Category Archives: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

USA: How we stopped Keystone, together

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article and video from MoveOn .org

Today [November 6], President Obama officially rejected TransCanada’s application to build the Keystone XL pipeline. This major win for our climate is the result of relentless and passionate grassroots organizing in nearly every corner of our nation. This victory is a testament to the incredible power we have, when we stand together as a movement, to shape our country and change the course of history—which is exactly what we’ll need to do to keep securing transformative actions that can reverse the course of human-made climate change and hold corporations and politicians who continue to imperil the climate by denying science accountable.

keystone
Video: How the Keystone Fight Was Won

Our friends at 350­.org have created a video about how, together, we achieved this victory. Will you watch and share their video and celebrate this historic moment?

Over the last few years, hundreds of thousands of MoveOn members have joined the movement to stop the Keystone XL pipeline—putting an end to this massive dirty energy project that would have grossly deepened our dependence on the fossil fuels accelerating climate change.

By joining with communities along the pipeline route, ranchers, farmers, Native American tribes, climate activists, and union members, we accomplished something truly remarkable. Your signatures, phone calls, donations, and local rallies and events over the years helped power this victory.

As we continue the fight to keep fossil fuels in the ground and hold corporations like Exxon Mobil accountable for their crimes against our climate, we’ll remember to hold up today’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline as a reminder that—even against billion dollar industries—change is possible.

Please, take a minute to watch and share this video from our friends at 350.org.

Thanks for all you do.

–Corinne, Anna, Nick, Victoria, Jadzia, and the rest of the team

Want to support our work? MoveOn member contributions have powered our work together for more than 17 years. Hundreds of thousands of people chip in each year—which is why we’re able to be fiercely independent, answering to no individual, corporation, politician, or political party. You can become a monthly donor by clicking here, or chip in a one-time gift here.

Question for this article:

We are the solution: African women organize for land and seed sovereignty

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article by Simone Adler and Beverly Bell, for Other Worlds

Mariama Sonko is a farmer and organizer in Casamance, Senegal. She is the National Coordinator of We Are the Solution, a campaign for food sovereignty led by rural women in West Africa.

food sovereignty
Mariama Sonko, third from right, with a women farmers’ organization.
Photo courtesy of Fahamu.

Traditional, small-holder peasant agriculture is done by women. Women are the ones who save the seeds – the soul of the peasant population. This is to honor what women have inherited from their ancestors: the conservation of seeds as part of their knowledge to care for the whole family and nourish their communities.

The green revolution introduced GMOs in Africa. Technicians and researchers come to tell our producers about agriculture from the outside. They tell us that these modern varieties of [GMO] seeds are going to increase our yield. So we will produce a lot, fill up our stores – but soon we will be sick and in the cemeteries. Isn’t it better to grow less, eat well, have good health, live a long life, and pay attention to the generations to come? We reject agriculture that pollutes with chemicals, pesticides, GMOs.

Achieving our goals is a difficult struggle because we have few resources fighting against multinational corporations who have a lot of money. But development in Africa can’t take place on the backs of Africans, and Africa can’t develop without looking ahead for the children.

We Are the Solution is a campaign in West Africa led by rural women from Senegal, Burkina Faso, Mali, Ghana and Guinea, though we are a campaign of both women and men. Our vision is to truly promote ancestral knowledge and put pressure on our government to take seriously the preservation of our peasant agriculture.

The campaign has three objectives. First is the use and promotion of traditional knowledge transmitted from generation to generation, which supports food sovereignty and the preservation of peasant seeds. The second objective is to restore national policies favorable to agroecological peasant farming. And the third objective is the promotion of African agricultural production.

Women, Land, and Agriculture

In the agricultural sphere, development rests in the hands of the women, and their role is being proven repeatedly. We Are the Solution raises awareness and consciousness, key to changing the mentality of the people, on the importance of women in family farming and agricultural production.

Women are the primary workers of the land and the majority of the workforce in agriculture, involved in every step of agricultural production: in the fields, 70% of African agriculture is done by women; in conservation, women are the ones making efforts to conserve the native seeds; in animal husbandry; in food processing; in marketing; in selling food at the local level; and as consumers.

(continued in right column)

Question for this article:

What is the relation between movements for food sovereignty and the global movement for a culture of peace?

(Article continued from the left column)

In Africa, it’s said that land belongs to men as the heads of household. If women can’t access land, don’t have control of that land, or don’t own land, there is a problem. We are campaigning for women to have land ownership, and trying to raise this consciousness among men.

At the national level in Senegal, there’s a new law in effect that states that all citizens have the right to own land. But in practice, we still have the tradition. These women, most of whom are illiterate and rural, are socialized to believe that this longstanding culture can’t be changed. Our job is to [help them] understand they have the same rights as men, and that women owning land contributes to the well-being of the family and assures that they are fed.

