728x90


인도 Sarai Nayat의 농지에서 일하는 여성농민들


이것은 VOA 특별 농업보고서이다.

식량가격이 지속적으로 오르면서 더 많은 사람들을 가난과 기아로 밀어넣으려 하고 있다. 전문가들은 세계를 대상으로 농업 생산성을 높이는 노력을 기울이라고 촉구하고 있다. 유엔 식량농업기구의 새로운 보고서에서는 그 가장 좋은 방법의 하나로, 남성농민에게는 그렇지 않은 여성농민이 직면한 장벽을 제거하라고 한다.

Agnes Quisumbing 씨는 그 원인으로 여성농민이 남성보다 생산성이 떨어진다는 이야기를 듣는다고 한다. 그녀는 국제 식량정책연구소의 경제학자이다. 그녀는 여성농민이 남성농민보다 더 적은 자원을 가지고 있다고 한다. 

FAO의 새로운 보고서는 여성이 세계 농민의 43%를 차지한다고 말한다. 그러나 단 10~20%만이 자신의 농지를 소유한다. 자신의 농지 없이 개량종자와 화학비료와 같은 투입재를 사느라 더 까다로운 조건으로 대출을 받는다. 여러 나라에서 여성은 남성이 수확량을 높이기 위해 사용하는 화학비료의 절반 정도를 쓰고 있다.

또한  Quisumbing 씨는 세계 여성의 대부분은 농사일을 하면서 동시에 아이들을 키운다고 지적한다.

FAO 보고서는 여성농민을 도우면 개발도상국에서 농업생산성을 4% 이상 높일 수 있다고 한다. 이를 통해 17% 이상의 사람들을 영양부족에서 구할 수 있다. 

AGNES QUISUMBING: “기아와 영양실조를 줄이기 위해 농업생산성을 개선한다는 관점에서 여성농민이 남성농민처럼 투입재에 똑같이 접근하고 자원을 관리하도록 도와야 한다.”

Quisumbing 씨는 FAO 보고서의 작성을 도왔다. 그녀는 보고서에서 동정을 얻으려 하지 않는다. 사업의 측면에 기반하여 여성농민을 다룬다.

AGNES QUISUMBING: “우린 여성농민이 얼마나 불이익을 당하고 있는지에 관해 많은 이야기를 들었다. 그리고 불쌍한 사람을 동정하려는 듯한 경향이 있다. 그러나 약자를 동정하는 이야기가 국가에서 그들에게 돈을 지원하도록 만들지는 않는다.”

그녀는 정부가 여성농민을 돕는 프로그램을 지원해야 한다고 주장한다. 그들이 개량종자와 화학비료를 살 수 있도록 돕는 재정적 지원을 포함한다. 그러나 그녀는 여러 나라에서 정책이 변화할 필요가 있다고 한다.

그녀는 여러 법률이 재산과 노동력, 결혼의 영역에서 여성들을 차별한다고 한다. Quisumbing 씨는 여러 연구들이 남성보다 여성이 음식과 건강, 교육에 돈을 더 많이 지출한다는 것을 밝혔다고 말한다. 그것은 다음 세대를 위해 더 나은 미래를 준비하는 걸 의미한다. 

Jerilyn Watson 씨와 Steve Baragona 씨가 함께 쓴 VOA 특별 농업보고서가 그것이다. 당신은 요약문과 MP3를 http://goo.gl/m8Y4k에서 찾을 수 있다.


728x90
728x90

Despite the World Food Summit goal of halving the number of hungry in the world between 1996 and 2015, the number has remained stubbornly constant, with an uptick in the number as a result of the 2007-2008 crop price hikes. Currently the official Food and Agricultural Organization 2010-2012 estimate of the number of undernourished people is 870 million, though some aid organizations offer higher estimates.

At the same time, the world’s population is projected to grow from the current 7 billion to around 9 billion by 2050. Unsurprisingly, the question arises as to how we are going to feed 2 billion additional people by 2050, when we already have nearly 1 billion facing chronic hunger.

Recently we were asked to take part in a symposium at the Entomological Society of America annual meeting in Knoxville titled: “Feeding future generations: Expanding a global science to answer a global challenge.” The focus of that challenge was to identify ways to feed 9 billion people in 2050. What follows in a synopsis of our presentation.

We preface what follows by noting that it appears to us that the multinational biotech seed and chemical companies have responded to this challenge by positioning their products as the primary solution to meeting this goal. Not incidentally, they are also using this challenge as a justification for pressing the case for the extension of their intellectual property rights through trade negotiations.

As a result of our readings and discussion with others, it appears to us that much of the discussion about feeding 9 billion people by 2050 has been captured by these firms by setting up a false dichotomy.

On the one side, we have what might be called the current mechanized agricultural model. In this model, the goal is to bring the latest technologies (read GMOs and agricultural chemicals) to bear on solving this problem. It is argued that through the use of patented products and technologies, US farmers can boost their production to help meet the increased demand for food.

Similarly farmers in developing nations can use these same patented technologies and products to boost their crop production. But in order to make these technologies and products available, the agribusiness firms need to make sure that their intellectual property is protected. So what the companies want to do is offer the free use of products like a GMO cassava to a country’s farmers in exchange for their setting up US-style intellectual property rights and regulatory agencies in their country. The vision is to remold subsistence farmers into entrepreneurial export-oriented producers.

On the other side, they offer organic production, essentially viewing it as a post-industrial philosophical reaction to the mechanization of agriculture. They then use this reaction to describe a pre-industrial production system.

The proponents of the mechanized agricultural model go on to characterize organic production as offering lower yields and increased labor requirements as a result of higher weed and insect pressure. The argument is often summarized in the declaration that if we wanted to match current US chicken production with free-range chickens, there wouldn’t be enough acres available to do that—we’ve never tried to make that calculation.

