NGO "ANOTHER WAY" (STICHTING BAKENS VERZET), NETHERLANDS, SUSTAINABLE INTEGRATED SELF-FINANCING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGIES

There are international conventions guaranteeing adequate food as a human right, where “every man, woman of child, alone or in a community with others, has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement ”. On the human rights aspects of monocultures, see Suárez S., Emanueli M, Monocultures and human rights, Food First Information and Action Network (FIAN), Heidelberg, and Habitat International Coalition Regional Office Latin America, Mexico City, June 2009, p. 7.

Local food independence.

The inhabitants of integrated development project areas sustainably cultivate and local store the foods necessary for their survival. They do this through the use of eco-sanitation installations for the recycling of their urine and composted faeces, thereby supplying the fertilisers necessary for the production of their own foods. The urine is added to household grey water . The grey water and the urine together provide enough liquid to cover family requirements, even in times of drought.

Project areas under the Model undoubtedly enjoy a greater resistance to droughts and other crises than most other communities. However, they cannot offer total guarantees against disaster.

For example, recommended solar pumps work at total heads up to 150 meters. This allows interested parties working where there is a risk of long-term drought or other serious climatic crises to deepen boreholes to reach a lower (and presumably safer) aquifer. It is also possible to increase the power installed with each pump from 300Wp to 400Wp, to help compensate the higher heads involved. Increase in installed power can also be introduced gradually, according to specific risks or requirements. Should a choice be made to allow extra margins from the beginning, provision should be made under item 70101 (Borehole construction) for an extra sum of Euro 250.000, and under item 70204 (solar PV panels) for an extra sum of Euro 125.000. Since reserves are inadequate to cover these increases, the total project budget should be increased to Euro 5.350.000- Euro 5.500.000.

Under conditions of extended drought for 2-3 years, reserves of harvested rain-water will have run out. There will be no surface water available, and perhaps no water left in rivers. The only water available to the inhabitants will be the 25 litres per person per day from their deep well sources. The system of recycling of urine and grey waters will enable people to recycle this water to produce a minimum food supply in their roof-top or vertical gardens to survive.

The recommended solar pumps also have the feature that they can be installed at any depth below the level of the water in the borehole. It is therefore possible to take strong fluctuations in the water level in the borehole into account to cover situations of severe water draw-down during the day in conditions of slow borehole replenishment. However, where night-time replenishment becomes insufficient to compensate for extra drawings during the day, the quantity of water pumped must be reduced either by turning the PV arrays out of the sun or by reducing the number of pumps in operation. As users start receiving less than 25 litres per person per day their general situation will become more and more critical.

Plant nurseries will be set up under the local money system created by the project. Tens of thousands of fruit and vegetable oil trees will be planted in the project area. The trees will take several years to sink deep roots and create relative immunity from drought conditions. Once they have done this they will form a second source of food in hard times.

1. Opinion.

«There is no reason why the world’s populations, even the poorest, cannot enjoy an adequate food supply». Give a one page, critical, commentary on this statement assuming that all of the structures to be provided in an integrated development area are in operation.

Food security : world monopolies.

In this section GMO means «Genetically modified organisms ». The term “GE”, which stands for “Genetically engineered”, is also used.

“Between 1999 and 2009, the top agricultural biotechnology firms spent more than $ 547 million on lobbying and campaign contributions to ease GE regulatory oversight, push for GE approvals, and prevent GE labelling.” (Food & Water Watch, Genetically Engineered Food : An Overview, Washington, September, 2011, p. 6.). The same report concludes that “The U.S. experiment with GE food has been a failure. Impacts on the environment, food system and public health are not documented but are clearly not worth it.” (p. 15). This short report includes 372 footnotes and references.

French speaking readers can read the problems raised by GMO crops, Attac 63, Commission OGM, 2003, Conférence Riom, 11 Février 2003.

