Connect with us

NGO WORK

Food Sovereignty is the only solution and way forward.

Published

8 months ago

on

Our fragile world faces an impending global food crisis. The impact of COVID-19 pushed more people into poverty. Lockdowns devastated family livelihoods, the economy, and disrupted supply chains. Globally, according to the Global Report on Food Crises (GRFC 2022), levels of hunger remain as alarmingly high as in 2021, around 193 million people are acutely food insecure and in need of urgent assistance across 53 countries. This acute hunger is driven by conflicts, climatic shocks, the dramatic economic and social fallout from the COVID pandemic and lately by war in Ukraine. Food commodity prices at the start of 2022 were at a 10-year high, and fuel prices at a seven-year high. The current food crisis is about affordability; even in places where food is available its cost is beyond the reach for millions of people while rising prices deepen the challenges for those barely able to pay for food in normal times.

The food crisis at the moment is unique because it is unfolding amid a more difficult global context than with the food and fuel crises of 2008. The intensity and frequency of climatic shocks have more than doubled compared with the first decade of this century. About 1.7 billion people were affected by climate-related disasters, almost 90 per cent of them became climate refugees in last 10 years. Hunger, malnutrition and poverty are harder to overcome because of on-going wars, conflicts and natural disasters. These disrupts all aspects of a food system, from the harvesting, processing and transport of food to its sale, availability and consumption.

But ending hunger isn’t only about supply. Enough food is produced today to feed everyone on the planet. The problem is access and availability of nutritious food, which is increasingly impeded by multiple challenges including the COVID-19 pandemic, conflict, climate change, inequality, rising prices and international tensions.

As the shift from multilateralism to multi-stakeholderism proliferates across UN platforms, corporations have continued to gain control of the narratives for change. Corporate power in food and agriculture systems has continued to grow too, and financialization is converting food and land into objects of speculation. The recent UNFSS process is a clear example of this tendency. The failure of the neoliberal policies and industrial agriculture (including GMOs) in increasing yields and profits led to the concentration of corporate power in few transnational corporations (TNCs) which are controlling Big Data, agricultural land, ocean resources, seeds and agrochemicals, and aim to increasingly dominate our food systems and appropriate the 80% of the food produced by Family Farmers. Financialization led to an unprecedented market concentration to enhance new investments in Research and Development (R&D and (bio)technologies, with the aim to extend the frontiers of capitalism to capture all the world biodiversity.

World-wide, there is a trend towards shrinking space for civil society and reduced ambition for defending human rights. The activists at the local level are more and more vulnerable to human rights violation, oppression, and criminalization. The physical violence of state-sponsored repression using security and military forces have targeted individuals and embattled masses of peaceful protesters around the world. On the other hand, the primacy and legitimacy of the public sector is increasingly threatened by corporate capture of policy processes and a development narrative that assigns a lead role to private sector investment, while multilateralism is under attack from virulently populist nationalism and corporate-promoted multi-stakeholderism.

In the past three decades there has been a growth of an increasingly robust, diversified and articulated network of small-scale food producers, workers and other social actors ill-served by the corporate-led globalized food system who advocate for a radical transformation of food and agricultural systems based on food sovereignty. These movements have been resolutely engaged in defending and building ecologically and socially sustainable, and territorially embedded food provisioning arrangements that tend to be termed ‘alternative,’ although they are responsible for up to 70% of the food consumed in the world. Rethinking agriculture policies as a matter of economic and national security must be a priority.

The food sovereignty movement has been a dynamic part of the articulation of transformation and solutions since 1990s, through the landmark Nyéléni Food Sovereignty forum in 2007 and agroecology forum in 2015. 25 years after the creation of the concept of Food Sovereignty, our movements join their voices to call for systemic change to open the path for a future of hope.