By positing organics as the only alternative to the full use of their products, they hope to quash any challenge to their vision. They also ignore a lot of other actions that could be helpful in meeting the challenge of feeding 2 billion additional people by 2050—an increase of 28 percent over a 38-year period. In taking on this challenge, we need to remember that we were able to move from feeding a world population of 4 billion in 1974 to feeding 7 billion in 2012—an increase of 75 percent over a 38-year period.

From our vantage point, one needed action is to reduce post-harvest loss, which can be as much as a quarter to a third of the crop. To do this, low-input storage technologies need to be identified that use resources that are available to farm households and can be maintained over the long-haul by the poorest of the poor.

Returning to a theme that we have touched on before in this column, we need long-term funding for conventional breeding programs that will produce public varieties of what the US National Research Council has called “lost crops:” teff, various sorghums, amaranth, fonio, African rice, millets, and various pulses. Many of these crops currently yield about 1 tonne per hectare—compared to 10 tonnes of corn per hectare in the US—while research plots have identified landraces of these crops that can yield triple or quadruple that. A conventional breeding program could breed these high-yielding characteristics back into the local varieties that would be acceptable to local households.

While intercropping would be a problem for farmers using four-wheel-drive, diesel tractors, it is more common among farmers who depend upon hand labor for their production. And intercropping has the potential to increase total food output from a given plot of land through techniques like succession planting—that is what we do when we plant radish and carrot seeds in the same row in the spring. In Colombia we saw indigenous farmers planting squash in among the hills of corn. With targeted research, intercropping systems that increase total nutritional output per unit of land could be identified using locally grown crops.

As a recent Iowa State study showed—see our November 12, 2012 column—three- and four-year rotations that includes crops and livestock can reduce the need for synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and herbicides. In some cases the task will be to help subsistence farmers recover traditional rotations that used local crops and crop varieties.

While we are not soil scientists, we cannot underestimate the importance of the issue of soil and water management. We need to pay attention to soil biotics and soil structure. Doing so could decrease water runoff, increase water infiltration, and improve nutrient availability to the plants.

None of this is difficult. The science is relatively easy. What it takes in the political will to fund programs in these areas. In saying this we are not arguing that the role of mechanized agriculture in the global North does not play a role in meeting this goal; it does. But there is more to it than that.

Oh! and we almost forgot our most important point.

The real challenge in feeding all 9 billion people in 2050 is not production; it is distribution.

Remember 1998-2001? The price of corn was $1.85 a bushel and we had 800 million hungry people in the world. But because they lacked purchasing power, 800 million people went to bed hungry while US producers were told that the low prices were caused by their “overproduction.”

The first step in meeting this challenge is to enable the farmers who are among the poorest of the poor to produce their own food using sustainable technologies that are within their resource base.

Daryll E. Ray holds the Blasingame Chair of Excellence in Agricultural Policy, Institute of Agriculture, University of Tennessee, and is the Director of UT’s Agricultural Policy Analysis Center (APAC). Harwood D. Schaffer is a Research Assistant Professor at APAC. (865) 974-7407; Fax: (865) 974-7298;dray@utk.edu  and hdschaffer@utk.edu http://www.agpolicy.org.

Reproduction Permission Granted with:
1) Full attribution to Daryll E. Ray and Harwood D. Schaffer, Agricultural Policy Analysis Center, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN;
2) An email sent to hdschaffer@utk.edu indicating how often you intend on running the column and your total circulation. Also, please send one copy of the first issue with the column in it to Harwood Schaffer, Agricultural Policy Analysis Center, 309 Morgan Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996-4519.

728x90
728x90

Food security threat... being overweight could exacerbate a lack of ecological sustainability due to increasing population sizes.

Food security threat... being overweight could exacerbate a lack of ecological sustainability due to increasing population sizes.

LONDON: Overweight people are a threat to future food security and increasing population fatness could have the same implications for world food demands as an extra billion people, researchers have found.

Scientists from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine examined the average weight of adults across the globe and said tackling population weight was crucial for food security and ecological sustainability.

The United Nations predicts that by 2050 there could be a further 2.3 billion people on the planet and that the ecological implications of the rising population numbers will be exacerbated by increases in average body mass.


The world's adult population weighs 287 million tonnes, 15 million tonnes of which is due to being overweight and 3.5 million tonnes to obesity, according to the study, which is to be published in BMC Public Health.

The data, collected from the UN and the World Health Organisation, shows that while the average global weight per person is 62 kilograms in 2005, Britons weighed 75 kilograms. In the US, the average adult weighed 81 kilograms. Across Europe, the average was 70.8 kilograms compared with just 57.7 kilograms in Asia.

More than half of people living in Europe are overweight compared with only 24.2 per cent of Asian people. Almost three-quarters of people living in North America are overweight.

Researchers predict that if all people had the same average body mass index as Americans, the total human biomass would increase by 58 million tonnes.

The authors of the study say the energy requirement of humans depends not only on numbers but average mass.

''Increasing biomass will have important implications for global resource requirements, including food demand and the overall ecological footprint of our species,'' they wrote.

''Although the concept of biomass is rarely applied to the human species, the ecological implications of increasing body mass are significant and ought to be taken into account when evaluating future trends and planning for future resource challenges. Tackling population fatness may be critical to world food security and ecological sustainability.''

Professor Ian Roberts, who led the research at LSHTM, said: ''Everyone accepts that population growth threatens global environmental sustainability - our study shows that population fatness is also a major threat.''



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/obesity-creates-global-hunger-pang-20120618-20kc7.html#ixzz1yBcY8Ekl


728x90
728x90


Pedro Armestre  /  AFP - Getty Images, file

Two women collect food waste beside an industrial dumpster at the main food market on December 28, 2011 in Madrid.


Cleaning your plate may not help feed starving children today, but the time-worn advice of mothers everywhere may help reduce food waste from the farm to the fork, help the environment and make it easier to feed the world's growing population.