At the local level, some women have risen up and demanded that land be put in their names, and now they are land-owners. Women’s associations have acquired blocks of land of up to one or two hectares, but frankly, there’s not much they can produce on that. To develop agriculture we need to cultivate larger plots or install irrigation, but this isn’t permitted because women don’t have a say in land use. There is idle land available and not enough men to work it all, yet they don’t want to turn it over to women. So the effort of raising awareness and advocacy goes on.

Agroecology, Sacred Seeds, and Food Sovereignty

Women peasant organizations are leading the movement for seed and food sovereignty. We should eat what we produce and produce what we eat.

Agroecology protects all living things and treats nature as sacred. Our seeds are ancient, and each is tied to a certain place. The traditional practice of seed selection preserves the environment and sustains biodiversity, while using our resources which are affordable and accessible. These seeds don’t need any modification.

We are seeing new diseases due to the diet arising from everything that is imported, and as a result of underestimating the value of traditional dishes of grains and vegetables.

Though many have gone to chemical agriculture, our movement has identified several traditional practices that we’re sharing with our sisters and brothers. We Are the Solution organizes workshops, forums, and community radio broadcasts to bring our message down to the popular, rural level and inform the grassroots about the advantages of traditional agroecological or peasant agriculture.

In Casamance [a region of Senegal], We Are the Solution has established a platform of 100 grassroots associations. We now have a model farm field and a store for marketing our family farm products from various kinds of production and hand-tool farming. The store is there to help us promote ecologically produced products produced by women. We are also trying to organize a forum on local consumption.

Overall, women are taking leadership roles in the countries in which We Are the Solution is active, promoting agroecology and seed and food sovereignty as the only viable system for the long-term. This way we can have healthy lives and protect the environment.

This is the first article in a 7-part series which features interviews with grassroots African leaders working for seed and food sovereignty, the decolonization of Africa’s food system, and the preservation of traditional farming practices. This series is made possible with support from New Field Foundation and Grassroots International. Many thanks to Stephen Bartlett for translation of the interview.

Terrace Farming – an Ancient Indigenous Model for Food Security

. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT .

Marianela Jarroud, Inter Press Service News Agency (reprinted by permission)

Terrace farming as practiced from time immemorial by native peoples in the Andes mountains contributes to food security as a strategy of adaptation in an environment where the geography and other conditions make the production of nutritional foods a complex undertaking.

terraces
Terraces built by Atacameño Indians in the village of Caspana in Alto Loa, in the northern Chilean region of Antofagasta. This ageold farming technique represents an adaptation to the climate, and ensures the right to food of these Andes highlands people. Credit: Marianela Jarroud/IPS
Click on photo to enlarge

This ancient prehispanic technique, still practiced in vast areas of the Andes highlands, including Chile, “is very important from the point of view of adaptation to the climate and the ecosystem,” said Fabiola Aránguiz.

“By using terraces, water, which is increasingly scarce in the northern part of the country, is utilised in a more efficient manner,” Aránguiz, a junior professional officer on family farming with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), told IPS from the agency’s regional headquarters in Santiago, some 1,400 km south of the town of Caspana in Chile’s Atacama desert.

In this country’s Andes highands, terrace farming has mainly been practiced by the Atacameño and Quechua indigenous peoples, who have inhabited the Atacama desert in the north for around 9,000 years.

Principally living in oases, gorges and valleys of Alto Loa, in the region of Antofagasta, these peoples learned about terrace farming from the Inca, who taught them how to make the best use of scant water resources to grow food on the limited fertile land at such high altitudes.

The terraces are “like flowerbeds that have been made over the years, where the existing soil is removed and replaced by fertile soil brought in from elsewhere, in order to be able to grow food,” the Agriculture Ministry’s secretary in Antofagasta, Jaime Pinto, told IPS.

“This has made it possible for them to farm, because in these gorges where they terrace, microclimates are created that enable the cultivation of different crops,” Pinto, the highest level government representative in agriculture in the region, said from the regional capital, Antofagasta.

The official said that although water is scarce in this area, “it is of good quality, which makes it possible, in the case of the town of Caspana, to cite one example, to produce garlic or fruit like apricots or apples on a large scale.”

According to official figures, in the region of Antofagasta alone there are some 14 highlands communities who preserve the tradition of terrace farming, which contributes to local food security as well as the generation of income, improving the quality of life.

Communiities like Caspana, population 400, and the nearby Río Grande, with around 100 inhabitants, depend on agriculture, and thanks to terrace farming they not only feed their families but grow surplus crops for sale.

But people in other villages and towns in Alto Loa, like Toconce, with a population of about 100, are basically subsistence farmers, despite abundant terraces and fertile land. The reason for this is the heavy rural migration to cities, which has left the land without people to farm it, Pinto explained.

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article

Indigenous peoples, Are they the true guardians of nature?