We demand immediate action to:

  • End of speculation on food and the suspension of trading food products on stock markets. The price of food traded internationally should be linked with the costs of production and follow the principles of fair trade, both for producers and for consumers;
  • End of the WTO’s control of food trade and keep food production out of free trade agreements. Countries should have public food stockpiles, and regulate the market and prices, so that they can support small-scale food producers in this challenging context;
  • Create a new international body to conduct transparent negotiations on commodity agreements between exporting and importing countries so that countries which have become dependent on food imports can have access to food at an accessible price;
  • Forbid the use of agricultural products to produce agrofuel or energy. Food should be an absolute priority over fuel.
  • Bring a global moratorium on the payment of the public debt by the most vulnerable countries. Pressuring such countries to pay the debt is highly irresponsible and leads to socio, economic, and food crises.

We demand radical changes in international, regional and national policies to re-build food sovereignty through:

  • A radical change in international trade order. WTO should be dismantled. A new global framework for trade and agriculture, based on food sovereignty, should open the way for strengthening local and national peasant agriculture, to ensure a stable basis for a re-localized food production, the support for local and national peasant-led markets, as well as to provide a fair international trading system based on cooperation and solidarity;
  • The implementation of popular and integral Agrarian Reform, to stop the grabbing by TNCs of water, seeds and land, and ensure small-scale producers fair rights over productive resources. We protest against the privatization and grabbing of territories and commons by corporate interests under the pretext of nature protection, through carbon markets or other biodiversity off-sets programs, without consideration to the people who are living on these territories and who have been taking care of the commons for generations;
  • A radical shift towards agroecology to produce healthy food for the world. We must face the challenge of producing enough quality food while reviving biodiversity and drastically reducing GHG emissions.
  • Effective input market regulation (such as credits, fertilizers, pesticides, seeds, fuel) to support peasants’ capacity to produce food, but also to ensure a fair and well-planned transition toward more agroecological farming practices;
  • A food governance based on the people, not on TNCs. The capture of food governance by TNCs should be stopped, and people’s interests should be put at the center. Small producers should be given a vital role in all bodies dealing with food governance;
  • The transformation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants into a legally binding instrument for the defense of rural peoples.
  • The development in every country of public stockpiling capacities. The strategy of food stockpiling should be held both at the national level but also through the creation and public support to food reserves at the community level, with locally produced food coming from agroecological farming practices;
  • A global moratorium on dangerous technologies that threatens humanity, such as geoengineering, GMOs or cellular meat. The promotion of low-cost techniques that increase peasant autonomy and of peasant’s seeds;
  • The development of public policies to ensure new relationships between those who produce food and those who consume, those who live in rural areas and those who live in urban areas, guaranteeing fair prices defined based on the cost of production, allowing a decent income for all those who produce in the countryside and a fair access to healthy food for the consumers;
  • The promotion of new gender relations based on equality and respect, both for people living in the countryside and among the urban working class. The violence against women must stop now.

Source: viacampesina.org

Related posts:

La Via Campesina calls on States to exit the WTO and to create a new framework based on food sovereignty WTO negotiations: In the face of the food crisis, public stocks are legitimate and necessary Food sovereignty is Africa’s only solution to climate chaos Food Sovereignty: A Manifesto for the Future of Our Planet UN Food Systems Summit: The Battle Over Global Food and Agriculture Governance

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

EACOP Was Anchored On Disinformation, Persons Affected By Pipeline Declare

Published

4 days ago

on

June 7, 2023

By

At least 30 persons affected by the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) in Uganda and Tanzania have resorted to pushing beyond compensation for losses incurred in the project’s initial stages.

The EACOP Project Affected Persons (PAPs) from Uganda and Tanzania grassroots met for the first time at a three-day conference in Nairobi, where experiences and lessons learnt were shared. They were also joined by participants from Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Gambia, who shared their experiences with fossil fuels, especially in Niger Delta.

Both the Ugandan and Tanzanian PAPs, some of them faith leaders, complained of misinformation, disinformation by the project’s proponents’ agents, intimidation, bribery, forced land possession, coercion to accept government terms for land acquired and unfair subsequent compensation for the property lost. The PAPs also complained of intentional classification of primary PAPs as secondary to reduce the compensation due them.