Hard data is still being collected, but experts at the Reuters Food and Agriculture Summit in Chicago this week said an estimated 30 percent to 50 percent of the food produced in the world goes uneaten.

The average American throws away 33 pounds of food each month -- about $40 worth -- according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, which plans to publish a report on food waste in April.

In a year, that means each person throws away almost 400 pounds of food, the weight of an adult male gorilla.

Environmental Protection Agency graphic: Food dominates US waste

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that 23 percent of eggs and an even higher percentage of produce ends up in the trash.

"We forget we have all these fresh fruits and vegetables, and at the end of the week we have to throw them away," said Esther Gove, a mother of three young children in South Berwick, Maine. "Now, I don't buy as much fresh produce as I used to."


Agriculture is the world's largest user of water, a big consumer of energy and chemicals and major emitter of greenhouse gases during production, distribution and landfill decay.
Not sustainable if not eaten
But the impact of food waste stretches far beyond the kitchen.

Experts say reducing waste is a simple way to cut stress on the environment while easing pressure on farmers, who will be called on to feed an expected 9 billion people around the world in 2050, versus nearly 7 billion today.

 Video: Taking the fight against hunger on a stadium tour (on this page)

"No matter how sustainable the farming is, if the food's not getting eaten, it's not sustainable and it's not a good use of our resources," Dana Gunders, a sustainable agriculture specialist at the NRDC, said at the Reuters Summit.

In richer nations, edible fruit and vegetables end up in landfills because they are not pretty enough to meet a retailer's standards, have gone bad in a home refrigerator or were not eaten at a restaurant.

When Will Earth Run Out of Food?

In developing countries, much food spoils before it gets to market due to poor roads and lack of refrigeration.

High food prices are another factor, since some people can't afford the food that's produced, said Patrick Woodall, research director and senior policy advocate for Food and Water Watch.

"It's not a situation where you have to massively ramp up production," Woodall told the Reuters Summit. "Even in 2008, when there were hunger riots around the world, there was enough food to feed people, it was just too expensive."

DuPont is working with farmers in Kenya to extend the life of raw milk. Often farmers have to travel up to 20 kilometers to get their milk to market, and due to the country's high temperatures, much of the milk gets wasted, Jim Borel, an executive vice president with DuPont, said.

"This has broad application, but we're focused on Africa right now," Borel said.

Making pizza toppings stick 
Europe is a leader in tackling food waste, but the United States is catching on as producers, facing tepid sales growth, look to control costs.


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said 33 million tons of food waste hit landfills and incinerators in 2010, the largest solid waste product in the system. EPA has launched a program to address the issue.
For example, a General Mills pizza plant found a way to use heat to make toppings stick to frozen pizzas better. The system is expected to prevent thousands of pounds of cheese and other pizza toppings from going to waste each year.

Experts from EPA and other groups have floated a variety of recommended fixes. They say clarifying "sell by" and "use by" dates could help consumers avoid throwing food in the garbage too soon. Some food could be "rescued" and used in soup kitchens, while certain leftovers could be used as animal feed.

'Use-by' dates lead to tons of wasted food

Increasing composting could boost soil health and drought resistance, while also easing the burden on landfills and reducing decomposition of garbage into greenhouse gas methane.

Gove, the Maine mother, has found her own solutions. She buys frozen blueberries and raspberries instead of fresh ones that may spoil; purchases meat in bulk; and freezes what she doesn't immediately need. She also has introduced her kids to frozen banana treats, which means she's able to keep the fruit longer.

"Milk is one thing we don't waste, though," she said. "My kids go right through it."

Researchers say people of every age -- especially children -- contribute to the food waste problem.

Gove said she has cut waste by starting with smaller meal portions for her children, who get more only when they ask. Still, she says, there is a limit to how far she'll go.

"I definitely don't want to get rid of my kids," she said.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46743203/ns/world_news-world_environment/#.T2KcVsXVyo1

728x90
728x90



"Every five seconds, a child under 10 dies of hunger.  – Thirty-five million people die each year from hunger or its immediate aftermath. – one billion people are permanently and severely malnourished and the situation is becoming increasingly catastrophic."
 (Jean Ziegler)
 
In his latest book “Mass Destruction – the Geopolitics of Hunger”, Jean Ziegler[1] talks about the current state of the world and the neoliberal politics of starvation of the poor, which has led to a crisis situation amounting to calculated murder. What we are witnessing today is the worst hunger crisis in human history. And it is all because of human greed, colossal mismanagement for profit.

Professor Ziegler deals in detail with the various causes of the current worldwide hunger disaster, which could have been avoided. This crisis is not determined by fate – or, to use Ziegler’s own word – ‘La famine n’est pas une fatalité’. The world could perfectly well provide food for 12 million people, almost the double of the present population of 7 million. 

So what made this murderous situation possible where thousands of people are dying (37,000 every day) from lack of food and clean water? La famine n’est pas une fatalité. It could have been avoided. It should not be happening. 

The agroindustry is killing off small farmers – some countries are fighting back

The goals of the ‘cold monsters’ (les monstres froids) of the agroindustry, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Cargill and Bunge, et al. is to suck the life out of small farmers all over the world, especially in Africa and southern Asia. 

The exceptional development that is taking place today in Latin America is liberating it from the grip of neoliberalism. This can only emphasize the point that the horrible famine that is seen in Africa and south Asia should never have happened. Latin America is forcefully fighting against dependency on the International Monetary Fund (IMF), The World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO) – the three horsemen of the Apocalypse, in Jean Ziegler’s own words. 

Redistribution of land from large estates with huge tracts of uncultivated areas to small farmers has proven extremely effective in raising the standard of living, in helping the poorest of the poor in several Latin American countries. These countries have wrenched themselves free from the killer treaties like NAFTA, CAFTA and FTAA[2], created exclusively for rich North America to take over the natural resources in the southern hemisphere. 