(Article continued from left column)

“Ours is fertile land,” Liliana Terán, a 45-year-old mother of four and grandmother of four who belongs to the Atacameño indigenous community, told IPS. One of her income-generating activities is farming on the small terrace she inherited from her mother in Caspana.

“Whatever you plant here, grows,” she added proudly.

The name of her indigenous village, Caspana, means “children of the valley” in the Kunza tongue, which died out in the late 19th century. The village is located 3,300 metres above sea level in a low-lying part of the valley.

Caspana is “a village of farmers and shepherds” reads a sign carved into stone at the entrance to the village, which is inhabited by Atacameño or Kunza Indians, who today live in northwest Argentina and northern Chile.

Each family here has their terrace, which they carefully maintain and use for growing crops. The land is handed down from generation to generation.

Each village has a “juez del agua”, the official responsible for supplying or cutting off the supply of water, to ensure equitable distribution to the entire village.

“The water flows down through vertical waterways between the terraces, from the highest point of the river, and is distributed in a controlled mmaner,” said Aránguiz.

“With this system, better use is made of both irrigation and rainwater, and more water is retained, meaning more moisture in the soil, which helps ease things in the dry periods,” she added. “And the drainage of water is improved, to avoid erosion and protect the soil.”

All of these aspects, said the FAO representative, make terrace farming an efficient system for fighting the effects of climate change.

“Well-built and well-maintained terraces can improve the stability of the slopes, preventing mudslides during extreme rain events,” she said, stressing “the cultural importance of this ancestral technique, which strengthens the economic and social dynamics of family agriculture.”

Aránguiz pointed out that indigenous people in the Andes highlands have kept alive till today this tradition which bolsters food security. She specifically mentioned countries like Bolivia and Peru, noting that terrace farming is used in the latter on more than 500,000 hectares of land.

Luisa Terán, 43, who has an adopted daughter and is Liliana’s cousin, works the land on her mother’s terrace.

When IPS was in the village the day before the traditional ceremony when the local farmers come together to clean the waterways that irrígate the terraces, Luisa was hard at work making empanadas or stuffed pastries for the celebration.

“This ceremony is very important for us,” as it marks the preparation of the land for the next harvest, she said.

Pinto underlined that “maintaining these cultivation systems is a responsibility that we have, as government.”

He said that through the government’s Institute of Agricultural Development, the aim is to implement a programme for the recovery and maintenance of terraces that were damaged in the most recent heavy storms in northern Chile.

In addition, projects are being designed “to help young people see agricultural development as an economic alternative.”

This goes hand in hand with the fight against inequality, Pinto said.

“We are working on creating the conditions for food autonomy and it is this kind of cultivation that can generate contributions to agricultural production to feed the region,” he added.

Edited by Estrella Gutiérrez/Translated by Stephanie Wildes

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela Agree to Defend Mother Earth at COP21

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article from the Latin American Herald Tribune

The presidents of Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela agreed to speak for “Pachamama,” or Mother Earth, and civil society at the 21st United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP21, in Paris this December.

cochabamba
Presidents Correa, Morales and Maduro. Foto: ABI

Bolivian President Evo Morales, along with Rafael Correa and Nicolas Maduro, his counterparts from Ecuador and Venezuela, respectively, emphasized on Monday the role of society in defending the environment, at the closing of the II World People’s Conference on Climate Change in Bolivia’s Cochabamba.

The three-day forum, during which social organizations, trade unions and indigenous groups from several countries met to discuss climate issues, concluded with a series of proposals, which the presidents assured will be presented at the Paris summit.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also attended the first two days of the conference and was optimistic about a sound and credible global agreement on climate change at COP21.

Civil society representatives proposed the creation of an environmental justice court, recognition of indigenous ancestral knowledge, and demanded developed countries should recognize their climate debt as a legal and moral obligation.

Correa advocated applying the so-called “environmental justice” as a solution to climate change, so the “most polluting countries recognize the damage” they have caused in other nations through exploitation of natural resources and pollution.

He also suggested technology and know-how to fight climate change should be declared “global public assets” to ensure all countries have free access to them, and stressed the need for a “Universal Declaration of Nature’s Rights.”

“Our peoples are wise, they know exactly what they want, and what the path to follow is,” Morales said, expressing confidence in ancestral knowledge of indigenous people.

While Maduro made a call for being alert against “cheating” during the Paris climate summit, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez warned, his country won’t accept any new agreement that dilutes rich and developed nations’ existing obligations.

Rodriguez also demanded rich countries provide financial aid as well as clean and green technologies to help fight climate change.

Other notable figures who participated in the forum included the 1980 Nobel Peace laureate from Argentina, Adolfo Perez Esquivel; former Spanish Judge Baltasar Garzon and Spanish MEP Estefania Torres, representing the European United Left group.