“During the social Impact Assessment, a lot of clans, especially the Bagungu, were given volumes of literature to read within two weeks, then decide to relinquish their property. But we could not make head or tail of the documents. Those who signed them were not left with copies,” said Jealusy Mugisha, a religious leader and PAP from Uganda’s Hoima District.

His sentiments were echoed by Swalleh Nkungu from Tanzania, who added: “Information scarcity played a huge role in enabling EACOP. We are knowledgeable enough to tell that the project is harmful, but a lot of secret planning went into this project before it was made public. Some people acting as CSOs also came to the grassroots and intentionally shared false and misleading information to boost EACOP acceptance”.

The participants, including those from Laudato Si Movement and youth in Kenya, were grateful for the event dubbed “Experience sharing meeting for grassroots persons affected by EACOP in Uganda and Tanzania”.

TotalEnergies holds 62 per cent stake of EACOP. Others stakeholders in the would-be world’s longest heated pipeline expected to cover 1,443km from Northern Uganda to Tanzania’s Tanga Port are Ugandan National Oil Company (15 per cent), Tanzania National Oil Company (15 per cent) and Chinese National Offshore Oil Company at 8 per cent.

Pastor Mugisha said: “I declined to receive money in exchange for my land and instead demanded to be relocated. This made the Uganda government to mark me and others, claiming we were sabotaging its project,” he said.

“Is it wrong for me to demand justice over my damaged home? Once I was chained and harassed at the Entebbe airport when I returned from France where I had attended a hearing about rights of PAPs. After release they kept sending my friends to tell me to be silent about EACOP. I became louder on it, even at funerals”.

Several other participants at the event organised by GreenFaith Africa spoke of bribery for people opposed to the EACOP to change their minds. “My father was very decisive when EACOP started, but he later caved in to pressure. We lost acres of land. What this means to women and children is helplessness, less food and loss of sources of living. But we can still act because EACOP is evil,” said Mwajuma Tunu from Tanzania.

Kamili Fabiano from Tanzania said: “It is no longer about compensation; it is now about climate justice. We need a conducive environment to farm and take care of our current and future generations”.

Julius Caesar, a faith leader from Uganda, urged the affected persons to act fast. “Staying near the anthill turned the antelope brown. Anyone lying to you in broad daylight is capable of deceiving you more in the dark. The disinformation was to divide us and keep us in the dark,” he said.

Mugisha said currently the EACOP’s Central Processing Facility for the oil was a key polluter through dust. “Multiple letters were written to TotalEnergies regarding this, but nothing much has happened. I fear for our water sources.”

The conference that ended yesterday also featured Baraka Lenga, an anti-EACOP activist from Tanzania, and a grassroots organizer for GreenFaith. “For people of faith, water is central to life in many ways. The pipeline is a threat to over 200 precious water sources that support our livelihoods and biodiversity. This is an attack on the very foundations of our spirituality,” he said.

Baraka outlined the projected pollutant emissions, should the project start, as millions of tonnes of carbon, adding that it would worsen the climate crisis. “The roads constructed in the Murchison National Park to enable easy transportation of oil is the reason cases of human/wildlife conflict have gone up. This also affects food security”.

Maxwell Atuhura of Uganda said not only were oil and gas firms from developed nations targeting Africa. “They are more likely to be successful where dictatorship seems to work.”

He urged participants to study Kenya and Nigeria cases. “I’m inspired by how Kenya fought the Lamu coal project. They knew they had a UNESCO-recognised heritage to protect. They defended their indigenous identity, even coming up with policies around it. East Africa can have such an identity,” he said, giving an example of powers that the EU Parliament wields. “Europe respects decisions made at the EU parliament. We can use the East African Legislative Assembly the same way; with binding laws for East Africa. Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania are, for instance, joined by Lake Victoria. An East African law protecting the lake basin can be great.”