The United States is intimately tied in with the Transnational Corporations (TNC) and they are firmly determined to end up owning the world. The way they proceed is to first take over the valuable commodities everywhere, in Latin America as well as in Africa and now also in India. Let us not forget that Latin America used to be quite naturally counted on as the backyard of the U.S. The leftist liberation movements to the south of its borders have been a bad blow to the deeply rooted feelings of superiority and self-righteousness that Americans have always taken for granted. 

Latin American countries have now created trade treaties of their own, like MERCOSUR and ALBA. However, it remains to be seen how well MERCOSUR will be able to stand up to U.S. imperialism. 

Organized hunger has been made the order of the day, without any visible protest

It was done step by step, in the deepest secrecy, since the Main-Stream Media (MSM) did not even touch on the subject, if they knew about it at all.  And all the time we were thinking: ‘There must be a way back. This cannot go on.’ And then it went on. And it got worse. And worse.

The transnational corporations essentially own the western governments and they are running the world for the profit of their own cabal, and for profit alone. 

The small farmers, the subsistence farmers who produced enough food to provide for their families and for selling at the market for a modest income, are being ruined, by careful planning.

The Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse of organized hunger, the supra-state organizations IMF, The World Bank and the WTO carry out the wishes of the major food companies. The major three are Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) and Bunge. These cold monsters are able to fix the prices of food through the powers they have given themselves as cartels or monopolies.

The small farmers in Africa and elsewhere needed help to go on with their hard work to support their families and to produce food for the country. Droughts, military conflicts, political crises, natural catastrophes, man-made emergency situations, all these contributed to recurrent food crises. 

IMF was ready to extend big loans, BUT with strings attached. Structural adjustment programs would follow and the people were the victims.[3]  There was now less money for the governments to spend on education, health care, food aid to the desperately poor, infrastructure – and the list goes on. Unemployment and poverty increased and new loans were needed, if only to pay off the interest on the old loans to the tiger sharks, ‘les requins tigres’ – Jean Ziegler’s term. Now the third world countries are enslaved in a vicious spiral of debts.
 
There is of course also disastrous corruption among the leaders of the countries in need that prevents the money from many well-intentioned NGOs from getting into the right hands. 

To add to the many problems small farmers are faced with, there is also the other product of Western greed – big companies buying up land for huge plantations whenever the farmers are forced to sell at a ridiculously low price. And so those former poor but proud subsistence farmers are now forced to work for a pittance for the big landlords who, instead of producing food to feed the native people, grow cotton, green beans, coffee, tea, cocoa, peanuts and other crops to sell to the rich countries. And these foods for the wealthy are often produced by small children, severely exploited by cruel farmers. Slave labor conditions are the rule.

Jean Ziegler points out in ‘Destruction massive’, p.327



“The ideologues of the World Bank are infinitely more dangerous than the sad marketing agents Bolloré, Vilgrain (French investors in Africa) and company. With hundreds of millions of dollars of credits and subsidies, the World Bank funds the theft of arable land in Africa, Asia, Latin America.” 


Food has to be imported – all for the profit of the big corporations. Poor people can not afford buying imported food at artificially high prices. Children go hungry, pregnant mothers are undernourished and so their babies are born with what can be called birth defects. Very importantly, their brains are insufficiently developed and this deficiency can never be recovered.  A large number of the infants die before the age of two.

Malnutrition is rampant and it causes unimaginably horrible diseases, such as noma, which is far less known than the killer diseases such as malaria, dysentery, cholera, tuberculosis, diphtheria and other infectious diseases. Noma is not an infectious disease but it has been proven that it is due to severe and chronic malnutrition.[4]   

For the United States and their mercenary organizations, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO the UN declaration of the Universal Right to Food[5] has no importance whatsoever. It is very simply ignored. 

Attempts by global structures to make the right to food a human right
 


"The ‘United Nations’ is a term that appeared for the first time in 1941. It was tied to the combat against hunger. The World War was raging and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill met on the battleship USS-Augusta in the Atlantic off Newfoundland. What came out of that meeting was the first major attempt to create a document declaring the basic freedoms of man, including Freedom from want and Freedom from fear.

 

“US President Franklin D. Roosevelt on January 6, 1941, in an address known as the Four Freedoms speech proposed four fundamental freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy:  

1.   Freedom of speech and expression
2.   Freedom of worship
3.   Freedom from want
4.   Freedom from fear



"His inclusion of the latter two freedoms went beyond the traditional US Constitutional values protected by its First Amendment, and endorsed a right to economic security and an internationalist view of foreign policy.”


From The Atlantic Charter which was an outcome of the meeting on the USS-Augusta, articles 4 and 6 state: 


“Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity; 

“Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;” (Destruction massive, pp. 139-140)


Jean Ziegler talks about the origin of the world food programs, p. 201:
 
FAO [the Food and Agriculture Organization] and the World Food Programme (WFP) are the big and beautiful legacy of Josué de Castro.[6] These two institutions are threatened with ruin.
They were born, as we have seen, when the great awakening of consciousness took place in Europe that was emerging from the night of fascism: the FAO in 1945, the WFP in 1963. 

The sad fate of those two organizations, however, is that they were both rendered fairly helpless when the current economic crisis took hold of the world. The mandate of the WFP is precisely to eliminate hunger and poverty in the world, but with a severely reduced budget, how were they going to reach their goal? 

Jean Ziegler writes (p. 216):



“On October 22, 2008, the 17 heads of state and government from the euro zone countries gathered at the Palais de l'Elysée in Paris. At 6 o’clock, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy appeared on the front steps of the palace, in front of the press. They declared to the reporters: "We have to free 1,700 billion to remobilize the interbank lending and to raise the floor of auto-financing of the banks by 3 to 5%." Before the end of the year 2008, subsidies from the countries in the euro zone for emergency food aid decreased by almost 50 %. The WFP budget was about $ 6 billion. It fell in 2009 to $ 3.2 billion.

