alternate view of the future

[jensend]

passed on by in-laws in europe. sees more food grown locally. will still see a lot of food traded but some production might change. note the four countries who haven't signed on.

Embargoed until Tuesday, 15 April 2008, 10:30 am GMT
A new era of agriculture begins today
International agriculture assessment calls for immediate radical changes
Civil society statement on the outcome of the “International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD)” —from AGENDA (Tanzania),
Consumers International, Friends of the Earth International, Greenpeace, International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movements, Pesticide Action Network, Practical Action, Third World Network, Uganda
Environmental Education Fund and Vredeseilanden.
The report of the first international Agriculture Assessment, approved last week by 54 governments in
Johannesburg, is a sobering account of the failure of industrial farming. It calls for a fundamental
change in the way we do farming, to better address soaring food prices, hunger, social inequities and
environmental disasters.
The report reflects a growing consensus among the global scientific community and most governments
that the old paradigm of industrial, energy-intensive and toxic agriculture is a concept of the past. The
key message of the report is that small-scale farmers and agro-ecological methods provide the way
forward to avert the current food crisis and meet the needs of local communities. For the first time an
independent, global assessment acknowledges that farming has a diversity of environmental and social
functions and that nations and peoples have the right to democratically determine their best food and
agricultural policies.
The IAASTD process itself was a path-breaking one, in which governments, major research
institutions, industry and civil society shared equal responsibility in its governance and
implementation. Its success proved that civil society participation as full partners in intergovernmental
processes is critical to meeting the challenges of the 21st century. The global community’s widespread
acceptance of this report is reflected in its approval by the vast majority of participating governments.
Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States have as yet not signed on to the final
report. After watering down the formulation of several key findings during the meeting in
Johannesburg, the US still claimed the assessment was unbalanced. The exact same allegation came
some months earlier from the agrochemical and biotech industry. However, the report’s lack of
support for the further industrialization and globalization of agriculture as well as for genetically
engineered plants in particular, was based on a rigorous and peer-reviewed analysis of the empirical
evidence by hundreds of scientists and development experts. These experts had been selected, together
with other stakeholders, by the very same governments and companies that are now calling the
assessment “unbalanced.”
The civil society groups that have participated in the IAASTD process over the past six years may not
fully agree with some of the government-negotiated conclusions of the report, but they respect the fact
that this report reflects the current consensus within the scientific community. We call on all
governments, civil society and international institutions to support the findings of this report,
implement its progressive conclusions, and thereby jumpstart the revolution in agricultural policies
and practices that is urgently needed to attain more equitable and sustainable food and farming
systems in the future.
Statements from civil society representatives present in Johannesburg, 7-12 April 2008
“This report proves one thing: Yes, we can produce more and better food without destroying rural
livelihoods and our natural resources,”
Kevin Akoyi, Uganda, for Vredeseilanden (Belgium)
“This report clearly shows that small-scale farmers and the environment lose out under trade
liberalization. Developing countries must exercise their right to stop the flood of cheap, subsidised
products from the North.”
Lim Li Ching, Malaysia, Third World Network
“The Green Revolutionaries of the past, with all their expensive and toxic products, have left a trail of
destruction. The IAASTD essentially says it's time to clean that up and move on.”
Romeo Quijano, Philippines, Pesticide Action Network
“This marks the beginning of a new, of a real Green Revolution. The modern way of farming is
biodiverse and labour intensive and works with nature, not against it.”
Benny Haerlin, Germany, Greenpeace
“The IAASTD provides the evidence to show that locally-controlled, biologically-based
intensification of farming is the only way forward. In short, it supports food sovereignty.”
Patrick Mulvany, UK, Practical Action
“This is a wake-up call for governments and international agencies. The survival of the planet’s food
systems demands global action to support agroecological farming and fair and equitable trade.
Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, USA, Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA).
“It is heartening to see that the scientists refuted the usual propaganda on genetically engineered (GE)
crops. They focused on the real problems and saw very little role for GE crops in their solutions.”
Juan Lopez, Spain, Friends of the Earth International.
Contact Information:
Kevin Akoyi, (IAASTD CSO Bureau Member from Uganda)
Vredeseilanden, Email: kevinakoyim@yahoo.co.uk, mobile:
Benny Haerlin ((IAASTD CSO Bureau Member from Germany)
Greenpeace Intl., Email: haerlin@zs-l.de, Phone: 49 173 9997555
Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, PhD (Lead Author, Global Report)
Pesticide Action Network North America (in US)
Email: mie@panna.org, Office: 1-415-981-1771, Mobile: 1-510-684-6860
Lim Li Ching (Lead Author, Asia report; note surname Lim)
Third World Network, Email: limliching@myjaring.net, mobile: 6012 2079744
Patrick Mulvaney, Senor Policy Advisor, Practical Action (UK)
Email: patrickmulvany@clara.co.uk, mobile: 44 7949 575711, Web: practicalaction.org
Romeo Quijano, MD (IAASTD CSO Bureau member)
PAN Philippines, Email: romyquij@yahoo.com, mobile: 63-9-27-602-4947
Erika Rosenthal, LLD (Lead Author, Global & Synthesis Report; Trade Theme)
Email: erosenthal@igc.org, Office: 1-202-742-5846, Mobile 1-415-812-2055.
April 14-16 in London: 44-20-7839-9333
Juan Lopez, Friends of the Earth International
Email: juanlopezvillar@gmail.com, Phone (Maputo): 258842420298
Jan Van Aken , Greenpeace Intl.
Email: jan.vanaken@int.greenpeace.org, Phone: 49 40 306 18-389, Mobile: 49 151 1805 3415
SPANISH-Speaking:
Luis Gomero (Lead Author, Latin America Regional report)
RAAA, Peru, Email: lgomero@raaa.org, Tel: (51-1) 4257955
Additional Lead Authors (academic/research institutions)
Janice Jiggins, PhD (Lead Author, Global & Synthesis Report)
Wageningen University, Netherlands
Tel: 31 (0) 488 451016, Mobile 06 53 933 863;
Email: janice.jiggins@inter.nl.net
Stephen Biggs, PhD (Review Editor, Globa reportl)
Tel: (44) 1273 414449, Mobile: (44) 07908117974
Email: biggs.s@gmail.com
Jack A. Heinemann, PhD (Lead Author, Global & Synthesis Reports, Biotech theme)
Director INBI, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Eml: jack.heinemann@canterbury.ac.nz, Office : 64 3 364 2926 (or c/o 64 3 364 2500)
Ivette Perfecto, PhD (Coordinating Lead Author, Latin America Report)
University of Michigan, School of Nat Resources/Envir, Tel: 1 (734) 764-1433, ivette@umich.edu
Rajeswari Raina, PhD (Lead Author, Asia report)
Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research,
New Delhi , India (but currently in Berlin)
Email: rajeswari_raina@yahoo.com, Tel: 30 -89001312
Niels Roling, PhD (Review Editor, Global report)
Wageningen University, Netherlands
Tel: 31 (0) 488 451016, Mobile: 06 20 25 0080
Eml: n.roling@inter.nl.net
More information at http://www.agassessment-watch.org and http://www.panna.org/jt/agAssessment

