In this Spanish-language video, Hector Herrera explains why a group of organizations (Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), Center for International Environmental Law and Mining Watch Canada) filed a complaint with the World Bank Group’s IFC to reconsider investments in Greytsar Company (now Eco Oro Minerals) to exploit gold in the Santurbán Paramos without environmental impact studies.
Read the press release from the Oakland Institute on the connection between aviation biofuel and food security.
“A new report from the Oakland Institute, Eco-Skies: The Global Rush for Aviation Biofuel, cautions against the ambitious goals of the aviation industry to reduce emissions by 2050. The report finds that the pursuit of this goal will bring an unprecedented expansion into biofuel production, more than likely in poorer countries, and will involve the acceleration of land acquisitions already threatening the lives and livelihoods of people in developing countries.
“On the surface, the idea of a strategy that relies heavily on renewable and ostensibly environmentally-friendly biofuel sounds like a positive step for the airline industry. If only it were based in fact and there was evidence to indicate future success. This new report finds that both the potential environmental impact and toll on human lives has not been adequately factored into assessments of this new goal. On the contrary, the pursuit of biofuels for the aviation industry’s fuel needs raises serious questions about the type of new environmental and human disasters this path could lead to.
“A huge amount of fuel is needed to fly planes. Currently, biofuel is too scarce and expensive for serious commercial use. Lukas Ross, OI Fellow and author of the report, acknowledges that airlines are caught between economic constraints and environmental problems with fossil fuels and CO2 emissions. Airlines would like to see biofuels as the answer to both challenges, but, Ross says, “given the mind-boggling land requirements needed to meet the industry’s CO2 target, aviation biofuel has a price tag that neither people nor the planet should have to pay.”
To meet current aviation needs–let alone future increases in demand–it would take 270 million hectares of jatropha, produced on an area roughly the equivalent of one-third of Australia, or 25 times the amount expected to exist in 2015.
Even a quarter of the required area equals a Texas-size chunk of land that would no longer be available to grow food. Considering the sheer quantities of biofuel required compared to the amounts that currently exist, it is impossible to look into the future and guarantee that the drive to procure commercial quantities will not result in unsustainable, food security–threatening land grabs.
Perhaps to alleviate these fears, the airline industry founded the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group (SAFUG), and signed a nonbinding pledge to only pursue biofuels in a way that protects biodiversity, does not compete with food, and ensures significant life cycle GHG reductions.
Although the pledge sounds good on paper, there are already reasonable questions about the social and environmental costs of the biofueled flights that have already flown (1,500 as of May 2012), and even more pointed questions about the possible costs if aviation biofuels are ever fully commercialized.
The new report also looks at the drawbacks of used cooking oil conversion as a source of commercial aviation fuel. The idea that planes can be powered with the same oil that McDonald’s uses to make its fries makes sustainability something novel and convenient that requires nothing in the way of lifestyle change.
The truth is that in 2010 the US produced 1,403.6 million pounds of used cooking oil– converting every drop into aviation biofuel would still only produce about 185 million gallons. Given that in 2012 the US alone consumed roughly 21 billion gallons of jet fuel, this means that diverting all the used cooking oil in the US would keep American planes in the air for less than three days.
Such an enormous gap between potential demand and available supply means that no airline can seriously contemplate used cooking oil as a path to sustainability.
“The airline industry, hungry for price stability and a green image, is in danger of creating an unprecedented demand for biofuel that could have catastrophic consequences for land rights, food security, and GHG emissions,” said Anuradha Mittal, executive director of the Oakland Institute. “The production of biofuels is now the largest single purpose of land deals in the developing world. As low-income countries are encouraged to embrace commercial agriculture as a path out of poverty, a host of problems have erupted. Our research has exposed how poorly conceived economic development plans have led to greater food insecurity, forced displacement, and environmental damage.”
Eco-Skies thus gives analysts in the airline industry a warning to look closely at the data before the developing world is shouldering the human and environmental cost of poorly conceived solutions, yet once again.
The Oakland Institute is an independent policy think tank bringing fresh ideas and bold action to the most pressing social, economic, and environmental issues of our time. Since 2011, the Institute has unveiled land investment deals in Africa that revealed a disturbing pattern of a lack of transparency, fairness, and accountability. The dynamic relationship between research, advocacy, and international media coverage has resulted in an amazing string of successes and organizing in the U.S. and abroad. See www.oaklandinstitute.org.