(Click here for an article in Spanish on this subject.)

Question for this article:

Canada: Students at Simon Fraser University launch divestment campaign

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article by Emma Warner Chee, The Peak, SFU student newspaper

In light of the 50th anniversary of SFU [Simon Fraser University], Embark (formerly Sustainable SFU), SFU 350, and Divest SFU believe it is the perfect time for the university to become a leader in the climate justice movement, starting with a divestment from the fossil fuel industry. The groups are collaborating to launch a divestment campaign this fall that will see various actions and events in the months to come.

sfu
Embark is among three student groups pushing SFU to divest from fossil fuels. Image Credit: Lisa Dimyadi

The extraction and consumption of fossil fuels account for the greatest level of carbon emissions by humans, and are thus the greatest threat to the climate. A report from the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change last year indicates that if carbon emissions are not drastically reduced by 2017, and global temperatures rise by just two degrees celsius, the effects of climate change would be irreversible.

As fourth-year environmental science student and Divest SFU campaigner Tessica Truong pointed out, the impacts of climate change are already being felt in the global south.

Sea levels and temperatures are rising, land is disappearing, drought is causing food insecurity, and the occurrence and severity of natural disasters is increasing, all of which are causing displacement and creating climate refugees.

Truong stated, “It is unethical to be profiting from fossil fuels as an educational institution, when the effects of fossil fuels on the climate are being paid for by others around the world.”

Started in 2013, the Divest SFU campaign was created to petition the SFU Board of Governors to take their endowment fund investments out of the fossil fuel industry in an effort to limit the growth of the industry.

(Article continued in the right column)

Question for this article:

Despite the vested interests of companies and governments, Can we make progress toward sustainable development?

See comment below.

(Article continued from the left column)

They approached the board in the spring of 2014 with the backing of student groups on campus as well as many faculty members, some showing their support by signing off on an open letter to administration.

The university consequently adopted the United Nations’ Principles for Responsible Investment and also created the Responsible Investment Committee in 2014, the latter of which aims to “review and make recommendations related to responsible investment proposals,” among other responsibilities.

Following the presentation, SFU released this statement from former VP Finance and Administration Pat Hibbitts: “The Divest SFU students made a compelling case about the role of investment in economic policy and we considered their request seriously.” She continued. “This new policy provides for governance of our investment strategy consistent with the UN PRI and our investment objectives.”

However, as Divest SFU sees it, no definitive action has been taken toward divestment, and the campaign continues.

Divestment from fossil fuel campaigns have been taking off in universities across Canada, the United States, and Europe. Stanford University, for instance, has been successful in convincing their board of governors to divest from the coal industry, and is now working toward divestment from all fossil fuels.

At McGill University, students set up a tent city on campus to protest the university’s fossil fuel investment. UBC350 held a referendum in which 77 per cent of students and 62 per cent of faculty voted in favour of divestment. Other institutions, such as Vancity credit union, proudly state that they are not invested in the fossil fuel industry.

One of the main arguments against divestment is that with the world’s already heavy reliance on fossil fuels, it won’t change anything.

Truong acknowledged that “SFU alone will not stop fossil fuel industries, but we do have the power to change the direction, and show leadership.”

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

Film review: The Impeccable Timing of ‘This Changes Everything’

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article by Emily Schwartz Greco, Institute for Policy Studies

Writer Naomi Klein and her filmmaker husband Avi Lewis lucked out with the release of their new documentary, This Changes Everything. This film about why humanity must kick our fossil-fuel habit before it wrecks the planet arrived at an ideal time.

Klein film

For one thing, Hillary Clinton belatedly came out against the Keystone XL pipeline. The Democratic Party’s presidential frontrunner called the effort to funnel dirty oil extracted from Canada’s tar sands through six states a “distraction from the important work we have to do to combat climate change.”

And Royal Dutch Shell has put its plans to drill for Arctic oil on ice. Despite pouring $7 billion into that gambit, the company bowed to the bleak outlook for petroleum prices and environmental pressure.

Klein narrates the film, which illustrates many observations she made in her best-selling book with the same title. In print and on the screen, she and Lewis stoke optimism instead of feeding the sense of futility that often hinders climate action.

Lewis and Klein are Canadian, so it’s no surprise that the documentary dwells on Alberta. That’s the where the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline, which Clinton embraced when she served in the Obama administration, would originate.

The film begins with footage of the industrial wasteland that tar sands mining has carved from the Canadian province’s mist-laced boreal forests.

A beige moonscape cross-cut by veins of gooey bitumen looks like abstract art, or mounds of mocha-fudge gelato, until viewers realize they’re glimpsing what used to be a verdant landscape straight out of a Nordic fairytale. Before mining oil from the muck below the forest floor, workers excise what the industry calls the “overburden” by felling primeval forest and scraping away the rich soil that sustains it.