“For 2011, WFP evaluates its minimal needs to $ 7 billion. Until early December 2010, they had received $ 2.7 billion. This loss in revenues has had dramatic consequences.”

 
Jean Ziegler goes on to say:



“For the United States and its mercenary organizations – the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank – the
 right to food is an aberration. To them, there are no human rights except civil and political.

“Behind the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, the Washington government and its traditional allies, appear of course the huge private transcontinental companies. The increasing control these transcontinental corporations exert on vast sectors of food production and trade have of course significantly affected the exercise of the right to food.” (Destruction massive, p. 155)


Food for fuel

Another highly important factor in the increasingly catastrophic problem of hunger in the world is of course the use of food for fuel, which has been dealt with in some detail in the essay ‘Food for fuel, a sure way of creating a hunger crisis’ By Jean Ziegler and Siv O'Neall

It is of course perfectly clear to anybody who thinks with his brain, that growing sugar cane, wheat, corn or other food crops in huge plantations for the use of making ethanol for energy, first of all takes land away from small farmers and, secondly, ruins useful food to put gasoline in SUVs that we don’t really need. 

In addition to this obvious truth, there is the crucial fact that the making of ethanol uses up more energy than it produces. It also gives off an enormous amount of carbon dioxide in the process.

Explosive increase in food prices beginning in 2007

The stage is open to the real tiger sharks, the financial speculators. Without the slightest shade of a moral conscience, they speculate on the value of a harvest, on land value, on currencies. Is it going up or down? In either case, they win, since they always hedge their bets. The noxious ‘futures trading’ has opened up the commodity market to conscience-free sharks who care only for the fast buck. These men are not dealing in any real product. They don’t sell or buy grain or anything whatever. They just speculate in the fate of these commodities, land, currencies. 

The prices of corn, rice and wheat are literally exploding because of market speculation on the basic commodities. This is the Market neoliberalism that was once made out to be the self-regulating force of the Free Market.

The governments can well see the abyss that is open in front of them, but they obediently bail out the banks when the gamblers cause a total breakdown and the banks go bankrupt. 

Jean Ziegler writes (p. 78):



"The speculative madness of the predators of the globalized financial capital has cost Western industrial states in 2008-2009, $ 8,900 billion in all. Western states have in particular paid trillions of dollars to bail out delinquent bankers." 


Neoliberals claim that no regulations are needed, because the market is regulating itself. That way they are free to speculate, to trade indefinitely and, in many cases, without even paying capital gains taxes, without any insight or any rules. There are of course also the tax-free havens where speculators can gamble with their billions without the slightest insight or taxation. 

The whole point is to the neoliberal sharks that the rich must get richer and the poor must be made powerless. The numbers of the poor have been increasing drastically ever since the beginning of neoliberalism in the eighties (exploratory beginnings in Latin America already in the seventies, with catastrophic results). Poor people are made to be so invisible, so voiceless that they can be totally disregarded. Which is precisely the goal of neoliberalism.

Conclusion

It is mind-blowing how the world can have come to a situation where it is being run by hungry sharks with no understanding of how the world economy can function in a rational way. The gamblers follow no rules whatsoever, except profit, and humanitarian considerations have no place in this casino.

What Jean Ziegler is doing in such an expert and passionate way in his latest book is denouncing the monstrosities of the world we live in, using his typical forceful style, with his trademark of genuine human empathy. He is explaining how we got to be where we are and what has to be done to remedy the gross negligence of human rights.   

We can no more sit lethargically in our comfortable homes, watching the blatant propaganda that is fed to us through the Main-Stream Media, listening to the biased reports about the U.S. wars that are fought, so they tell us, in the name of freedom and democracy. The truth is that the wars are fought to make huge profits for the arms industries and all the big corporations. Take over lands and nations by war or by insidious so-called ‘aid’ that ensnares the nations in a net of debts that it is impossible to get out of. 

After reading Jean Ziegler’s book, one is convinced that the time has come to act on what we know to be the truth. The West is corrupt to the gills and,  if we the people are too lethargic, ignorant or frightened to do something NOW, then the pillars of the world will crumble. And that will be the end.

Notes:

[1]  ‘Destruction massive – Géopolitique de la faim’ published in October 2011 ; Éditions du Seuil ; Jean Ziegler, a former professor of sociology at the University of Geneva and the Sorbonne, Paris, is member of the UN Human Rights Council’s Advisory Committee with an expertise on economic, social and cultural rights. For the period 2000-2008, Jean Ziegler was the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. In March 2008, Jean Ziegler was elected Member of the UN Human Rights Council's Advisory Committee. one year later, the Human Rights Council decided, by acclamation, to re-elect Jean Ziegler as a member of the Advisory Committee, a post he will now hold until 2012. In August 2009, the members of the Advisory Committee elected Jean Ziegler as Vice-President of the forum. 

[2]  NAFTA = North American Free Trade Agreement; CAFTA = Central America Free Trade Agreement; FTAA = Free Trade Area  of the Americas

[3]  A study by Oxfam (Oxford Committee for Famine Relief) which has become famous showed  that wherever the IMF applied a structural adjustment plan during the decade 1990-2000, millions of more people were thrown into the abyss of hunger. Jean Ziegler: Destruction  massive; p.179

[4]  For the horribly disfiguring and ultimately deadly disease called noma see ‘NOMA – The Face of Poverty’, By Siv O'Neall and the UN report 'The tragedy of Noma' by Mr. Jean Ziegler, Vice-President of the UN Human Rights Council Advisory Committee. 