Pius Oko, a Lift Humanity Foundation leader, narrated Nigerians’ experiences with oil. “Oil drilling in Niger Delta started in 1950s, but people are poorest there. Residents eat oil contaminated fish and cassava. Water bodies are filled with oil. Land is filled with oil, making farming untenable. The atmosphere is filled with suit. People inhale a lot of dirt. Diseases are more rampant in the Niger Delta. Life expectancy has gone below 50 years. EACOP will benefit a few rich people. The rest will suffer like those in the Niger Delta,” he said, sharing images of women and children scooping oil from ditches, fire, gas flaring and fish laced with oil, but which many consumed for lack of alternatives.

Early this year Uganda and Tanzania cabinets approved EACOP construction license. The project continues to face opposition, including from grassroots people.

Last year the EU Parliament pointed out human rights abuse in EACOP. In addition, 25 multinational financial institutions have either disassociated themselves from EACOP or vowed not to loan it for the $5 billion dollar project that still needs over $2 billion loan to be financially secure.

At the end of the Nairobi conference, Meryne Warah, the GreenFaith’s Global Director for Advocacy, urged the PAPs to remain focused in their quest for justice guided by their beliefs and values. “From participants’ sentiments since the beginning of this conference, it is clear that the governments of Uganda and Tanzania did not listen to project affected persons. However, despite all the atrocities committed, we need each other. We need to stand together as one, encouraged by our faiths teachings.

She said the meeting gave the persons affected by EACOP and Tilenga an opportunity to share their experiences about the various adverse effects of the pipeline, as well as build resilience towards effective continued campaigning against the EACOP.

Source: Panafricanvisions.com

Related posts:

Action to stop the East African Crude Oil Pipeline.
CSOs and EACOP-affected people’s network call for withdrawal of Barclays Bank’s research paper on EACOP A reference filed by CSOs against the planned construction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) is set for hearing. EACOP Partners With Surveyors Body as Pipeline Land Acquisition Nears Completion. Close to 20 local farmers are in jail for fighting for their land not to be taken by the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). CSOs urge banks and other IFIs not to finance E.Africa oil pipeline project… 
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Press statement: CSOs call on NEMA to disclose Bugoma forest restoration plan

Published

5 days ago

on

June 5, 2023

By

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE KAMPALA & KIKUUBE

NEMA MUST ENSURE HOIMA SUGAR LTD RESTORES BUGOMA FOREST

Today, as various actors across the globe mark World Environment Day (WED), the Save Bugoma Forest Campaign (SBFC) has written to the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) requesting that the authority avails the SBFC and general public with a copy of the approved restoration plan for Bugoma Central Forest Reserve (CFR), which is found in Kikuube district in Western Uganda.

The SBFC consists of the forest host communities, civil society and private sector entities whose main objective is to defend Bugoma CFR from land grabbing, sugarcane growing and oil threats.

The SBFC is also calling on NEMA and the National Forestry Authority (NFA) to ensure that Hoima Sugar Limited (HSL) halts all its destructive activities in Bugoma CFR and restores the forest.

HISTORY

Despite protestations from NFA, Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), Kikuube District Local

Government (KDLG), civil society and the general public, NEMA authorised HSL’s activities in Bugoma forest in August 2020.

The authority illegally and irregularly issued an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) of approval allowing HSL to do the following in Bugoma forest:

  • Set up a sugarcane plantation on 9.24sq. miles;
  • Develop an urban centre on 1.206 sq. miles;
  • Set up an ecotourism site on 1.97 sq. miles;
  • Land for a cultural site covering 0.156 sq. miles; and
  • Leave a natural forested area and set up nature trails on 6.17 sq. miles.

While NEMA allowed HSL to grow sugarcane in some parts of Bugoma forest, reports by the SBFC in January 2021 and investigations by NEMA in September 2022 showed that the company had grown sugarcane in the area reserved for ecotourism purposes. The area reserved for natural forested purposes was also degraded.

