Just stumbled upon this wonderful homage to the foundation of our agricultural systems: soil. The final line? "We're simply not going to be able to keep treating it like dirt." Highly recommended.
The Good Earth, Charles Mann, National Geographic, September 2008.
25 November 2008
22 November 2008
food crisis? what food crisis?
Remember the food crisis from the first half of 2008? It's evaporated, at least for the moment. U.S. farmers are struggling to figure out how to pay the bills, which are even bigger now as seed companies and fertilizer manufacturers worked hard to siphon off as much of that high-price income as they could.
Fields of grains and losses, New York Times, 20 November.
Fields of grains and losses, New York Times, 20 November.
21 November 2008
Finding a solution to soil's carbon problem
Soil is a natural carbon sink but its ability to store it is being compromised. Could a return to organic farming be the answer?
General Assembly President calls for ‘food democracy’ in face of global crisis
19 November 2008 - General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto today called for a new politics “that starts from the bottom up, not the top down” in the face of the current global food crisis of soaring prices and mass hunger.
“Without innovative and broad changes in our food policies, we will see hunger once again spread across the world like a mediaeval plague,” he told a conference on the politics of food at Columbia University in New York.
“The shameful reality is that, despite the fact that we have the knowledge, the financial and technological means to prevent it, half of the human population subsists at levels of malnutrition and poverty completely incompatible with their inherent dignity and rights. This is not only shameful – it is, to use religious terminology, downright sinful.”
Mr. D’Escoto called for an end to the dominance by the monoculture of industrialized food giants and the birth of a multi-functional policy focused on the poor and their right to food.
“In food politics, I would advocate food democracy,” he said. “We can move our food provisioning away from dominance by a few very large corporations to the control of people-oriented food systems that respect communities and their right to food sovereignty, and localized and regionalized food systems at the local and regional levels.”
But for many, solutions are coming too late. “Hunger and malnutrition, exclusion and poverty are taking thousands of lives each day,” he said. “We must stop deluding ourselves and face up to the fact that the ‘haves’ of this world must change their way of life, the patterns of consumption that show little or no regard for the disastrous impact of their lifestyle on the wellbeing of their neighbours, our brothers and sisters, and our shared home, the planet Earth.”
20 November 2008
Diouf appeals for a new world agricultural order
Proposes 2009 Summit to reform present system, find $30 billion
19 November 2008, Rome - FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf today appealed to world leaders to meet together next year to design a new agricultural order and find $30 billion a year to eradicate hunger from the Earth once and for all.
Addressing a special session of the FAO’s 191-member-nation governing Conference, Diouf declared the World Summit was needed because, “After more than 60 years [since FAO’s foundation] it is essential to create a new system of world food security”.
The Director-General continued: “We must correct the present system that generates world food insecurity on account of international market distortions resulting from agricultural subsidies, customs tariffs and technical barriers to trade, but also from skewed distribution of resources of official development assistance and of national budgets of developing countries”.
19 November 2008
more thoughts on the future US secretary of agriculture
An interesting blog post on possible, probable, and wish list candidates for the US secretary of agriculture. My favorite from the list -- Mark Ritchie, currently Secretary of State in Minnesota. Mark has a long, amazing history in progressive agriculture politics. That coupled with his current experience in a top government administration position make him a realistic candidate as well. I do greatly admire Michael Pollan but would rather see him continue writing those provocative tomes.
12 November 2008
why vilsack is a bad choice for secretary of agriculture
So I knew the Obama honeymoon wouldn't last that long. He's going to appoint centrists like himself. And you don't win the presidency without incurring a few debts. Iowa is a pretty important place for Obama, not least of all because it was where his presidential journey began. But that doesn't mean that the former governor of Iowa is a good choice for the secretary of agriculture. Far from it.
I want an agriculture secretary that's a visionary, or at least capable of some vision -- towards a different agricultural production system for the 21st century. Obama's shown extraordinary vision to reshape presidential politics. Can we have that sort of vision for our agriculture as well? A recognition of how broken agricultural production is: that farmers don't receive cost of production for the crops they produce; that synthetic fertilizers destroy our soil, are creating a massive dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, and are the principal contribution our agriculture makes toward climate change; the list goes on.
Why not Vilsack? In one example: pharmaceutical-producing corn. He's a huge proponent of producing drugs in Iowa cornfields. Never mind the high possibilities of cross-contamination. Never mind that this is a technology that benefits only a handful of farmers and a handful of drug companies. Never mind that the costs of the inevitable contamination will be socialized to all farmers who grown corn in the U.S., when export markets reject our crops.