“The G8 countries are implementing a New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition in six African countries that will facilitate the transfer of control over African agriculture from peasants to foreign agribusiness.
“Cooperation Frameworks agreed with Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique and Tanzania commit each government to implementing a set of policies within clearly defined deadlines.
“But few of these policy commitments are found in the plans that these countries developed through national consultations. While the national plans are extensive documents covering a wide range of issues, the frameworks zero in on only a small number of measures almost exclusively aimed at increasing corporate investment in agricultural lands and input markets.
Shareholder resolutions were filed with more than 50 companies by more than 65 institutional and individual investors for 2013. Swift Foundation counts as one of eighteen foundations on record with Walden Asset Management that is pressing companies to disclose their lobbing publicly. Read the full press release here.
According to Mariam Mayet of the ACB, “The effect of these efforts, which are being pushed through African regional trading blocs such as COMESA and SADC[1] include:
facilitating the unlawful appropriation and privatization of African germplasm;
providing extremely strong intellectual property protection for commercial seed breeders and severely restricting the rights of farmers to freely use, exchange and sell farm-saved seeds;
facilitating the creation of regional seed markets where the only types of seed on offer to small scale farmers are commercially protected varieties; and
threatening farmer- managed seed systems and markets.
Do we really need industrial agriculture to feed the world?
In just over a month since the video was launched, the 6 1/2-minute mythbusting movie has been watched more than 68,000 times and translated into more than 10 languages (including Chinese, Spanish, French with versions coming in Korean, Japanese, Russian, Hungarian, Turkish, Ukrainian, Dutch, Portuguese–and more). The Small Planet Institute clearly has something to say that is resonating around the world. Check it out for yourself.
Global Environments Summer Academy 2013:
Socio-ecological Interactions in a Dynamic World
The Rachel Carson Center for Environment and Society and the Global Diversity Foundation announce GESA 2013: the third Global Environments Summer Academy on Socio-ecological Interactions in a Dynamic World, to be held in collaboration with the Centre for Development and Environment of the University of Bern (Switzerland), between 27 July and 18 August 2013.
More details about the course content, financial information and registration are available in the downloadable GESA 2013 Overview found here. Interested students are invited to complete the application form and upload their CV before 15 January 2013.
Increased agricultural development in Zambia will actually compromise the country’s food security as peasant farmers continue to be driven off their customary land to pave the way for large-scale local and foreign agribusiness, according to the University of Zambia’s dean of the school of agriculture, Dr. Mickey Mwala. http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/11/foreign-farmers-undermine-food-security-in-zambia/
The sole public consultation to discuss the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for US Capital Energy’s proposal to drill in the Sarstoon-Temash National Park did not allow for a full and proper venting of community concerns, nor did it facilitate responses to critical questions impacting the indigenous communities.
The meeting began at 5pm on Thursday October 25 2012, in the community centre of the Village of Sunday Wood. Many people from various communities were brought in by buses organized by the oil company, and were first faced with more than two and a half hours of presentation by representatives of the Department of the Environment and US Capital Energy’s Allan Herrera. Only a minority of people could fit inside the building, and many community members could not follow proceedings from outside the hall, as the sound of a generator drowned out the speakers.
.
Gregory Ch’oc had been appointed by resolution of the communities of Graham Creek, Crique Sarco, Conejo and Midway, to be their representative and spokesperson at the consultation. He was the first to rise to speak and address several issues relevant to the EIA and the impacts on the national park and the communities. He handed the resolutions from the four villages to Martin Alegria, who without opening or reading them, handed them immediately to his aide, and soon interrupted Ch’oc and urged him to stop talking. Then, with the help of Sunday Wood’s Alcalde, Mr. Mateo Tush, an outspoken supporter of oil drilling, he attempted to wrestle away the microphone and drag Gregory Ch’oc across the room.
Gregory Ch’oc being forcibly stopped from speaking on behalf of his people, by Martin Alegria, Chief Environmental Officer.
The initial rules had never indicated that each speaker would only be allowed one minute to speak, and once Gregory Ch’oc - as the representative of the buffer communities - began to speak, this rule was arbitrarily instituted on the spot to automatically prevent him from voicing these communities concerns. Even the police and members of the military were called in to try to restrain him. The Sarstoon Temash Institute for Indigenous Management (SATIIM), the Maya Leaders Alliance (MLA), the Toledo Alcaldes Association (TAA), and the four communities that had mandated SATIIM to represent them, denounce this denial of freedom of expression that tramples on the rights of the indigenous peoples whose lands, territories and resources are the subjects of the EIA.