In September 2022, NEMA acknowledged that HSL had violated condition 4.3 (i)(c) contained in the company’s ESIA certificate of approval. NEMA therefore exercised her powers under section 129 of the National Environment Act, 2019 and among others, directed as follows:

  • That HSL immediately stops any further destruction of the natural reserved forest area, eco-tourism area, cultural site and the land reserved for an urban centre;
  • That no sugarcane is planted in the above-mentioned areas;
  • That no urban centre is developed;
  • That HSL restores all the degraded areas of the natural reserved forest area, ecotourism area, cultural area and land reserved for an urban centre at its own cost; and
  • That Hoima Sugar prepares a restoration plan for the degraded areas of Bugoma forest in consultation with the Forestry Sector Support Department of the Ministry of Water and Environment (FSSD), NFA and UWA and submits the same to NEMA for approval within a period of not more than three months from the date of the aforementioned order. “Over eight months have elapsed since NEMA ordered Hoima Sugar to submit a restoration plan. While the forest host communities and the public are highly interested in the restoration of Bugoma forest, NEMA has not publicly shared the restoration plan that Hoima Sugar submitted to the authority, if any was,” Mr. Dickens Kamugisha, the chairperson of the SBFC, says.

He adds, “NEMA must build goodwill and show that it is interested in promoting public participation in forest conservation by publicly disclosing the restoration order. The forest must also be restored and all destructive activities by Hoima Sugar Ltd stopped.”

Mr. Hassan Mugenyi, the chairperson of the SBFC local taskforce adds, “We do not know if any restoration plan for Bugoma exists. If it does, we were not consulted on it yet as people who have lived near Bugoma forest for a long time and have enjoyed benefits from the forest, we are interested in conservation of the forest. We can also share information to inform restoration of the forest.”

Ms. Lamla Asasira who lives near Bugoma forest says, “Women are very unhappy that Bugoma forest from which we used to get free herbs and which brought us rain is being destroyed. We are worried that if the forest is not restored and the destruction by Hoima Sugar continues, government will not be able to stop other encroachers and the entire forest will be destroyed.”

BUGOMA FOREST’S TOURISM POTENTIAL

 Research conducted by the Inclusive Green Economy Network, East Africa (IGEN-EA) to determine the tourism potential of Bugoma forest, showed that the forest has immense potential. The research found the following:

  • That Bugoma forest is home to tourist attractions including 570 or 11.4% of Uganda’s chimpanzees, 225 bird species, the Uganda Mangabey, bush elephants and others.
  • That entities such as Jane Goodall Institute were engaged in habituation of chimpanzees and the Ugandan Mangabey to make them ready for trekking (tourist visits). The habituation of chimpanzees was expected to be completed early in 2023.
  • Further, that tourist activities such as chimpanzee and Uganda Mangabey trekking, forest walks, tree climbing and others could be promoted in the forest.
  • In addition, that if the above activities were promoted, Bugoma forest could earn the country more than half a million dollars a year.
  • Over 90% of tour operators who participated in the study were willing to sell tourism experiences within Bugoma forest.

CONCLUSION

To save Bugoma forest, the SBFC recommends the following:

  1. NEMA should publicly share a copy of the approved restoration plan for Bugoma forest by HSL.
  2. The ongoing destruction of Bugoma forest should be immediately stopped.
  3. The Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (MLHUD) should make public the boundary opening report of Bugoma forest. The ministry opened the forest boundaries in 2021 and 2022.
  4. The Ugandan government should ensure that the conservation of Bugoma forest is promoted under the Forest Partnership that government signed with the European Union in November 2022.
  5. Bugoma forest should be turned into a national park so better conserve the forest and protect the environment.