[silverback]

toxic agriculture?

People are living longer than ever and we have toxic agriculture?

The only thing toxic is that there is so much of it available at a cheap price that people are getting too fat for their own good. I bet they would like to impose calorie limits next to redistribute the food available.

I am still waiting to see the exodus of people from their city homes to hunker down in the country and start growing their own food.

[pilpilsner]

Its amazing how narrow minded people like this are.Division of labour moves us forward,if everybody still lived on the farm to make their own food we would still be in the dark ages.

I also wonder if the green thumpin know it alls have ever pulled weeds by hand all day long.

[wilagro]

Maybe some of those whiners at that SA meeting should take a tour of Zimbabwe and see where a "toxic" government has screwed up food supplies by direct interference in private agricultural production. Government policies in many countries are at fault if there is not enough of quality food for the citizens. In Nigeria for example, production of cacao for export to Europe takes precedence over production of maize or other edible crops for local consumption. In many cases governments are directly or indirectly involved in these plantations that produce crops for export with kickbacks and profit sharing schemes.

[silverback]

That is the problem, it looks like from the list of sponsors that they might not believe anything is a weed in need of removal. ( Pesticide Action Network? )

[classicalliberal]

This is a bunch of bullshit. It is left-wing groups who hate the corporations that make the various pesticides and chemicals simply because they are made by big capitalist corporations and is more about their socialist agenda rather than benefits to the environment.

Also, trade has proven to benefit both parties to the trade rather than the zero-sum game that socialists think is involved in trade. They are simply a bunch of protectionists trying to protect uncompetitive local farmers in third world countries. Also, there was a lot of good farming in South Africa until the land was confiscated from the European farmers and given to locals who now squander it and don't know how to use it.

Have any of you ever seen the CSX commercial where they say they can move one ton of freight over 400 miles on a gallon of fuel. If you do the math, it would use less fuel to load up railcars to send them to Thunder Bay than it would to send it to a local market by truck 50 or 100 miles so the environmental thing about buying local doesn't work with me.

If these policies came to play we would have large tracts of farmland that would go to waste because we don't have the population to have a big enough market for all the grain to go locally.

Organic and non-GMO farming cannot and will not sustain the world, especially at current populations.

[parsley]

classy, I'm a bit curious, so here's a couple of questions:

Do humans want to sustain ever growing burgeoning populations? Who's goal is that?

Organic cannot feed the world? Hmm. If the African continent grew organic food 356, would food supplies change appreciably?

If Earth Farms grows organically,zero chemicals, what effect will that have upon conventional agriculture?

Last question is: Have you surveyed any good eaters? lol, aka consumers? What do they want to eat? Dija ever ask? Pars

[vagabonddreamer]

lol...classicliberal...if i thought you capable of humorous irony...i would think you submitted a large portion of your post "tongue in cheek"...but alas..you seem a very bitter and cynical sort...you dont seem to have the ability to deal with opposing points of view in an "objective" manner....

i tend very much to agree with your viewpoint of the poor use of farmland in 3rd world countries.....and i also believe it to be true that a ton of grain can be moved long distances very efficiently given economies of scale....

the portion of your post referencing "organic" food truly is communistic in ideology and marxist in proportion...with a general north american/european population SCREAMING for organic and natural food...with a BURGEONING organic food industry you come up with a statement like THAT??

so...in this free market economy..YOU the producer are going to dictate what the general populace will eat and how it will be grown???

the only reason our family have been able to maintain an income from cattle is because we responded to a public demand for natural fed beef...NO implants/hormones/vaccinations etc...most all of our beef gets sold as sides...because thats what the public WANTS...

i also dont think you would have large tracts of farmland go to waste as the purpose of a free market economy is that something will fill that void and the land will be used...in a perfect free market economy there is NEVER idle resource...it CANT happen...

and those noble gargantuan chemical companies that you laud...they would be the same ones that told us that ddt could be consumed like water??? and that smoking was healthy??? and a million other social injustices that were committed in the name of commerce and big industry??? i am a HUGE fan of capitalism...but i dont think i trust big business to police itself...vs

[classicalliberal]

Right, there are certain niche markets for those types of things, but we cannot support food and biofuel demand if everyone wants organic products and non-GMO.