Asks Luigi Guarino at the Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog.
Dave Woods points out in the comments that:
"[T]here is a glaring hole about the value of the germplasm collections as the basis for varietal improvement both within and beyond the CG and their future value under climate change. But a lot of this value was in bringing in and screening new samples year by year. This was ticking along at about 12,000 samples around the time of the CBD but now seems to have gone down to 5,000 or so a year under the FAO Seed Treaty: FAO is being coy about this number. Unless this figure goes up fast the Treaty is not a policy plus for the CG and could damage global agriculture."
And then there's the dead hand of bureaucracy and "intellectual property" represented by SMTAs ...
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Friday, 18 March 2011
Sunday, 2 January 2011
That Trillion Dollar Food Bill
"With the pressure on world prices of most commodities not abating, the international community must remain vigilant against further supply shocks in 2011" FAO (pdf).
According to the Washington Post: “In the 10 years before the 2007-08 food crisis, the global bill for food imports averaged less than $500 billion a year.” But now, since that initial Shock, the crisis, if too little remediating action is taken, seems likely to escalate further causing more major global repercussions in the form of gnawing hunger and destabilisation.
The FAO food price index tells the story in stark terms. From a baseline of 90 in 2000 it rose to 115 in 2005, soaring through 154 in 2007 and up to 191 in 2008. It then dropped back a little in 2009, but by October 2010 it had leapt up again to 198, reaching a peak of 205 in November 2010, the last month so far recorded.
We Have to Admit that Western “Development” Models Have Failed
These higher than ever food prices in a deliberately globalised, commoditised world, mean that the burgeoning numbers of impoverished peoples - who let’s not forget, have been effectively encouraged to become dependent on imports of their very basic sustenance - will be pushed closer to starvation ever more frequently and over wider areas. "The import dependance has become quite devastating, the expenditure for Less Developed Countries on food imports rose from 9 billion dollars in 2002 to 23 billion in 2008" reported Supachai Panitchpakdi, The Secretary General of the UN Conference on Trade and Development.
And as if all that wasn't bad enough, you'd hardly believe it, but even now rulers of poor nations, with the connivance of the wealthy transnational community, are pursuing wilful asset-stripping and sell-off of vital farmland, which will exacerbate hunger and dependence even further, entrenching it ineradicably into future decades if no-one acts to stop it.
As delegates told ENInews at a recent conference in Nairobi covering the global land-grab: "... corporations are using land for intensive farming, leaving it badly degraded for use by local communities when contracts end ... Global food market price volatility affecting countries depending on imports is a key factor driving the rush ... A surging demand for bio-fuels by oil companies," and perhaps most shockingly "the expectation of subsidies for carbon seizure through plantations and the avoidance of deforestation are the other factors."
IFPRI Report, 'Reflections on the Global food Crisis: How Did It Happen? How Has It Hurt? And How Can We Prevent the Next One?'
Ht: STWR
According to the Washington Post: “In the 10 years before the 2007-08 food crisis, the global bill for food imports averaged less than $500 billion a year.” But now, since that initial Shock, the crisis, if too little remediating action is taken, seems likely to escalate further causing more major global repercussions in the form of gnawing hunger and destabilisation.
The FAO food price index tells the story in stark terms. From a baseline of 90 in 2000 it rose to 115 in 2005, soaring through 154 in 2007 and up to 191 in 2008. It then dropped back a little in 2009, but by October 2010 it had leapt up again to 198, reaching a peak of 205 in November 2010, the last month so far recorded.
We Have to Admit that Western “Development” Models Have Failed
These higher than ever food prices in a deliberately globalised, commoditised world, mean that the burgeoning numbers of impoverished peoples - who let’s not forget, have been effectively encouraged to become dependent on imports of their very basic sustenance - will be pushed closer to starvation ever more frequently and over wider areas. "The import dependance has become quite devastating, the expenditure for Less Developed Countries on food imports rose from 9 billion dollars in 2002 to 23 billion in 2008" reported Supachai Panitchpakdi, The Secretary General of the UN Conference on Trade and Development.
And as if all that wasn't bad enough, you'd hardly believe it, but even now rulers of poor nations, with the connivance of the wealthy transnational community, are pursuing wilful asset-stripping and sell-off of vital farmland, which will exacerbate hunger and dependence even further, entrenching it ineradicably into future decades if no-one acts to stop it.
As delegates told ENInews at a recent conference in Nairobi covering the global land-grab: "... corporations are using land for intensive farming, leaving it badly degraded for use by local communities when contracts end ... Global food market price volatility affecting countries depending on imports is a key factor driving the rush ... A surging demand for bio-fuels by oil companies," and perhaps most shockingly "the expectation of subsidies for carbon seizure through plantations and the avoidance of deforestation are the other factors."
IFPRI Report, 'Reflections on the Global food Crisis: How Did It Happen? How Has It Hurt? And How Can We Prevent the Next One?'
Ht: STWR
Friday, 22 October 2010
Hunger: The Future is Obvious
Whoever heard of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food? Well me neither, but he exists, he's called Olivier de Schutter and he has the website to prove it.
Yesterday M. de Schutter was at the United Nations in New York delivering his latest report "Access to Land and the Right to Food" (PDF).