Maybe he doesn't care, maybe he thinks we can just turn that corn into ethanol and forget the rest of the world. That's not the approach of a 21st century visionary. It's just more of the same American imperialism, shove it down their throats agricultural policy of the last decades. I want change.
I want an agriculture secretary that's a visionary, or at least capable of some vision -- towards a different agricultural production system for the 21st century. Obama's shown extraordinary vision to reshape presidential politics. Can we have that sort of vision for our agriculture as well? A recognition of how broken agricultural production is: that farmers don't receive cost of production for the crops they produce; that synthetic fertilizers destroy our soil, are creating a massive dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, and are the principal contribution our agriculture makes toward climate change; the list goes on.
Why not Vilsack? In one example: pharmaceutical-producing corn. He's a huge proponent of producing drugs in Iowa cornfields. Never mind the high possibilities of cross-contamination. Never mind that this is a technology that benefits only a handful of farmers and a handful of drug companies. Never mind that the costs of the inevitable contamination will be socialized to all farmers who grown corn in the U.S., when export markets reject our crops.
Maybe he doesn't care, maybe he thinks we can just turn that corn into ethanol and forget the rest of the world. That's not the approach of a 21st century visionary. It's just more of the same American imperialism, shove it down their throats agricultural policy of the last decades. I want change.
11 November 2008
Monsanto's missing mice
The Austrian government today released results showing reduced fertility in mice that have been fed a variety of Monsanto's genetically engineered maize: NK603 x MON 810. The variety contains two different genes: one that makes the maize resistant to Monsanto's proprietary weedkilling chemical, Roundup, and the other that makes the maize produce its own pesticide within the plant.
It should come as no surprise that health effects are found long after the variety has been cleared for placing on the market and in the human food supply. Testing of genetically engineered crops is notoriously superficial and long-term studies are done rarely, if ever. A recent review by Jose Domingo presents a strong critique of what passes for safety evaluations.
There is little funding for such studies and little interest on the part of governments to really dig deep into the possible health effects of GMOs. We will see more announcements like these in the future, but unfortunately far fewer than the necessary scientific inquiry to protect public health and the food supply would dictate.
It should come as no surprise that health effects are found long after the variety has been cleared for placing on the market and in the human food supply. Testing of genetically engineered crops is notoriously superficial and long-term studies are done rarely, if ever. A recent review by Jose Domingo presents a strong critique of what passes for safety evaluations.
There is little funding for such studies and little interest on the part of governments to really dig deep into the possible health effects of GMOs. We will see more announcements like these in the future, but unfortunately far fewer than the necessary scientific inquiry to protect public health and the food supply would dictate.
21 August 2008
who is profiting from the high price of commodities? Monsanto.
Global commodity prices hit record highs this year. You might think rural America would get some benefit from higher prices for their crops, a respite from years of commodity prices far below a farmer's cost of production, but think again. Agribusiness companies know how to grab their share and more of that extra revenue -- raise prices. Monsanto is bragging to its shareholders that it's going to raise prices of its corn seed 35%. As they control a huge amount of the corn seed market, here and around the world, they can do what they want with corn seed prices.
Read this story from the Organization for Competitive Markets to see how the 35% price increase -- or about $100 a bag -- will fatten Monsanto's bottom line. Clearly genetic engineering isn't about feeding people, it's about feeding your stock price.
Read this story from the Organization for Competitive Markets to see how the 35% price increase -- or about $100 a bag -- will fatten Monsanto's bottom line. Clearly genetic engineering isn't about feeding people, it's about feeding your stock price.
why are dead zones so popular these days?
It seems every summer there is more and more media coverage of ocean dead zones, those regions of our seas that become so polluted with algae that grow on fertilizer run-off that there's no oxygen left for other species. This summer the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico was predicted to be the largest one yet, although it didn't quite break the record.
This blog post from the Huffington Post gives a little deeper analysis of why dead zones and why the story won't go away, at least until we put serious effort into changing agricultural production practices.
This blog post from the Huffington Post gives a little deeper analysis of why dead zones and why the story won't go away, at least until we put serious effort into changing agricultural production practices.
17 August 2008
A new era for agriculture?
The latest backgrounder of Food First! has some excellent analysis of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge for Science, Technology and Development (UN IAASTD). Read it here.
18 April 2008
biofuels and the food crisis
Stories about the rising world prices of food grains are filling the pages of newspapers around the world. Paul Krugman, economist and New York Times opinion page columnist, contributed to the conversation with an insightful op-ed last week, "Grains gone wild."
