1. 15-04-2008 13:59

Here is one of the most significant observations of the below text: 
 
A focus only on boosting crop yields would not deal with the problems at hand, he said: "We need better quality food in the right places 
 
The notion that yield can no longer be the sole measure of agricultural success was also raised by Greenpeace International's Jan van Aken, who said that the extent to which agriculture promotes nutrition needs to be considered. A half-hectare plot in Thailand can grow 70 species of vegetables, fruits and herbs, providing far better nutrition and feeding more people than a half-hectare plot of high-yielding rice, he added.

Guest

2. 15-04-2008 13:57

more from the same cite below: 
 
Amongst the 22 findings of the study that chart a new direction for agriculture: a conclusion that the dominant practice of industrial, large-scale agriculture is unsustainable, mainly because of the dependence of such farming on cheap oil, its negative effects on ecosystems -- and growing water scarcity.  
 
Instead, monocultures must be reconsidered in favour of agro-ecosystems that marry food production with ensuring water supplies remain clean, preserving biodiversity, and improving the livelihoods of the poor.  
 
"Given the future challenges it was very clear to everyone that business as usual was not an option," IAASTD Co-chair Hans Herren told IPS. He was speaking at an Apr. 7-12 intergovernmental plenary in South Africa's commercial hub, Johannesburg, where the assessment findings were reviewed ahead of Tuesday's presentation.  
 
While global supplies of food are adequate, 850 million people are still hungry and malnourished because they can't get access to or afford the supplies they need, added Herren -- who is also president of the Arlington-based Millennium Institute, a body that undertakes a variety of developmental activities around the world. A focus only on boosting crop yields would not deal with the problems at hand, he said: "We need better quality food in the right places."  
 
The notion that yield can no longer be the sole measure of agricultural success was also raised by Greenpeace International's Jan van Aken, who said that the extent to which agriculture promotes nutrition needs to be considered. A half-hectare plot in Thailand can grow 70 species of vegetables, fruits and herbs, providing far better nutrition and feeding more people than a half-hectare plot of high-yielding rice, he added. The IAASTD further notes that experts in agricultural science and technology must not only work with local farmers, but also economists, social and health scientists, governments and civil society.  
 
"We can't solve these problems in the agriculture department alone," observed the other IAASTD co-chair, Judi Wakhungu, who is also executive director of the African Centre for Technology Studies. The centre is headquartered in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi.  
 
"Leadership will be needed to make this change," she added, in acknowledgement of the fact that most governments, research centres and others in sectors linked to agriculture are unaccustomed to joining hands, and often compete for funding.  
 
The plenary was marked by some disagreement over the ever-controversial matters of biotechnology and trade: indeed, during a long and fraught debate over biotechnology, the meeting very nearly fell apart. U.S. and Australian government representatives objected to wording in the synthesis report that highlighted concerns about whether the use of genetically modified (GM) crops in food is healthy and safe.  
 
Syngenta and the other biotech and pesticide companies abandoned the assessment process late last year.  
 
The impasse at the plenary was broken when the two countries agreed to a footnote in the report indicating their reservations about the wording. They also agreed to accept the report as a whole, along with Canada and Swaziland: "Our government will champion this even though we have reservations on some parts," the Australian delegate told the meeting.  
 
This issue, along with challenges pertaining to trade, had been thoroughly debated over the three-year IAASTD process and the final wording reflected scientific evidence. The report says biotechnology has a role to play in the future but that it remains a contentious matter, the data on benefits of GM crops being mixed; it further notes that patenting of genes causes problems for farmers and researchers.  
 
The other 60 countries represented at the plenary took a stronger position, moving beyond acceptance to adopt the report.  
 
"I'm stunned. I didn't think it would pass," said Janice Jiggins of the Department of Social Science at the University of Wageningen in the Netherlands, and one of the experts who worked to review the totality of agricultural know-how and the effects of farming around the world.  
 
There was also broad endorsement from civil society.  
 
"We have a very strong anti-GMO (genetically-modified organism) stance but agreed to accept the synthesis report findings because it was neutral," noted van Aken. "We're not happy with everything, but we agree with the scientific consensus in the synthesis report."  
 
Now, the IAASTD moves from testing the endurance of researchers to trying the political will of decision makers.  
 
"These documents are like a bible with which to negotiate with various institutions in my country and transform agriculture," the Costa Rican delegate told the Johannesburg gathering, through a translator.  
 
Others were more circumspect about the prospects for the assessment, but still hopeful.  
 
"We're all headed in the same direction now, even if some are walking and some are running," said Wakhungu.  
 
Comment from GM Watch: 
 
This is a very important moment. Not only is there no mindless hype here about industrial ag + GMOs feeding the world, there's no role given to GM as a fix for soaring food prices and hunger - despite some last minute attempts by the U.S to overturn the consensus. Instead, it's made clear that to counter these we need to support localised, traditional, ecological farming practices which can deliver best for the poorest and the hungriest, and without wreaking environmental devastation. 
 
========================= 
 
I like the part about helping the poorest and hungriest feed themselves without wreaking environmental devastation. What a concept!

Guest

3. 15-04-2008 13:56

Looks like the World Bank and UN could be adjusting their perspectives on the food crisis. http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/index.php 
 
Urgent changes needed in global farming practices to avoid environmental destruction 
World's leading scientists condemn industrial farming methods and see no role for GE as a solution to soaring food prices and hunger crisis fears 
 
AMSTERDAM -- Greenpeace welcomed the publication today of the first assessment of global agriculture as an historic opportunity to replace destructive chemical-intensive agriculture with methods that work with nature not against it. The report says industrial agriculture has failed and, regarding genetically engineered (GE) crops, found they are no solution for poverty, hunger or climate change.  
 