[5]  on December 10, 1948, the 64 members of the UN unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It recognises in Article 25 that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_food

[6]  This Brazilian doctor and physiologist (1908 – 1973) to whom Jean Ziegler devotes two entire chapters in Destruction Massive, was an ardent fighter for the right to food, starting with his homeland in the Nordeste region of Brazil. When his book Geografia da fome (Geography of hunger) was published in 1946, de Castro already had a long career behind him. He became a world famous fighter for the right to food, and in particular he had studied the effects of undernourishment and child malnutrition.  He fled from Brazil to Paris in 1964 because of the barbaric military dictatorship that ravaged Brazil from 1964 to 1985.Geografia da fome has been translated into 26 languages.


http://www.zcommunications.org/hunger-is-a-weapon-of-mass-destruction-says-jean-ziegler-by-siv-oneall

728x90
728x90

아프리카는 앞으로 2배 이상의 인구가 될 것이라 한다. 거기에 엎친 데 덮친 격으로 기후변화로 가장 고통을 받는 지역이 될 것이라 예상되기도 한다. 

지금도 아프리카는 부족한 식량 생산과 빈곤으로 기아에 시달리는 사람들이 많이 살고 있다.

그들은 이런 상황을 해결하기 위해 현재 국가적으로 녹색혁명과 유전자조작 작물 같은 생명공학에 큰 기대를 걸고 있다.

물론 비영리단체에서는 그러한 방향이 아니라 생태농업의 방식으로 기아문제를 해결할 수 있다며 활동하고 있지만, 역사가 증명하듯이 그들이 아프리카를 그들이 원하는 방향으로 끌고 갈 수 있을 것 같지는 않다. 

아래의 기사는 주류의 입장에서 아프리카의 기아와 농업생산을 해결하려고 하는 내용을 잘 보여준다.

아무튼 우리가 선택할 수 있는 길은 무엇인가?





유전자조작 옥수수 품종을 케냐의 상점에서 2년 뒤 사용할 수 있을 거라고 한다.  

과학자들은 지역 시장에 출하할 수 있기 전에 가뭄 저항성 옥수수 종자의 현지 시험을 실시하고 있다고 케냐 농업연구소의 생명공학 담당자 Simion Gichuki 씨가 목요일에 말했다. 

모두 계획대로 된다면 농민들은 2014년부터 종자를 이용할 수 있을 것이다. 

Gichuki 박사는 동부 지역에 있는 Kari의 Kiboko 연구소에서만 실시된다고 한다. 그는 "계획대로 옥수수 종자를 얻을 수 있을 것으로 예상한다"고 한다.

Kiboko의 연구는 아프리카의 물에 효율적인 옥수수(WEMA) 프로젝트라는 이름으로 현행 수확량보다 개선된 유전자조작 옥수수를 개발한다.

나이로비 사파리클럽에서 열린 2011년 세계 상업화 생명공학/유전자조작 작물의 상태의 오찬이 열린 목요일의 연설에서, WEMA 케냐 책임자 James Gethi 씨는 프로젝트가 가뭄 저항성 옥수수 품종을 구체화하고 있다고 했다. 

Gethi 박사는 "우리는 높은 수확량과 지역에 적합한 유전자원을 가지고 새로운 가뭄 저항성 옥수수 품종을 개발하고 있다"고 했다. 

국가를 먹여 살릴 400만 자루의 부족량을 가득 채우고자 하고 있는 케냐는 최근 유전자조작의 수입을 허용했다. 

10명의 케냐인 가운데 1명은 기아에 직면해 있지만, 일부 정치인들은 유전자조작 수입의 안정성을 걱정한다. 

Gethi 박사는 상업적 생산에 투입될 유전자조작 가뭄 저항성 옥수수가 농민의 재배면적당 수확량을 1톤 미만에서 최대 5톤으로 개선시킬 것으로 예상한다고 했다.

"그러나 유전자조작 옥수수는 시험을 거쳐야 한다."

케냐 작물 건강 관찰서비스(Plant Health Inspectorate Service)에 의한 그런 시험은 종자의 적합성을 알아보는 데 도움이 될 것이다. 종자의 시범재배는 종자가 시장에 출하되기 전에 완료될 것이다. 

그 프로젝트가 성공한다면, 케냐의 옥수수 생산을 개선시키는 데 도움되고 부족량이 점점 늘어나고 있는 지속적인 옥수수 부족을 끝낼 것이다.

Egerton대학 Tegemeo 농업정책개발연구소에 따르면, 케냐는 2009~2010년 회계년도에 2300만 자루를 생산하여 국가의 소비량 3700만 자루의 거의 절반만 충당했다.

교육부 Ayiecho Olweny 차관은 빨리 유전자조작 작물을 채용하는 쪽으로 나아가야 한다고 말했다.

그는 "우리나라의 활동가들에게는 많은 관심을 쏟지 말라; 그들은 이러한 현대기술로 식량 지속가능성을 이룩하려는 우리를 괴롭힐 것이다"라며 다른 국가들은 그것을 채용하고 있으며 케냐인보다 긴 기대수명을 산다고 덧붙였다. 

Machakos의 Kari 책임자 Charles Kariuki 박사는 그것이 농업생산의 제약을 극복할 기회를 제공하기에 국가에선 생명공학을 받아들여야 한다고 했다.


신품종 개발

그는 "생명공학을 이용하여 과학자들은 짧은 시간에 성숙하는 신품종 작물을 개발할 수 있다"고 했다. 또한 그 식물은 가뭄을 포함한 과제에 더 저항력을 지닌다. 

농생명공학 적용의 취득을 위한 국제 서비스 Africentre의 책임자 Margaret Karembu는 가뭄 저항성 옥수수는 식량안보를 보장하는 방향으로 나아가는 방법으로서 환영한다고 했다. 

"식량생산을 개선하기 위한 생명공학의 채용은 더 이상 선택이 아니다"라고 Karembu 박사는 말한다.