One of his principal conclusions?
"We also need a pushback against biofuels, which turn out to have been a terrible mistake."
One of his principal conclusions?
"We also need a pushback against biofuels, which turn out to have been a terrible mistake."
UN gives strong backing to sustainable agriculture systems
Agriculture: Overhaul of agriculture systems needed, says new report
Kuala Lumpur, 15 Apr (Lim Li Ching) -- An independent and multi-stakeholder international assessment of agriculture has concluded that a radical change is needed in agriculture policy and practice, in order to address hunger and poverty, social inequities and environmental sustainability questions.
The final report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology (IAASTD) was launched simultaneously on 15 April 2008 in Washington, London, Nairobi, Delhi, Paris and a number of other cities worldwide.
The report (the product of work of over 400 authors) was finalised at a meeting of over 50 governments held in Johannesburg last week.
“Business as usual is not an option”, said Professor Robert Watson, Director of the IAASTD and chief scientist of the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Watson was formerly the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The methodology of the IAASTD’s work and process is similar to that of the IPCC.
The report’s message is that the business-as-usual scenario of industrial farming, input and energy intensiveness, and marginalization of small-scale farmers, is no longer tenable. While past emphasis on production and yields had brought some benefits, this was at the expense of the environment and social equity. Moreover, there is a recognition that excessive and rapid trade liberalization can have negative consequences for food security, poverty alleviation and the environment.
The IAASTD report calls for a systematic redirection of investment, funding, research and policy focus towards the needs of small-farmers. This involves creating space for diverse voices and perspectives, particularly those who have been marginalized in the past, including poor farmers and women.
The IAASTD report says that greater emphasis is needed on safeguarding natural resources and agro-ecological practices, as well as on tapping the wide range of traditional knowledge held by local communities and farmers, which can work in partnership with formal science and technology. Sustainable agriculture that is biodiversity based, including agro-ecology and organic farming, is beneficial to poor farmers, and needs to be supported by the appropriate policy and regulatory frameworks.
Over three years, from 2005-2007, the IAASTD had conducted an evidence-based assessment on the potential of agricultural knowledge, science and technology (AKST) for reducing hunger and poverty, improving rural livelihoods, and working towards environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development. It aims to drive the agenda for agriculture for the next fifty years.
The IAASTD was launched as an intergovernmental process, with a multi-stakeholder Bureau, under the co-sponsorship of the FAO, GEF, UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO, the World Bank and WHO. In a comprehensive and rigorous process, more than 400 authors were involved in drafting the report, drawing on the evidence and assessments of thousands of experts worldwide.
The drafts were subjected to two independent peer reviews. The experts for the assessment included persons from the research community, international agencies, NGOs and industry, though representatives from industry decided not to stay with the process.
The process itself was a path-breaking one, in which governments, research institutions, industry and civil society shared equal responsibility in its governance and implementation. The success of this experiment supports the value of civil society participation as full partners in intergovernmental processes and future international assessments.
The IAASTD held its intergovernmental plenary meeting from 7-12 April in Johannesburg, South Africa to discuss and finalise the global and five sub-global assessments, and the Synthesis Report that integrates their findings.
The Synthesis Report also focuses on eight cross-cutting issues – bioenergy, biotechnology, climate change, human health, natural resource management, traditional knowledge and community based innovation, trade and markets and women in agriculture.
Fifty-four governments accepted and approved the various components of the report at the meeting. However, by the end of the meeting, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States had yet to sign on to the final report.
While there are indications that some of these governments may eventually formally accept and approve the documents, the United States remains the key government that is unlikely to do so, claiming that the report is “unbalanced”, particularly with regard to its analysis and proposals for trade and biotechnology issues.
The agrochemicals and biotechnology industry, which had earlier been a full participant in the IAASTD process, withdrew from the process before the final plenary meeting with similar claims. It claimed that industry perspectives, particularly its view that genetically modified (GM) crops are key to reducing poverty and hunger, were not adequately reflected in the report.
The report’s lack of specific support for GM crops was based on a rigorous and peer-reviewed analysis of the empirical evidence. After consideration of the evidence on both sides of the debate, the report is notably muted in relation to the claimed benefits of GM crops, highlighting instead the lingering doubts and uncertainties surrounding them.
For poor farmers, the report concludes, GM crops are unlikely to play a substantial role in addressing their needs. In any case, longer-term assessments of the environmental and health risks, and regulatory frameworks, are needed.