Some 60 governments signed the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD)'s final report [1] last week in Johannesburg, South Africa. The United States, Canada and Australia were the only governments in attendance not to sign. Despite being among the stakeholders who selected the report's authors, they accuse the assessment of being 'unbalanced' and are attacking the authors' independence [2].  
 
"This report proves we can produce more and better food without destroying rural livelihoods and our natural resources. Modern farming solutions champion biodiversity, are labour intensive and work with nature, not against it," says Benny Härlin from Greenpeace International, who was on the IAASTDís governing body. "This report is a call for governments and international agencies to redirect and increase their funding towards a revolution in agriculture that is firmly agro-ecological."  
 
The IAASTD report calls for a fundamental change in farming practices,in order to address soaring food prices, hunger, social inequities and environmental disasters. It acknowledges that genetically engineered crops are highly controversial and will not play a substantial role in addressing the key problems of climate change, biodiversity loss, hunger and poverty.  
 
It recommends small-scale farmers and agro-ecological methods are the way forward if the current food crisis is to be solved and to meet the needs of local communities, declaring indigenous and local knowledge play as important a role as formal science. A significant departure from the destructive chemical-dependent, one-size-fits-all model of industrial agriculture.  
 
"Dependency on world agricultural commodity prices and speculation, as well as on seed and toxic agricultural inputs controlled by a few transnational players is literally a kiss of death for small-scale and poor farmers," warns Haerlin.  
 
Notes to editors:  
 
1. The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) is a unique collaboration initiated by the World Bank in partnership with a multi-stakeholder group of organisations, including the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environmental Programme, the World Health Organisation and representatives of governments, civil society, private sector and scientific institutions from around the world. For Greenpeace, Benny Härlin participated since 2003 in the Bureau that governs the project.  
The IAASTD's key objective is to provide information for decision makers on how to structure agricultural research and development so it can help to reduce hunger and poverty, improve rural livelihood and foster sustainable development. The key final documents are the Global Summary for Decision Makers, and the Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report. They were negotiated line by line by governments in Johannesburg. More information on www.agassessment-watch.org.  
 
2. The report was compiled by over 400 of the world's leading agricultural scientists, selected by all participating governments, companies and NGOs. It is the most comprehensive account of agricultural knowledge, science and technology. It provides guidance for governments, UN agencies and funders for their future priority setting in agriculture and development. The next step is for government and agencies to adjust their funding, research and development programmes accordingly.

Guest

4. 08-04-2008 21:39

Why food prices will go through the roof in coming months 
 
Online Journal, 4 April 2008. By By F. William Engdahl.  
 
A deadly fungus, known as Ug99, which kills wheat, has likely spread to Pakistan from Africa, according to reports. If true, that threatens the vital Asian Bread Basket including the Punjab region. 
 
The spread of the deadly virus, stem rust, against which an effective fungicide does not exist, comes as world grain stocks reach the lowest in four decades and government subsidized bio-ethanol production, especially in the USA, Brazil and EU are taking land out of food production at alarming rates. The deadly fungus is being used by Monsanto and the US Government to spread patented GMO seeds. 
 
Stem rust is the worst of three rusts that afflict wheat plants. The fungus grows primarily in the stems, plugging the vascular system so carbohydrates can't get from the leaves to the grain, which shrivels. Ug99 is a race of stem rust that blocks the vascular tissues in cereal grains including wheat, oats and barley. Unlike other rusts that may reduce crop yields, Ug99-infected plants may suffer up to 100 percent loss. 
 
It threatens to spread into other wheat producing regions of Asia and eventually the entire world if not checked. 
 
from http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/index.php

Guest

5. 08-04-2008 21:34

FAO world grain forecast 
 
The 2007 World Agriculture Forecast of the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Rome projects an alarming trend in world food supply even in the absence of any devastation from Ug99. The report states, "Countries in the non-OECD region are expected to continue to experience a much stronger increase in consumption of agricultural products than countries in the OECD area. This trend is driven by population and, above all, income growth -- underpinned by rural migration to higher income urban areas . . . OECD countries as a group are projected to lose production and export shares in many commodities . . . Growth in the use of agricultural commodities as feedstock to a rapidly increasing biofuel industry is one of the main drivers in the outlook and one of the reasons for international commodity prices to attain a significantly higher plateau over the outlook period than has been reported in the previous reports." [my emphasis -- w.e.] 
 
The FAO warns that the explosive growth in acreage used to grow fuels and not food in the past three years is dramatically changing the outlook for food supply globally and forcing food prices sharply higher for all foods, from cereals to sugar to meat and dairy products. The use of cereals, sugar, oilseeds and vegetable oils to satisfy the needs of a rapidly increasing biofuel industry, is one of the main drivers, most especially the large volumes of maize in the US, wheat and rapeseed in the EU and sugar in Brazil for ethanol and bio-diesel production. This is already causing dramatically higher crop prices, higher feed costs and sharply higher prices for livestock products. 
 
Ironically, the current bio-ethanol industry is being driven by US government subsidies and a scientifically false argument in the EU and USA that bio-ethanol is less harmful to the environment than petroleum fuels and can reduce C02 emissions. The arguments have been demonstrated in every respect to be false. The huge expansion of global acreage now planted to produce biofuels is creating ecological problems and demanding use of far heavier pesticide spraying while use of biofuels in autos releases even deadlier emissions than imagined. The political effect, however, has been a catastrophic shift down in world grain stocks at the same time the EU and USA have enacted policies which drastically cut traditional emergency grain reserves. In short, it is a scenario preprogrammed for catastrophe, one which has been clear to policymakers in the EU and USA for several years. That can only suggest that such a dramatic crisis in global food supply is intentional 
 
from http://www.gmfreeireland.org/news/index.php

Guest