"식량생산은 계속하여 줄고 있는 반면 인구는 늘어나고 있다. 그들을 먹여 살리려면 우리는 더 이상 생명공학을 회피할 수 없다."

그녀의 발언은 유전자조작 품종을 더 싼 값에 소농이 이용할 수 있을 것이라는 아프리카 농업기술재단의 Grace Wachoro 씨에 의해 지지를 받는다.

WEMA 품종들의 시험은 2009년 케냐와 탄자니아에서 실시된 일련의 "모의 시험"으로 정보가 제공되었다.

Gethi 박사에 따르면, 가뭄 저항성 옥수수가 아플라톡신 오염의 사례를 줄일 것이라 한다.



http://allafrica.com/stories/201202240112.html

728x90
728x90

당신이 기아, 사회위기, 기후변화에 대해 걱정한다면 답은 하나다: 소규모 농업

Document Actions


drying rice by john cavanagh

Organic rice being dried by sun. North Cotabato, Philippines.

Photo by John Cavanagh

There is battle raging across the world over who can better feed its people: small-scale farmers practicing sustainable agriculture, or giant agribusinesses using chemical fertilizers and pesticides. 

It was small-scale organic farmers growing rice for themselves and local markets in the Philippines who first convinced us that they could feed both their communities and their country. Part of what convinced us was simple economics: These farmers demonstrated substantial immediate savings from eliminating chemical inputs while, within a few harvests—if not immediately—their yields were close to or above their previous harvests. From these farmers, we also learned of the health and environmental benefits from this shift.

Moving up from what we learned in the Philippines to examine other countries, we have concluded that small-scale farmers practicing different kinds of what is now called agroecology can feed the world. Agroecology extends the organic label to a broader category of ecosystem-friendly, locally adapted agricultural systems, including agro-forestry and techniques like crop rotation, topsoil management, and watershed restoration. (For more details on our research and conclusions, check out our “Can Danilo Atilano Feed the World?" in the current Earth Island Journal, the magazine of the California-based Earth Island Institute.)  

Eager to learn more and network with others from across the globe, Robin accepted an invitation from theTransnational Institute and the International Institute of Social Studies to speak about our Philippine research at a global conference in the Netherlands on alternative approaches to food and hunger.

"We won’t solve hunger and stop climate change with industrial farming on large plantations."

She came away even more convinced that small-scale farmers are our only hope. She also came away excited to have met an impressive range of experts on the subject, including a bold champion for small-scale farmers: United Nations “Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food” Olivier de Shutter. Modest and articulate, de Schutter looks more like the Belgian law professor he is than the outspoken proponent of small-scale agroecology he has become.  

A UN report may sound like dry reading but de Schutter’s is filled with zingers. Case in point: “Recent [agroecology] projects conducted in 20 African countries demonstrated a doubling of crop yields over a period of 3-10 years.” Indeed, de Schutter’s December 2010 report pulls together studies from all over the world that analyze small-scale farmers practicing agroecology.

The result is powerful stuff. As de Schutter concludes, “We won’t solve hunger and stop climate change with industrial farming on large plantations. The solution lies in supporting small-scale farmers’ knowledge and experimentation, and in raising incomes of smallholders so as to contribute to rural development.” As he put it at the conference, “Each region must be able to feed itself.”

rice field by robin broad

Rice field, with papaya saplings. Bataan, Philippines.

 

Photo by Robin Broad

De Schutter’s work reinforces not just our findings, but what another conference’s speaker, U.S. food expert and firebrandFrances Moore Lappé, has been arguing for decades: We already grow more than enough food to feed the world’s people. The problem is not yields or production per se; it is that conventional plantation agriculture, combined with a development model that prioritizes cheap exports over food crops, have pushed millions off their fields. The nearly one billion people who are hungry are in that situation primarily because they no longer have land to grow their own food or because they are too poor to buy food.

The conference also featured Martha Robbins, an impressive young Canadian woman who, along with her parents and siblings, runs a family farm. Robbins spoke as a member of Via Campesina, which represents about 200 million small-scale farmers in 70 countries in a movement that promotes “food sovereignty,” by which they mean “defending small-scale farming, agroecology and local production.” Robbins focused many of her remarks on Via Campesina’s work with other young farmers: “We’re seeing a paradigm shift,” she emphasized, with “youth increasingly interested in farming.” 

The U.S. government is working with Monsanto to push farmers [in Nepal] to adopt chemical agriculture using imported Monsanto seeds.

De Schutter made it clear that his UN report builds on such on-the-ground experiences as Robbins’ and also on the rich body of work on agroecology by scholar-practitioners.  Notable among these are other conference speakers such as Berkeley’s Miguel Altieri, Food First’s Eric Holt-Gimenez, who works with the Campesino-a-Campesino movement, and conference organizer and Philippine peasant expert Jun Borras—all champions of small-scale farmers and agroecology.

Fatou Batta photo courtesy of Groundswell International
Women Farmers Feed the World

Why the question of agricultural sustainability is also 
a question of equality.

So, what is the take-away from all this? Well, as individuals and communities, we have a lot to do with influencing the future of farming. At a minimum, we need to “vote with our forks,” to use the phrase of the “slow food” movement. This means buying local, organic, and whole-grain products and limiting our consumption of meat, as Tony Weis stressed at the conference. But beyond that, we need to raise our voices and collective power to convince governments, international organizations, and philanthropists such as the Gates Foundation to stop supporting and subsidizing chemical agribusiness and global trade, and instead shift incentives to local farmers and domestic production. 

But let us not be naïve: The fight against giant agribusiness and chemical firms is a major one. Indeed, a key immediate battle where we need to raise our collective voices, outrage, and action is over Monsanto’s incursion into Nepal. Even as we write, the U.S. government is working with Monsanto to push farmers there to adopt chemical agriculture using imported Monsanto seeds. 