Another key concern highlighted in relation to GM crops is the dominance of the biotechnology industry in agricultural R&D, at the expense of other agricultural sciences. Furthermore, the report notes that farmers face new liabilities from GM crops, particularly as a result of the detection of GM crops in conventional and organic crops that leads to patent infringement suits and loss of certification, respectively.
During the Johannesburg meeting, there were heated and protracted discussions on GM crops. However, the United States pre-empted debate on the biotechnology section of the Synthesis Report, by asking that its reservation against the whole section be noted. It said it did so because the section was “unbalanced”. China then asked to be included in the reservation. No other country objected to this section.
Other key findings of the IAASTD report acknowledge that market forces alone cannot deliver food security to the poor. It particularly reiterates that developing countries are accorded special and differential treatment in agricultural trade, especially on the grounds of food security, farmers’ livelihoods and rural development.
While hinting that trade rules unfairly favouring rich countries and multinational corporations must be reformed in order to benefit poor farmers, the report however falls short of providing specific guidance that speaks to the current WTO negotiations on agriculture.
Even though the trade policy options could have been stronger, the United States and Canada still placed their reservations on the section of the Synthesis Report dealing with trade and markets, essentially objecting to language that spelt out the negative effects of agricultural liberalization.
The report also recognises that there are weaknesses and inequities in the current intellectual property rights regime, in relation to genetic resources. Strong intellectual property protection on genetic resources has affected public research and farmers’ rights to seeds. However, the report did not call for a reform of the intellectual property rights regime, following objections from the United States. Nonetheless, some policy options to address the issue are retained in the report.
While recognizing the urgent need to address climate change, for which agriculture is a significant contributor of greenhouse gases, the IAASTD report also cautions governments on biofuels. This is because the diversion of agricultural crops to fuel can raise food prices and reduce the ability to alleviate hunger throughout the world.
At the end of the plenary meeting, following the acceptance and adoption of the various components that made up the IAASTD report, co-chair Judi Wakhungu reminded all participants that “now we are walking in the same direction”.
Nonetheless, while the report provides the policy options that could really make a difference, the challenges ahead are formidable and need the concerted effort of governments, civil society and the co-sponsoring agencies of the IAASTD, in particular the FAO, the World Bank, UNDP and UNEP.
Civil society organizations attending the meeting called on all governments, civil society and international institutions to support the findings of the report, implement its progressive conclusions, and thereby jumpstart the revolution in agricultural policies and practices that is urgently needed to attain more equitable and sustainable food and farming systems in the future.
Kuala Lumpur, 15 Apr (Lim Li Ching) -- An independent and multi-stakeholder international assessment of agriculture has concluded that a radical change is needed in agriculture policy and practice, in order to address hunger and poverty, social inequities and environmental sustainability questions.
The final report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology (IAASTD) was launched simultaneously on 15 April 2008 in Washington, London, Nairobi, Delhi, Paris and a number of other cities worldwide.
The report (the product of work of over 400 authors) was finalised at a meeting of over 50 governments held in Johannesburg last week.
“Business as usual is not an option”, said Professor Robert Watson, Director of the IAASTD and chief scientist of the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Watson was formerly the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The methodology of the IAASTD’s work and process is similar to that of the IPCC.
The report’s message is that the business-as-usual scenario of industrial farming, input and energy intensiveness, and marginalization of small-scale farmers, is no longer tenable. While past emphasis on production and yields had brought some benefits, this was at the expense of the environment and social equity. Moreover, there is a recognition that excessive and rapid trade liberalization can have negative consequences for food security, poverty alleviation and the environment.
The IAASTD report calls for a systematic redirection of investment, funding, research and policy focus towards the needs of small-farmers. This involves creating space for diverse voices and perspectives, particularly those who have been marginalized in the past, including poor farmers and women.
The IAASTD report says that greater emphasis is needed on safeguarding natural resources and agro-ecological practices, as well as on tapping the wide range of traditional knowledge held by local communities and farmers, which can work in partnership with formal science and technology. Sustainable agriculture that is biodiversity based, including agro-ecology and organic farming, is beneficial to poor farmers, and needs to be supported by the appropriate policy and regulatory frameworks.
Over three years, from 2005-2007, the IAASTD had conducted an evidence-based assessment on the potential of agricultural knowledge, science and technology (AKST) for reducing hunger and poverty, improving rural livelihoods, and working towards environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development. It aims to drive the agenda for agriculture for the next fifty years.