Before his participation, Gregory Ch’oc had called upon an elder from each of the communities he represents to start the discussion with a spiritual invocation, asking mother earth and the great creator to guide them in wisdom to come to a consensus that would have the best interest of the communities as the heart. This is the traditional way of beginning dialogue in these indigenous communities. However, Mr. Martin Alegria totally disrespected these elders and their communities by not allowing such traditional practice to occur. He prompted Ch’oc to begin without this and allowed only one elder, Mr. Pedro Ishim from Midway village to do the invocation as he claimed there was no time for this. These communities’ spirituality has been insulted. Their way of conducting dialogue has been totally disregarded.
Rather than acting as the guardian of people’s right to be fully informed, and rather than insuring that debate could occur in an informative and unbiased manner, Martin Alegria made no attempt to hide his support for US Capital’s proposals. While he would exchange smiles with Allan Herrera when views were expressed in support of drilling, his refusal to respect or even to read the official nominations from the four villages showed the hand he was playing – to ensure that the “consultation” was completed without the concerns and wishes of the most affected communities being fully expressed.
The organizers made no allocation for people to be given adequate time to address pressing and critical environmental, social and economic issues. Neither was adequate time given for proper translations of these. When the question and answer segment started the first reaction was for the government officials to shut down anyone who dissented.
Further injustices were perpetuated through the translation of the EIA presentation and the “questions and concerns” segment, which was conducted by US Capital Energy’s employee Lucio Shol. Shol failed to accurately and honestly translate arguments opposing the drilling proposals into and from Q’eqchi´, weakening critical comments, and finding himself unwilling or unable to translate technical information accurately.
SATIIM observed that members of NEAC, CEO of the Ministry of Fisheries, Forestry and Sustainable Development, Petroleum Director and other government officials were in the room, but they were never presented to the audience and so the communities could not address questions to them.
Regardless of their position on the issue, all event participants demanded that there be other consultations, and that the deadline for the approval of the EIA on October 31 is unfair, especially since the EIA was never translated into the native language of Q’eqchi’. While it was announced that summaries of the EIA were available in Q’eqchi’, these were never seen by, nor distributed amongst, the audience.
SATIIM, the MLA, the TAA and the four communities represented by SATIIM, maintain their call on both US Capital and the Government to translate the full 300 page EIA into Q’eqchi’ and Garifuna and to make copies available to the people of each village. Without examining the details of the EIA, the affected communities cannot exercise any informed consideration of the potential impacts of oil drilling.
SATIIM denounces the outright denial of the right of the representative of the buffer communities to express their concerns on their behalf.
SATIIM, the MLA, the TAA and the four communities represented by SATIIM, demand that genuine consultations be arranged that respect international human rights laws regarding consultations and the right to free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples. A failure to follow the unambiguous international rules which have been developed precisely to govern such negotiations between indigenous communities, governments, and extractive industries will leave US Capital’s project without any legal basis.
This disgraceful situation has forced the four communities that SATIIM represents, to take a unanimous decision, which will be made known to this country and the international community in days to come.
South Africa: Indigenous Knowledge Of Climatic Conditions For Sustainable Crop Production Under Resource-Poor Farming Conditions Using Participatory Techniques
L. O. Nethononda, J.J. O Odhiambo, and D. G. Paterson, 2012
Rambuda irrigation scheme is situated in Vhembe District of Limpopo Province in South Africa. It was established in 1952 and farmers do not have access to recorded climatic information. Farmers are growing crops on a trial and error basis, hence low yields and crop loses. The objective of the study was to investigate indigenous knowledge of climatic conditions relevant for crop production using participatory techniques. Situation analysis was conducted to gain information on factors influencing crop choice. Participatory exercise was conducted with 33 of 104 of plot-holders. Farmers could identify climatic factors important for crop production and those limiting to crop performance. Hot, dry conditions during August to October and January months were limiting to crops, particularly sweet potato production. The results showed that indigenous knowledge of climate needs to be considered during agricultural development planning and scientists need to investigate linkages between modern agro-meteorology and indigenous knowledge.