Whether one is worried about hunger and global social crises, or climate change and other ecological crises, the answer is the same: small-scale organic farmers. Their future is central to whether the battle to end hunger can be won.


John Cavanagh and Robin BroadJohn Cavanagh and Robin Broad wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. 

Robin is a Professor of International Development at American University in Washington, D.C. and has worked as an international economist in the U.S. Treasury Department and the U.S. Congress. John is director of the Institute for Policy Studies, and is co-chair (with David Korten) of the New Economy Working Group. They are co-authors of three books and numerous articles on the global economy, and have been traveling the country and the world for their project Local Dreams: Finding Rootedness in the Age of Vulnerability. 

Interested?

  • Slower Living for a Rooted Future
    Vermont is leading the way toward agricultural and economic change. What we can learn from the "Slow Living Summit" about building sustainable economies everywhere.
  • Cornerstones of a Rooted Economy
    Can the small fishers of Trinidad and Tobago become pillars of a new economy when the oil- and gas-based economy finally runs dry?
  • The Coming Global Food Fight
    As aggression mounts with the rise of food prices worldwide, small-scale farms rooted in local markets could avert international disaster—and lead the way to "food democracy."


728x90
728x90

올해 온 세계에서 5살 이하의 아이 가운데 900만 명이 죽을 것이라고 합니다. 그들의 1/3 이상이 기아와 관련되어 죽음에 이를 것이라고 합니다. 2009년 11월 세계의 정상이 기아문제를 해결하자고 모였지만, 실질적인 대안은 마련되지 않았습니다.


브라질의 룰라 전 대통령은 "천문학적인 돈이 실패한 은행들을 살리는 데 낭비되고 있는데, 이 돈의 절반이면 지구에서 굶주림을 완전히 퇴치할 수 있다"고 지적하기도 했습니다. 하지만 실제로는 아무런 해결책이 마련되지 못했습니다.


당시 교황 베네딕토 16세는 선진국의 기아문제에 대한 냉담함을 정면으로 비난하고, 곡물시장 투기꾼들의 탐욕이 바로 기아의 원인이며 "기아문제를 빈곤국의 사회정치적 상황에서 비롯된 구조적이고, 또는 감수해야 할 유감스런 일로 본다"고 비판했습니다.


우리의 반기문 형님도 "세계에 10억이 넘는 인구가 아무 도움도 받지 못한 채 기아에 시달리고, 특히 해마다 1,7000명 이상의 아이들이 기아로 목숨을 잃는다"며 선진국의 지원을 호소했습니다. 하지만 아무것도 아루어지지 않았습니다.


올해 동아프리카에는 60년 만의 가뭄이 찾아왔습니다. 가뜩이나 국내 정치가 혼란스럽고 농업생산성이 떨어지는 판에 설상가상의 일이 터진 것입니다. 이제 긴급하게 구호의 손길을 내밀어 줘야 합니다. 아래는 유니세프 한국위원회의 주소입니다. 동아프리카 긴급구호를 위한 후원페이지입니다. 우리의 10만 원이면 130명의 아이에게 비상식을 제공할 수 있답니다. 10만 원이 부담스럽다면, 3만 원과 5만 원 후원도 있습니다. 많은 관심과 참여를 바랍니다.




아래는 소말리아 기근 사태에 대한 CNN의 보도기사입니다.







728x90
728x90




"세계의 식품 가격은 계속 높아진다"고 최근 World Bank가 발표했다.

2010년 10월과 2011년 1월 사이 Bank의 식품 가격지수는 15%까지 높아지고, 세계의 밀, 옥수수, 설탕과 식용유의 가격은 모두 급격히 올랐다.

2010년 6월 이후의 결과로, 

"저-중위 수입의 나라에서 약 4400만 명이 극심한 빈곤층으로 전락했다."

미국은 이러한 경향에 영향을 받지 않는다.

2006~2008년 사이 실시된 Gallup Polls에 따르면, 미국인의 16%는 금융 때문에 굶주리게 되었다. 그리고 높아지는 식품 가격의 추세는 그 범주에 들어가는 더욱 많은 가족을 압박하고 있다.

이번주 U.S. Labor Department는 소비자 가격지수 조사를 발표했다. 옥수수, 밀, 대두와 같은 곡물의 가격이 주로 흉작과 옥수수를 에탄올로 사용하여 지난 여름 이후 거의 두배가 되었다고 한다. 도매 식품 가격은 2월에 3.9%까지 올랐다. - 36년 만의 가장 급격한 증가이다. 고기와 유제품 가격도 신선채소 가격처럼 또한 2월에 약 50%까지 껑충 뛰었다. Department는 "식품 비용은 1년의 대부분 기간 동안 계속 오를 듯하다"고 예측했다.

식품 가격 상승의 영향은 CNN에서 보도했듯이 알라바마 Lee County에서 시장 식품은행(Community Market food bank)에 접근한 가구가 3000가구 이상이라는 것을 통해 볼 수 있다. 


Community Director Elsie Lott가 CNN에 말하길,

"만약 가격이 더욱 오른다면, 당신은 더욱 많은 사람이 이곳이나 다른 식품은행에 찾아가는 걸 볼 수 있을 것이다... 사람들은 현재 우리에게 식품을 달라고 요청하고 있다."

미국인 4명 가운데 하나는 "다음날 식탁에 놓을 음식을 마련할 충분한 돈이 없어서 걱정한다"고 Food Research and Action Center (FRAC)는 보고했다. 그들의 정보는 지난달 FRAC와 Tyson Foods, Inc에서 위임을 받아 Hart Research Associates에서 실시한 national hunger survey에서 나왔다. 그 조사는 응답자의 24%가 "내년에 어떠한 점에서 양식을 마련하는 것에 대해 매우 또는 상당히 걱정하고 있는 반면, 31%는 조금 걱정한다는 것을 나타냈다."

728x90

+ Recent posts