 Source: Afiego

Related posts:

NEMA stopped oil road in Bugoma, but sanctioned sugarcane cultivation Hoima Sugar loses 13 sq miles as NEMA toughens on Bugoma land takeover NEMA, Hoima Sugar sued yet again over Bugoma forest giveaway Environment activists protest Bugoma forest giveaway EU wants Bugoma Forest sugarcane project halted
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

A corporate cartel fertilises food inflation

Published

3 weeks ago

on

May 24, 2023

By

Last year’s financial results from the world’s largest fertiliser companies are now in — and it’s a shocker. Given the sky high fertiliser prices of 2022, it was anticipatedthat their revenues would break records, but no one could have predicted this scale of profiteering. As the world grappled with a severe food crisis and farmers saw costs rise, the world’s largest fertiliser firms ramped up their margins and more than tripled their profits from two years ago.

Graph 1

Graph 1 shows the total profits of the big nine fertiliser companies over the past five years. They exponentially grew from an average of around US$14 billion before the Covid-19 pandemic to US$28 billion in 2021 and then to an astounding US$49 billion last year. International agencies like the World Bank blamed the spike in fertiliser prices on the Russian war in Ukraine, resulting in high natural gas prices (used to produce nitrogen fertiliser) from shortages and trade disruptions. But as can be seen in Graph 2, a major part of the story is the monopoly power of the fertiliser companies. These companies increased prices far beyond the increases in production costs and boosted their profit margins to a massive 36% in 2022.
Graph 2
There are signs that fertiliser prices are coming down from their stratospheric heights earlier this year, but the effects of the price spike are still being felt. The high prices and lack of supply in some countries caused farmers to cut fertiliser use, thereby reducing production levels and contributing to an alarming rise in global food insecurity. The high prices also pushed many farmers deeper into debt. Farmers from Cameroon to the U.S. say they are still spending three times as much on fertilisers as they were a few years ago. And in countries where fertilisers are heavily subsidised, the price spike has saddled governments with huge debts. In India alone, the central government’s expenditure on fertiliser subsidies last year surged from US$9.8 billion to US$17.1 billion. People are paying the price for the fertiliser industry’s price gouging.
The costs are also rising for the planet. Chemical fertilisers are a major source of environmental pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, with nitrogen fertilisers alone accounting for one out of every 40 tonnes of annual emissions. New reports from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation and Earth4All, a global collective of leading scientists and economists, make it clear that steep and immediate reductions in global fertiliser use are required to avert catastrophic climate change. Both recommend a near phase-out of nitrogen fertiliser consumption by 2050 (see Graph 3). The idea is not to recklessly crash production levels, but a planned transition toward more sustainable, agroecological farming systems that require less or no fertiliser.
Graph 3
It is increasingly clear that today’s food inflation is a product of both corporate greed and ecological breakdown. Obscene levels of profit-taking by corporations are happening across the food system, from fertilisers to processing to retail, and this is pushing up prices. But the way these corporations organise our food production and distribution is also driving climate change and, undermining the capacity for the global food system to deliver affordable and accessible food, now and over the long term.
Bold new approaches are urgently needed to reign in corporate power in the food system and turn the food crisis around. When it comes to fertilisers, policy actions like windfall taxes and price controls can help. But to deal with both profiteering and environmental catastrophe we need to transition food production to rely far less on chemical fertilisers. The fertiliser industry will be pushing for the opposite when it gathers for its annual meeting in Prague this week, yet around the world there are farmers and rural movements already leading a transition away from chemical fertilisers, with plenty of successful examples to learn from. What’s holding us back is the structural political change needed at all levels to address the excess profiteering from the fertiliser industry, and chart a new path toward more resilient food systems.
Source: grain.org

Related posts:

World food prices rise for 2nd consecutive month: FAO Food Sovereignty is the only solution and way forward. UN Food Systems Summit: The Battle Over Global Food and Agriculture Governance The United Nations Food Systems Summit is a corporate food summit —not a “people’s” food summit WTO negotiations: In the face of the food crisis, public stocks are legitimate and necessary
Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter

* indicates required

Trending