The following is a translation (T.E.Manning) from pages 7 and 8) :

« 5.1 DEPENDENT AGRICULTURE

« Farmers have become dependent on large-scale seed distributors, even for conventional seeds. Conventional hybrid seeds have a lower yield as early as the second generation. The farmer has to buy seeds, and of course, they cost more. For example, the cost of hybrid maize seed is thought to be 100 times that of grain maize. With GMO crops, this strategy of industrial control takes on a new face. Patents deposited on transgenic plants legally forbid all re-utilisation of the seeds (whether or not hybrids) from one year to another. This leads large companies (especially Monsanto) to :

« · employ private detectives to track down cases of fraud

· have farmers (Mr. Percy, in Canada) convicted for « piracy » when his fields got contaminated with GMO seeds (ref. Monde Diplo. July, 2001)

· To reduce the cost of private detectives and legal action, where possible make fraud impossible, through the TERMINATOR technology, which, perfected by the biotechnology company Delta & Pine Land, was then bought up by Monsanto. This technology «controls genetic expression» by inserting a transgene which sterilises the seed produced by the plant. This technique when used for cotton provoked a scandal amongst American farmers and the general public, causing a loss in share prices, causing Monsanto to stop the practice. However, a new technology , called TRAITOR (or GURST : Genetical Use Restriction Technologies) has been introduced. With this technique, seeds are temporarily sterilised but can be made fertile again through the use of a chemical, obviously sold by the Multinational (Monsanto or Novartis). Novartis holds 6 patents on seed sterilisation methods. »

It is clear that when any farmer who works in a formal money system becomes dependent on a multinational supplier, his chances of getting out of the supplier’s clutches are reduced.

2. Opinion.

Prepare a one-page manifesto of the risks linked with multinational seed companies. You can distribute it amongst the farmers in your project area.

Actual distribution of the manifesto is worth bonus points for your report.

The Attac document continues on pages 8 and 9 (translation T.E.Manning)

« 6 BIODIVERSITY AND PATENTS ON LIVING ORGANISMS

« At WTO level, article 27-3 of the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), signed in Marrakech in 1994, forces signatory countries to accept patent rights on micro-organisms and vegetal species (living organisms). European Directive 98/44/CE, on the legal protection of biotechnological interventions adopted in July 1998 by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament allows GM products to be patented. It was to have gone into force in Europe by 30/07/2000.

« Member states (Netherlands, Italy and Norway, supported by France and Germany) appealed to the European Court of Justice claiming violation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro, June 1992, an international treaty recognising the sovereignty of countries over their natural resources and protecting biodiversity in general, and on the basis of incoherence and contradictions with other European Directives and regulations, amongst which Directive 90/220/CEE, on the dissemination of GMO in the environment and the patents Convention itself, which limits the patentability of living organisms for ethical reasons and for the protection of research activities.

Directive 98/44/CE, introduces a blending of invention with discovery, authorising patents on genes in general and patents on the genes of traditional plants in particular. How can anyone claim to invent a gene which has been present in nature for centuries? The self-proclaimed inventor is simply stating that it already exists ! ».

A lot of information is available on the efforts of civil society to fight attempts by multinational companies to steal the genetic characteristics of plants and animals for their own benefit.

One of the world leaders of this movements in Dr Vandana Shiva, research manager at the Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, New Delhi. Read for example her article The Basmati Battle and its Implications for Biopiracy and Trips , Global Research, Montreal, 2001.

French readers should read Milanesi J. et al, Analyse des coûts induits sur les filières agricoles par les mises en culture d’organismes génétiquement modifiés (OGM) Etude sur le maïs, le soja et le poulet Label Rouge, Centre d’étude et de Recherche en Gestion Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, in association with Greenpeace, October 2008

Their conclusion at page 51 reads:

«In a single market, where GM maize and non GM maize were both to available for purchase as alternatives, their prices would be the same and the surcharges and constraints generated by the production of non GM maize would be passed on along the production line through farmers and distributors. This situation would not be viable and the production of non GM maize would be condemned to disappear.»

Read :

The future of seeds and food, Then C. and Tippe R., The International Coalition of “No Patents on Seeds” April 2009.

« In sum, the report shows a threatening scenario. It describes the potential takeover of plants’ genetic resources by international companies, which would then be able to control access to the most important resources for conventional breeding and the whole food chain. Seeds, plants and food patents granted on a grand scale could significantly impact food prices and availability, and could become an additional factor contributing to upcoming global food crises.