The IAASTD was launched as an intergovernmental process, with a multi-stakeholder Bureau, under the co-sponsorship of the FAO, GEF, UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO, the World Bank and WHO. In a comprehensive and rigorous process, more than 400 authors were involved in drafting the report, drawing on the evidence and assessments of thousands of experts worldwide.
The drafts were subjected to two independent peer reviews. The experts for the assessment included persons from the research community, international agencies, NGOs and industry, though representatives from industry decided not to stay with the process.
The process itself was a path-breaking one, in which governments, research institutions, industry and civil society shared equal responsibility in its governance and implementation. The success of this experiment supports the value of civil society participation as full partners in intergovernmental processes and future international assessments.
The IAASTD held its intergovernmental plenary meeting from 7-12 April in Johannesburg, South Africa to discuss and finalise the global and five sub-global assessments, and the Synthesis Report that integrates their findings.
The Synthesis Report also focuses on eight cross-cutting issues – bioenergy, biotechnology, climate change, human health, natural resource management, traditional knowledge and community based innovation, trade and markets and women in agriculture.
Fifty-four governments accepted and approved the various components of the report at the meeting. However, by the end of the meeting, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States had yet to sign on to the final report.
While there are indications that some of these governments may eventually formally accept and approve the documents, the United States remains the key government that is unlikely to do so, claiming that the report is “unbalanced”, particularly with regard to its analysis and proposals for trade and biotechnology issues.
The agrochemicals and biotechnology industry, which had earlier been a full participant in the IAASTD process, withdrew from the process before the final plenary meeting with similar claims. It claimed that industry perspectives, particularly its view that genetically modified (GM) crops are key to reducing poverty and hunger, were not adequately reflected in the report.
The report’s lack of specific support for GM crops was based on a rigorous and peer-reviewed analysis of the empirical evidence. After consideration of the evidence on both sides of the debate, the report is notably muted in relation to the claimed benefits of GM crops, highlighting instead the lingering doubts and uncertainties surrounding them.
For poor farmers, the report concludes, GM crops are unlikely to play a substantial role in addressing their needs. In any case, longer-term assessments of the environmental and health risks, and regulatory frameworks, are needed.
Another key concern highlighted in relation to GM crops is the dominance of the biotechnology industry in agricultural R&D, at the expense of other agricultural sciences. Furthermore, the report notes that farmers face new liabilities from GM crops, particularly as a result of the detection of GM crops in conventional and organic crops that leads to patent infringement suits and loss of certification, respectively.
During the Johannesburg meeting, there were heated and protracted discussions on GM crops. However, the United States pre-empted debate on the biotechnology section of the Synthesis Report, by asking that its reservation against the whole section be noted. It said it did so because the section was “unbalanced”. China then asked to be included in the reservation. No other country objected to this section.
Other key findings of the IAASTD report acknowledge that market forces alone cannot deliver food security to the poor. It particularly reiterates that developing countries are accorded special and differential treatment in agricultural trade, especially on the grounds of food security, farmers’ livelihoods and rural development.
While hinting that trade rules unfairly favouring rich countries and multinational corporations must be reformed in order to benefit poor farmers, the report however falls short of providing specific guidance that speaks to the current WTO negotiations on agriculture.
Even though the trade policy options could have been stronger, the United States and Canada still placed their reservations on the section of the Synthesis Report dealing with trade and markets, essentially objecting to language that spelt out the negative effects of agricultural liberalization.
The report also recognises that there are weaknesses and inequities in the current intellectual property rights regime, in relation to genetic resources. Strong intellectual property protection on genetic resources has affected public research and farmers’ rights to seeds. However, the report did not call for a reform of the intellectual property rights regime, following objections from the United States. Nonetheless, some policy options to address the issue are retained in the report.
While recognizing the urgent need to address climate change, for which agriculture is a significant contributor of greenhouse gases, the IAASTD report also cautions governments on biofuels. This is because the diversion of agricultural crops to fuel can raise food prices and reduce the ability to alleviate hunger throughout the world.
At the end of the plenary meeting, following the acceptance and adoption of the various components that made up the IAASTD report, co-chair Judi Wakhungu reminded all participants that “now we are walking in the same direction”.
Nonetheless, while the report provides the policy options that could really make a difference, the challenges ahead are formidable and need the concerted effort of governments, civil society and the co-sponsoring agencies of the IAASTD, in particular the FAO, the World Bank, UNDP and UNEP.
Civil society organizations attending the meeting called on all governments, civil society and international institutions to support the findings of the report, implement its progressive conclusions, and thereby jumpstart the revolution in agricultural policies and practices that is urgently needed to attain more equitable and sustainable food and farming systems in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