There's some stuff in there that ought to worry us, for example he says 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."
But there's also some interesting and useful data in the report that further supports all those of us who believe that small proprietorships, small farmers and growers, are the best and most effective way forward for everyone to have that most basic human requirement: Food.
The Rapporteur points to the necessity for reform of the currrent land-ownership systems:
"Agrarian reform leading to owner-operated family farms is desirable for a number of reasons. As land is transferred to family farms, idle lands of large estates are brought into production, thus increasing productivity levels. A 2003 World Bank analysis of land policies in 73 countries between 1960 and 2000 shows that countries in which the distribution of land was initially more equitable achieved growth rates two to three times higher than those in which land distribution was initially less equitable."
"The poverty-reducing potential of more equitable land distribution is further illustrated by statistical analyses showing that “a decrease of one third in the land distribution inequality index results in a reduction in the poverty level of one half in about 12-14 years. The same level of poverty reduction may be obtained in 60 years by agricultural growth sustained at an annual average of 3 per cent and without changing land distribution inequality”. Land reforms in Asia following the Second World War resulted in a 30 per cent increase in the incomes of the bottom 80 per cent of households, while leading to an 80 per cent decline in the incomes of the top 4 per cent."
"In addition to its economic functions of stimulating growth and reducing rural poverty, more equitable access to land for the rural poor contributes to social inclusion and economic empowerment. Access to land also improves food security, since it makes food more easily and cheaply available, providing a buffer against external shocks. Evidence resulting from land redistribution in China suggests that “even though access to land insures household income only moderately against shocks, it provides almost complete insurance against malnutrition”. More equitable land distribution and the development of owneroperated family farms are thus desirable on both efficiency and equity grounds. Small family-owned farms can use the land in more sustainable ways, since sustainable farming is often more labour-intensive and requires the linking of
farmers to the land. Moreover, where rural areas face high unemployment and underemployment and relative scarcity of land, it is more sensible, from both an economic perspective and a social justice perspective, to raise land productivity than to try to increase labour productivity."
So what's the hold-up? The same old dog-in-the-manger vested interests that always intervened in Jesse Collings' day is the shameful fact. As George Monbiot put it in his article "Small is Bountiful":
"Though the rich world’s governments won’t hear it, the issue of whether or not the world will be fed is partly a function of ownership. This reflects an unexpected discovery. It was first made in 1962 by the Nobel economist Amartya Sen, and has since been confirmed by dozens of further studies. There is an inverse relationship between the size of farms and the amount of crops they produce per hectare. The smaller they are, the greater the yield."
Yesterday M. de Schutter was at the United Nations in New York delivering his latest report "Access to Land and the Right to Food" (PDF).
There's some stuff in there that ought to worry us, for example he says 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."
But there's also some interesting and useful data in the report that further supports all those of us who believe that small proprietorships, small farmers and growers, are the best and most effective way forward for everyone to have that most basic human requirement: Food.
The Rapporteur points to the necessity for reform of the currrent land-ownership systems:
"Agrarian reform leading to owner-operated family farms is desirable for a number of reasons. As land is transferred to family farms, idle lands of large estates are brought into production, thus increasing productivity levels. A 2003 World Bank analysis of land policies in 73 countries between 1960 and 2000 shows that countries in which the distribution of land was initially more equitable achieved growth rates two to three times higher than those in which land distribution was initially less equitable."
"The poverty-reducing potential of more equitable land distribution is further illustrated by statistical analyses showing that “a decrease of one third in the land distribution inequality index results in a reduction in the poverty level of one half in about 12-14 years. The same level of poverty reduction may be obtained in 60 years by agricultural growth sustained at an annual average of 3 per cent and without changing land distribution inequality”. Land reforms in Asia following the Second World War resulted in a 30 per cent increase in the incomes of the bottom 80 per cent of households, while leading to an 80 per cent decline in the incomes of the top 4 per cent."
"In addition to its economic functions of stimulating growth and reducing rural poverty, more equitable access to land for the rural poor contributes to social inclusion and economic empowerment. Access to land also improves food security, since it makes food more easily and cheaply available, providing a buffer against external shocks. Evidence resulting from land redistribution in China suggests that “even though access to land insures household income only moderately against shocks, it provides almost complete insurance against malnutrition”. More equitable land distribution and the development of owneroperated family farms are thus desirable on both efficiency and equity grounds. Small family-owned farms can use the land in more sustainable ways, since sustainable farming is often more labour-intensive and requires the linking of
farmers to the land. Moreover, where rural areas face high unemployment and underemployment and relative scarcity of land, it is more sensible, from both an economic perspective and a social justice perspective, to raise land productivity than to try to increase labour productivity."
So what's the hold-up? The same old dog-in-the-manger vested interests that always intervened in Jesse Collings' day is the shameful fact. As George Monbiot put it in his article "Small is Bountiful":
"Though the rich world’s governments won’t hear it, the issue of whether or not the world will be fed is partly a function of ownership. This reflects an unexpected discovery. It was first made in 1962 by the Nobel economist Amartya Sen, and has since been confirmed by dozens of further studies. There is an inverse relationship between the size of farms and the amount of crops they produce per hectare. The smaller they are, the greater the yield."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)