Furthermore, because small-scale producers in developing countries rely on the right to save seeds from their harvest and to exchange them with other communities, the freedom to do this is crucial for the future of food security. In order to halt these threatening developments it is not enough to wait for patent offices to reject single patent applications or to file more individual oppositions in this field. What is needed most is a clear legal ruling that exempts seeds and farm animals from patent protection. » (Then & Tippe op.cit. p.4)

«Patents on basic methods in plant breeding, such as genetic fingerprinting, QTL and MAB, can be applied on an undefined and large group of plant species. They are a perfect tool for systematic bio-piracy, as they enable the patent holder to turn global commons, essential for food production, into private property by simply describing them using technical means. Many of these patents are nothing but well-organised theft and global robbery supported by patent offices and certain political institutions in industrialised countries........ The only way to protect the centres of biological diversity from being pirated in this way by international companies is to issue a clear regulation in patent law, excluding all patents on conventional breeding of plants. The development of bio-piracy can no longer be sustainably and effectively controlled by single opposition procedures. » ( Then & Tippe, op.cit p.23)

« [In] patent application WO 2008150892, ‘the patent on monsantoizing food feed fuel’ , the company claims breeding for soy beans with an oil content of between 23 and 35 %, which have been derived from conventional breeding and combined with transgenic traits, such as herbicide resistance. Monsanto claims the plants and their derived food products, listing the whole chain of production in the claims. For example claim 7 reads:

“A method of producing food, feed, fuel or an industrial product comprising the steps of:

(a) obtaining seed from the plant ...

(b) planting and growing the seed into mature plant

(d) preparing food, feed, fuel or an industrial product from the harvested seed.”(Then & Tippe op.cit p.24)

In «Failure to Yield – Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops » (Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge MA (USA), April 2009), author D. Gurian-Sherman reports that the introduction of GM maize and has not brought any noticeable increase in agricultural production when compared with traditional farming methods. Despite the propaganda by the multinationals to the contrary. The introduction has, however, led to a serious increase in centralised control by a few large multinationals over important sectors of agricultural production.

Summary of the present situation with genetically modified crops.

For an up to date report on the status of genetically modified crops world wide read : Who benefits from gm crops : the great climate change swindle, Riley P. et al, Friends of the Earth International, Food sovereignty, issue 17, Amsterdam, September 2010.

Read GM crops increase pesticide use and fail to alleviate poverty published by Friends of the Earth (Europe), Brussels, Press Release 13 February 2010.

“…the widespread adoption of Roundup Ready crops combined with the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds has driven a more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate on major field crops from 1994 to 2005.” (p. 9 of the report)

“….genetic engineering has not increased the yield potential of any commercialized GM crop (Fernandez-Cornejo & Caswell, April 2006).” (p.12)

Read the Special Report : Are Regulators dropping the ball on bio-crops? by Gillam C., published by Reuters on 13 April 2010, Columbia 2010

The author states :

“Farmers around the world seem to be embracing biotech crops that have been altered to resist bugs and tolerate weed-killing treatments while yielding more. According to an industry report issued in February, 14 million farmers in 25 countries planted biotech crops on 330 million acres in 2009, with the United States alone accounting for 158 million acres.”

and highlights the lack of effective control over the use of genetically modified crops because :

“The developers of these crop technologies, including Monsanto and its chief rival DuPont, tightly curtail independent scientists from conducting their own studies. Because the companies patent their genetic alterations, outsiders are barred from testing the biotech seeds without company approvals.”

On recent attempts by Monsanto to gift its way into the Haitian market, see Bell B, Haitian Farmers Commit to Burning Hybrid Seeds, CommonDreams.org, Portland (Maine), May 20, 2010.

There are some recent signs of a more attentive approach by the Courts, especially in the United States. See, for instance, Federal Court orders first-ever destruction of a GMO crop a Press Release by the Center for Food Safety, San Francisco, 30 November 2010

The numerous, serious, verified effects of the (exponentially increasing) spraying of genetically modified crops, especially soya, in Argentina, are described in the Report from the 1^st National Meeting of Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns, held at the National University of Cordoba (Argentina), Cordoba, 27-28 August, 2010.