(Article continued in the right column)

Question for this article:

Despite the vested interests of companies and governments, Can we make progress toward sustainable development?

(Article continued from the left column)

These gut-churning images, coupled with the disgusted response of native people witnessing the destruction of their ancestral lands, brings the long-term costs of powering our economy with fossil fuels into focus.

This Changes Everything also zooms in on folks in Montana, India, and everywhere in between on the frontlines of climate resistance. Increasingly, they’re winning battles.

The documentary also brings viewers to Fort McMurray, an Alberta boomtown where hard-drinking workers are becoming millionaires without growing any roots. There, boilermaker Lliam Hildebrand stares nervously into the camera. He labels tar sands mining “barbaric” and says he finds the prospect of shifting to wind and solar energy “exciting.”

After all, “the renewable energy industry would employ exactly the same workers that the oil sands does,” Hildebrand explains. “Pipefitters, boilermakers, electricians…There’s absolutely no reason to not make the transition.”

Following a limited release in theaters, the film will become an educational tool anchored to climate change discussions in communities large and small.

Lewis and Klein planned the release to coincide with the final negotiations for a new United Nations climate treaty, which will begin in Paris on November 30.

Their New York City premiere on October 2 coincided with the devastating floods that swamped Columbia, Charleston, and smaller South Carolina towns. More than two feet of rain fell in some areas. All that water killed 17 people, caused more than $1 billion in damage, and raised questions about how frequent this kind of extreme weather will become thanks to climate change.

Less than two weeks earlier, Leonardo di Caprio and other investors had announced in the Big Apple that their effort to move money out of oil, gas, and coal financial assets is gaining steam. The total value of personal and institutional holdings being divested of at least some fossil-fuel exposure has topped $2.6 trillion.

There’s never been a better time to discuss the benefits of ditching oil, gas, and coal.

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

Film review: A hidden reality in Honduras is the protagonist of “Fertile Ground”

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article from a Mecate Corto, November 2013

“The reality changes very fast in Aguán,” it is said near the end of the documentary Fertile Ground, which in the time of two hours documents three years of fighting, losses and victories of the peasant movement for the reclaiming of stolen land in the Aguán Valley of Honduras.

tierra2

Certainly, things change quickly. Too often, women and children say goodbye to their husbands and fathers at sunrise, and when they do not return at sunset, they realize that they have been killed. That’s part of the changing reality for thousands of landless peasants in Honduras, especially for farmers who three years ago began to claim the land that had been taken and monopolized by large landowners in the Lower Aguán Valley. The crisis has already claimed the lives of some 60 farmers.

“To show the world that there are human stories behind the numbers, that is what led me to make this documentary. A written report does not do justice to what is happening in Honduras especially with regard to occupation of the land”, says the director of the film, Jesse Freeston. Jesse has worked in journalism for many years and has covered the news in Honduras, but now he gives us a new genre about the reality hidden by the daily news.

“In Honduras there will never be peace if there is no land for the poorest,” says a peasant captured by the Freeston’s camera. And the causes are profound for the war that the taken the lives of thousands of Honduran men and women on a daily basis.

Freeston believes there is fertile land in Honduras, but much of it is owned by only a few rich families which makes the country one of the most unequal and violent in the world. We have to understand this, says Freeston, if we are to make changes in the reality of violence that is seen and discussed by the rest of the world.

“The documentary has the power to bring the audience to Aguán in order to hear what the people there have to teach us” says the filmmaker.

The documentary Fertile Ground was premiered in Honduras last month and tells the story of the Unified Peasant Movement of Aguan, Muca; and the repression suffered by the farmers living in communities on land that they had recovered from the landowner Miguel Facussé. In this case, the attacks came from the armed guards hired by Facussé, but in other cases this repression was at the hands of the armed forces of the State and of the National Police.

(The article is continued on the right side of this page)

(Click here for the original Spanish version of this article.)

Question for this article:

What is the relation between peasant movements for food sovereignty and the global movement for a culture of peace?

(This article is continued from the left side of the page)

Freeston managed to capture the brutality with which the peasants and children were evicted again and again, even though he had to travel to many different places. He caught and shows the raw images of peasants who have been killed, the cry of women who not only lost their husbands, but often, their children as well, in spontaneous abortions.

The film shows the strength of women leaders as the “Queen” of the community, El Elixir, who, despite the ever present threats, continues to believe that another Honduras is possible for future generations to live in dignity.

The director also shows us scenes of the big businessmen and politicians who promote a development that does not help the majority of the population. He leads us to understand that what happens in the Aguán is part of a state policy that focuses on delivering the country to the highest bidders, both local entrepreneurs and foreign governments and transnational entrepreneurs.

However, Freeston also shows us the victories that the farmers have obtained despite the obstacles.
“All the people you see in this documentary are suffering, but they are also advancing. Their emotions are mixed: loss, joy and sadness. We see the Aguán not only as a reservoir of sadness but also of victories.”

