They should also ensure the benefits are shared with local communities in the form of employment, infrastructure, skills and technology transfer.
● Investment projects need to be integrated into recipient countries’ development strategies and environmental policies.
● Investors must take into account the food supply and demand situation in recipient countries. Foreign investment must not aggravate local food insecurity.
● Deals for land and products should adequately reflect market values. Trade arrangements must adhere to World Trade Organisation rules.
Japan will work with key partners to develop a global platform to agree on principles and compile good practices. We call on interested parties to meet in September. We need a grand coalition with a common vision, for our interests are all entwined.
%^)
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
How many things wrong can you find in this picture?
Or
Another Sunday, another atrocious story on Weekend Edition.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105381728&ft=1&f=1006
This time the story is about dairy farming in Saudi Arabia.
My first question is: what are those folks doing drinking milk anyway? Aren't they low on the lactase scale? Surely there are food that are both more appropriate both to produce and to the local cultural diet than cow's milk.
Second question: While I guess I can understand why a Saudi royal would want something he saw in California, why twice as big? Think about the stench when driving certain highways in California - stench from dairy and beef feedlots. Now multiply that.
Third question: Do they recycle any of the waste water from this operation - or is it all so polluted with excrement that it would take too much time or room to do so. I'm thinking about all that water used to cool the cows in 120F heat.
Fourth question: Didn't anybody realize that this was the desert, and that aquifers run dry - and won't be replenished given the decreasing rainfall in the desert latitudes?
Fifth question: Have people no sense of justice, of the human right to food? The most appalling thing about this piece was the report that countries like Saudi Arabia, because they've decimated their own natural resources with inappropriate agriculture, are buying tracts of land in places like Ethiopia and Sudan - countries of deep-seated food insecurity. Is no intervention possible to stop this? Will those who have oil buy land, water and food - at the expense of the lives of those who don't?
Or is this just a more blatant form of normal corporate colonialism?
Another Sunday, another atrocious story on Weekend Edition.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105381728&ft=1&f=1006
This time the story is about dairy farming in Saudi Arabia.
My first question is: what are those folks doing drinking milk anyway? Aren't they low on the lactase scale? Surely there are food that are both more appropriate both to produce and to the local cultural diet than cow's milk.
Second question: While I guess I can understand why a Saudi royal would want something he saw in California, why twice as big? Think about the stench when driving certain highways in California - stench from dairy and beef feedlots. Now multiply that.
Third question: Do they recycle any of the waste water from this operation - or is it all so polluted with excrement that it would take too much time or room to do so. I'm thinking about all that water used to cool the cows in 120F heat.
Fourth question: Didn't anybody realize that this was the desert, and that aquifers run dry - and won't be replenished given the decreasing rainfall in the desert latitudes?
Fifth question: Have people no sense of justice, of the human right to food? The most appalling thing about this piece was the report that countries like Saudi Arabia, because they've decimated their own natural resources with inappropriate agriculture, are buying tracts of land in places like Ethiopia and Sudan - countries of deep-seated food insecurity. Is no intervention possible to stop this? Will those who have oil buy land, water and food - at the expense of the lives of those who don't?
Or is this just a more blatant form of normal corporate colonialism?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)