Theft of agricultural lands (land-grabbing)

“The act of landgrabbing fits in well in a strategy towards deepening the commoditization of nature, agriculture and the global rule of a small group of “investors” and the TNCs [trans-national corporations] ….. Since foreign land acquisition is profit-oriented and largely exports-driven, it will foster the introduction/deepening of an industrial mode of production in the host countries. There is abundant literature available indicating that that mode of production is destructive and not sustainable.” (Odeny E. et al (eds), Landgrabbing in Kenya and Mozambique, Food First Information and Action Network (FIAN), Heidelberg, April 2010. (p. 39)

“A state which does not provide available land and related production resources to the marginalized, but instead hands these lands to rich investors does not comply with these obligations [those of the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights]” Odeny E. et al (eds), Landgrabbing in Kenya and Mozambique, Food First Information and Action Network (FIAN), Heidelberg, April 2010. (p. 38)

“ There are over 2,500 bilateral investment treaties (BITs), which protect [land-grabbing] investors from changes to host government policy and which may be impairing the ability of countries to regulate investments effectively. The opportunity for investors to challenge public policy through arbitration procedures under these BITs weakens developing countries’ capacity to regulate their food, land, and water sectors, as well as to introduce policies that promote food security and poverty reduction.” (Zagema B., Land and Power : The growing scandal surrounding the new wave of investments in land, Oxfam Briefing Paper 151, Oxfam, Oxford, 22 September, 2011, ISBN 978-1-84814-947-2, p. 38.) This Oxfam document is a well-referenced denunciation of land-grabbing practices.

Food security in large towns.

The principles of the Model apply to urban centres as well as rural areas. Execution of integrated development projects in rural areas takes priority of those in urban areas. The purpose of this is to increase the quality of life in rural areas first, so as to stop and if possible reverse migration to the larger towns.

The website Food from the Sky shows how food is grown on the roof of Thornton’s Budgens Supermarket , 21-23 The Broadway, Crouch End, London N88 DU, England, by recycling and composting waste products from the supermarket. This intelligent project combines permaculture theory, education, and the re-introduction of forgotten (local) strains and is replicable anywhere in the world. Products are sold in the supermarket a few meters below the garden.

Students with a knowledge of French can read Arm towns against hunger – ed. Koc M. et al, Centre de Recherches pour le Développement International, (CRDO), Ottawa, 2000, and especially the third section, “Urban and community agriculture”. The authors conclude : (Translation by T.E.Manning)

“Conclusion : recommended development measures and strategies

The present study shows availability of resources is the basis of urban agriculture, which offers an excellent potential for development. In urban centres in developing countries the structured economic sector is generally under-developed. It does not allow urban populations to reach adequate income levels. Urban agriculture can enable families to earn income and protect themselves against food insecurity. Decision makers should therefore take the following recommendations into account:

1. Strengthen rural development.

2. Provide for resource management based on mutual support.

3. Decentralisation.

4. Careful urban management.

5. Improve water supply in urban areas.

6. Encourage composting and waste management in urban areas.

7. Support agriculture and gardening programmes in urban environments.

8. Support and carry out research on vegetables and indigenous cultures.

9. Provide services to small urban operators.

10. Reinforce the role of women.

11. Support existing gardens and other forms of ground use for agricultural purposes, such as animal rearing and rainy season cultivations.

12. Carry out research on and offer services for the spreading of information on the sustainable use of wild food resources.”

3. Opinion.

Give a two/page account on how the concepts in the Model for integrated development projects answer each of the twelve recommendations made. Write a short introduction , follow it with 12 short paragraphs, and end with your conclusions.

Arm towns against hunger ( cited above) also contains an analysis by Nugent R. on «The degree of sustainability of urban agriculture”. The author writes (translation T.E.Manning):

« .....urban agricultural products are carried over short distances ( to a producers´ market or to a local grocery) or need no transport at all ( sold on the spot at the farm or by self-harvesting). Thanks to this, packaging and energy consumption can be reduced. Locally produced foods are sold directly to consumers or, when they are given to family members, friends and neighbours, not at all. »

4. Opinion.

Why then can the food industry compete? Explain this on one page. You might wish to refer to the First Block : Section 1. Analysis of the causes of poverty of the course.

5. Opinion.

The efforts to achieve world-wide monopolisation of the food sector (patents, Basmati rice etc.) described above and the failure of organisations such as the World Trade Organisation and the European Commission to deal with them seem to be in conflict with Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) article 1 of which reads «All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. .. » What is your opinion ? (One page)