Among the victories are those of the Salama Cooperative, the Cooperative Prieta and the San Esteban Cooperative, which represent models of friendly production at the level of peasant life, and which provide the kind of dignified life that the State has failed to promote.

Freestone shows how the reality of Aguan is linked to the 2009 Honduran coup d’etat which caused a rupture in Honduran history. In the film Fertile Ground we can see how the coup brings the people to the streets in resistance and leads to a great social movement. We see how it is linked to the land conflicts in Aguan where the peasants are inspired to struggle.

In Honduras, the agrarian reform of 1960 ended 30 years later with the Law on Agricultural Modernization in which thousands of farmers sold their land because they had no access to the means of production. In the Aguán valley, people like Miguel Facussé were the big winners of this government law, but three years ago the peasants rose up to claim the injustice that 100,000 of them work on land that no longer belongs to them.

“We are not fish that live in the sea, or birds that live in the air, we are human who must live off the land”, this phrase not only opens the film Fertile Ground as the peasant’s slogan, but is also the demand that we hear in the desperate cries for justice, like seeds in the earth for the dream of a better Honduras.

Distrust over EU GM crop approvals grows as 17 countries move towards national bans

. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT .

An article by Greenpeace

In the latest blow to the European Commission’s laissez-faire approach to GM crops, 17 EU countries and four regions (in two other countries) are in the process of banning the cultivation of GM crops on their territories. On 5 October, 17 EU countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovenia) and four regional administrations (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the UK, and Wallonia in Belgium) had notified the Commission of their intention to ban GM crop cultivation under new EU rules [1].


greenpeace
Click on photo to enlarge

This brings the total number of countries who have already declared their intention to put in place GM crop bans to 17 – plus four regions – representing over 65 per cent of the EU’s population and 65 per cent of its arable land (for detailed figures please see this table: bit.ly/1OhTApm).

The bans currently notified apply to the only GM crop currently approved for cultivation in Europe – Monsanto’s pesticide-producing GM maize, known as MON810 – but also to the seven GM crops awaiting approval by the Commission [2]. These are all GM maizes [3].

Nine EU countries (Austria, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg and Poland) had previously banned cultivation of MON810 under so-called safeguard clauses.

Greenpeace EU food policy director Franziska Achterberg said: “A clear majority of the EU’s governments are rejecting the Commission’s drive for GM crop approvals. They don’t trust EU safety assessments and are rightly taking action to protect their agriculture and food. The only way to restore trust in the EU system now is for the Commission to hit the pause button on GM crop approvals and to urgently reform safety testing and the approval system.”

In July 2014, Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker said that the Commission should not be able to force through GM crops against a majority of EU countries [4]. The Commission is yet to deliver a legislative proposal that can achieve this. A revised EU risk assessment scheme, called for by EU environment ministers in 2008, has similarly not been implemented. Current risk assessments by the EU’s food safety authority also ignore EU rules in place since 2001 (Directive 2001/18) for more in-depth and independent testing of GM crops.

(Continued on right side of page)

Question for this article:

What is the relation between the environment and peace?

(Article continued from left side of page)

Notes:

[1] Under EU Directive 2015/412, governments can ask biotech companies whose GM crops have already been authorised for cultivation in the EU, or are pending approval, not to market their crops on their territory. The companies – Dow, Monsanto, Syngenta and Pioneer – can then accept or refuse these opt-outs, without having to justify their response. Governments can also legislate to ban individual or groups of GM crops approved in the EU. The Commission list of notifications for national bans: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/new/authorisation/cultivation/geographical_scope_en.htm.

[2] Denmark and Luxembourg are so far requesting bans for MON810 and only three other GM crops pending approval.

[3] The pending authorisations include Pioneer’s pesticide-producing GM maize, known as 1507, whose EU approval was opposed by 19 out of 28 EU countries in February 2014: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2014/Record-number-of-EU-countries-opposes-Commission-plan-to-allow-pesticide-producing-GM-maize.

[4] Juncker said: “[I] would not want the Commission to be able to take a decision when a majority of Member States has not encouraged it to do so”: Political Guidelines for the next European Commission (July 2014): http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/docs/pg_en.pdf

Mayan People’s Movement Defeats Monsanto Law in Guatemala

. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT .

An article by Christin Sandberg in Upside Down World

On September 4th, after ten days of widespread street protests against the biotech giant Monsanto’s expansion into Guatemalan territory, groups of indigenous people joined by social movements, trade unions and farmer and women’s organizations won a victory when congress finally repealed the legislation that had been approved in June.

monsanto
Nim Sanik, Maya Kaqchikel giving a press conference in Chimaltenango
Photo by Josue Navarro
Click on photo to enlarge

The demonstrations were concentrated outside the Congress and Constitutional Court in Guatemala City during more than a week, and coincided with several Mayan communities and organizations defending food sovereignty through court injunctions in order to stop the Congress and the President, Otto Perez Molina, from letting the new law on protection of plant varieties, known as the “Monsanto Law”, take effect.

On September 2, the Mayan communities of Sololá, a mountainous region 125 kilometers west from the capital, took to the streets and blocked several main roads. At this time a list of how individual congressmen had voted on the approval of the legislation in June was circulating.

When Congress convened on September 4, Mayan people were waiting outside for a response in favor of their movement, demanding a complete cancellation of the law –something very rarely seen in Guatemala. But this time they proved not to have marched in vain. After some battles between the presidential Patriotic Party (PP) and the Renewed Democratic Liberty Party (LIDER), the Congress finally decided not to review the legislation, but cancel it.

protests as follows: “Corn taught us Mayan people about community life and its diversity, because when one cultivates corn one realizes that there is a variety of crops such as herbs and medical plants depending on the corn plant as well. We see that in this coexistence the corn is not selfish, the corn shows us how to resist and how to relate with the surrounding world.”

Controversies surrounded law

The Monsanto Law would have given exclusivity on patented seeds to a handful of transnational companies. Mayan people and social organizations claimed that the new law violated the Constitution and the Mayan people’s right to traditional cultivation of their land in their ancestral territories.

Antonio González from the National Network in Defense of Food Sovereignty and Biodiversity commented in a press conference August 21: “This law is an attack on a traditional Mayan cultivation system which is based on the corn plant but which also includes black beans and herbs; these foods are a substantial part of the staple diet of rural people.”

The new legislation would have opened up the market for genetically modified seeds which would have threatened to displace natural seeds and end their diversity. It would have created an imbalance between transnational companies and local producers in Guatemala where about 70 per cent of the population dedicate their life to small-scale agricultural activities. That is a serious threat in a country where many people live below the poverty line and in extreme poverty and where children suffer from chronic malnutrition and often starve to death.

The law was approved in June without prior discussion, information and participation from the most affected. It was a direct consequence of the free trade agreement with the US, ratified in 2005. However, recently the protests started to grow and peaked a couple of weeks ago with a lot of discussions, statements and demonstrations.

At first the government ignored the protests and appeared to be more interested in engaging in superficial forms of charity like provision of food aid while ignoring the wider and structural factors that cause and perpetuate poverty in Guatemala such as unequal land distribution, deep rooted inequalities, racism, to name but a few.

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article

Indigenous peoples, Are they the true guardians of nature?

(Article continued from left column)

But soon enough they decided to act. Even though politicians claimed not to act on social demands, it is without doubt a decision taken after enormous pressure from different social groups in society.

Criminalizing the Mayan people – again

There was a great risk that the Monsanto Law would have made criminals of already repressed small farmers who are just trying to make ends meet and doing what they have done for generations – cultivating corn and black beans for their own consumption. The Monsanto Law meant that they would not have been able to grow and harvest anything that originates from natural seeds. Farmers would be breaking the laws if these natural seeds had been mixed with patented seeds from other crops as a result of pollination or wind, unless they had had a license for the patented seed from a transnational corporation like Monsanto.

Another risk expressed by ecologists was the fear that the costs for the patented seeds would have caused an increase in prices and as consequence caused a worsened food crisis for those families who could not afford to buy a license to sow.

Academics, together with the Mayan people, also feared that the law would have intensified already existing fierce social conflicts between local Mayan communities and transnational companies in a country historically and violently torn apart.

Mayan people and Mother Earth

Currently international companies are very interested in gaining control of the abundant and rich natural assets that Guatemala possesses. There is just one problem: the Mayan people – or actually most people – in Guatemala do not agree with a policy of treating nature like a commodity to be sold off piece by piece, especially when they receive nothing in return. It is very difficult to argue that it is a rentable business for Guatemalan society as a whole, and less the local communities, when it is a rather small but powerful economic elite which benefits on behalf of the environment, nature and society.

So what happens when the people organize in defense of their territory? The international companies call the government and have them use whatever means necessary to remove those standing in their way so they can construct megaprojects like mines or hydroelectric dams or extend monocultures in any region they see fit without much concern for those who might be affected.

Last month three men were killed when police used violent force to evict a community whose population had organized itself to protest against a hydroelectric megaproject in their community in Alta Verapaz. Hundreds of police officers were sent to the area on orders from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Mauricio López Bonilla. It was not an exceptional case by any means.

Ongoing conflict

As for the Monsanto Law, for a chilling reminder of where this was most likely headed, one need look no further than the USA: according to information from Food Democracy Now, a grassroots community for sustainable food system, Monsanto’s GMO Roundup Ready soybeans, the world’s leading chemical and biotech seed company, admits to filing 150 lawsuits against America’s family farmers, while settling another 700 out of court for undisclosed amounts. This has caused fear and resentment in rural America and driven dozens of farmers into bankruptcy.

It is impossible to predict how this controversy might unfold, but the reality in Guatemala today is one marked by an ongoing conflict between the government and the Mayan people, who constitute over half of the population.

Nim Sanik, Maya Kaqchikel from Chimaltenango comments on the victory over the Monsanto Law: “The fight to preserve collective property of Mayan communities such as vegetable seeds, which historically have served as a source of development and survival for the Mayan civilization, is a way to confront the open doors that the neoliberal governments have widely open in favor of national and transnational corporations that genetically modify and commercialize the feeding of mankind. We have just taken the first step on a long journey in our struggle to conquer the sovereignty of the people in Guatemala.”

UN SDG’s: The ‘Meta-Goal,’ Bringing 193 Nations Together

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article in the Huffington Post by Achim Steiner, UNEP Executive Director and Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations

Having two parties agree on a common goal can be a challenge. Having 193 parties agree to 17 of them is, to understate it, uncommon. So when the Sustainable Development Goals are adopted this week by 193 UN Member States, it’s fair to say we will be witnessing something historic.

steiner

Having all nations concur on a path forward for the entire planet and its peoples is unprecedented, and indeed, an accomplishment in and of itself.

But despite the enormity of the task, setting the goals was the easy part. Achieving them is where the hard work begins in earnest. With 17 goals that integrate all aspects of our economies, societies and the environment, the challenge is formidable. That these goals apply to all nations — developed and developing — means that the challenge is a universal one.

The cross-cutting, global nature of the goals necessitates a degree of cooperation as unprecedented as the goals themselves.

Nations of the world recognized this fact as the goals were being developed. To help enable the coordination needed to achieve them, member states included what might be called a meta-goal: SDG 17. The intent of Goal 17 is to advance the notion of partnerships, from local to global, that will be fundamental to achieving the other 16 SDGs.

We have seen the power of partnerships and cooperation in the 193-nation consensus on a sustainable future. That power must now be harnessed to take us there.

Having all countries of the world on board is only the beginning. Sustainable development will need participation and cooperation between governments, the private sector and civil society.

Why is this so? Aside from the fact that the SDGs are shared goals for all humanity, it comes down to an unyielding reality: no single institution possesses the resources and competencies needed to achieve these goals alone.

Investment on a massive scale will be required in sectors such as energy, infrastructure, transport and information technology to support sustainable-development objectives.

Technology, policy coherence and governance will also need to be aligned with the goals of sustainable development.

(Article continued in right column.)

Question for this article:

Despite the vested interests of companies and governments, Can we make progress toward sustainable development?

(Article continued from the left column)

When it comes to financing, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, some $5-7 trillion will be needed annually to achieve the SDGs.

Public finance can only contribute so much.

Consider the investments required to adapt to climate change over the coming decades. Climate resilience will be a critical component of sustainable development. According to UNEP’s first Adaptation Gap Report, the global investment required for adaptation to climate change is likely to hit $300 billion per year until 2050 — possibly rising as high as $500 billion.

In 2013, the total amount of public climate finance was $137 billion.

Making up the difference seems like a daunting task.

This is where potential of global partnerships comes into play. In 2013, private climate financing totaled $193 billion.

This is still short of what is needed for climate finance, let alone the trillions more required to support sustainability across all sectors over the coming decades. But it is a point on a trend that shows an increase in sustainable investments over time from both public and private sectors.

These investments are already resulting in remarkable changes. Take renewable energy as an example, in 2014, about half of all energy-generating capacity built in the previous year was renewable. The Africa Renewable Energy Initiative is working to mobilize billions of dollars in public and private financing to achieve 10,000 MW of installed renewables capacity on the continent by 2020.

These remarkable statistics speak to two shifts that will need to continue in order to achieve the SDGs. The first is increased alignment of public-policy and private-sector initiatives. The second is the ability of public finance to catalyze private investment.

On technology, policy and governance, we have already seen the potential of partnerships to change the world.

Thirty years ago, the international community came together to tackle the challenge of the growing hole in the ozone layer. The result was the Montreal Protocol and the phasing out of ozone-destroying cholorfluorocarbons (CFCs). Now, the ozone layer is on track to heal by mid-century.

The UNEP-supported Partnership for Clean Fuel and Vehicles played an important convening role in phasing out lead in fuel, which has resulted in a dramatic reduction of lead-exposure health problems.

And currently, the 100-member Climate and Clean Air Coalition, which UNEP hosts, is actively working to reduce air pollution.

Cooperation engenders success. That’s why partnerships like these are at the core of the goals of sustainable development. No one government — and not even 193 of them — will be able to realize sustainable development without working together.

(Thank you to Janet Hudgins, the CPNN reporter for this article.)