Invitation to a global video conference on
Global Food Sufficiency
Towards sustainable food production and consumption

Dear Friends,

The world food crisis is a major threat and one of the main political challenges for the coming decades. Famines and subtle hunger are spreadingon a local and regional level, in rural as well as in urban areas. But thecauses for the crisis are globally connected and solutions must be found onthe local as well as on the global level.

With the upcoming conference on global food sufficiency we wish to raise thequestion how local, regional, national and global food systems can providesufficient and wholesome food for all. We wish to see how the currentconcepts of self sufficiency, food security, and food sovereignty cancontribute to political and practical solutions in the fight against hungeras well as reduce wasteful food consumption.

On 29 April the videoconference will simultaneously connect civil society and decision-makers from Asia (regional conference in Manila), Africa(regional conference in Dakar), Latin America (regional conference inBrasilia), and North America (regional conference in Washington, DC) with aregional conference in the European Parliament in Brussels.

Each regional conference will provide an analysis of proposals on the keyfood problems of the region, possible solutions to existing food insecurityand suggestions for common global action. Each region will have a one hourslot to make its points clear with question and answer time from the otherregions. If technically possible, the conference will be streamed on internet.

The format: The global video conference experiment

This conference is an experiment which uses video conferencing in order to connect simultaneous regional conferences dealing with the same issue: Howto achieve global food sufficiency. The format will allow avoiding large distance travel. Participants may not be able to communicate as if they were in the same room. But they may better grasp the dimension of the food crisis and agree on possible common action.

With just short time slots for contributions of each region, the conferenceformat demands a high focus on key messages and strict discipline of the participants to respect time limits of their presentations.The conference will be moderated from the European Parliament in Brussels, but it will offer to the parallel regional conferences in Asia (Manila, Philippines), West Africa (Dakar, Senegal), Latin America (Brasilia, Brazil), and the USA (Washington DC) to manage their one hour inputindependently.

The one hour slots include 30 minutes for short presentations or internal debates on reasons for food insecurity, possible solutions and suggestions for common global action between the regions.
Themes to be shared

The perspective of the Philippines may focus on the question of goodgovernance in the field of food security, the empowerment of small farmersand on the demand for a local and regional stock-keeping system in order tostabilize farm gate prices and agricultural markets.

The West African perspective may demand for the appreciation of alternativefood cultures such as family farms, local and regional markets and discussstrategies to make food production systems more sustainable regardingenvironmental threats.

The European perspective may focus on the negative impact of competitivenessand export oriented EU farm policy and the negative impact of feed imports,as well as on failures in the internal food system - the constant decreaseof farm revenues, increased market power of retailers and increased waste offood.

The Brazilian perspective may focus on contradictions and complementaritiesbetween family farming based food production and export oriented productionof commodities. The assembly of CONSEA on Zero Hunger programme of thegovernment may allow participants to analyse the options for farmers'organisations and consumers to achieve a fair deal.

The North American perspective may wish to discuss internal and externalfood aid and the role of the US farming sector in a global food sufficiencysystem. The impacts of the current financial crisis as well as thespeculation on food commodities on global food security will also be mainpoints.The conference will end in common conclusions and proposals for globalactions.

Looking forward to your participation and contribution,
With kind regards
On behalf of the organising team: Marek Poznanski and Hannes Lorenzen
Contact: friedrich-wilhelm.graefezubaringdorf@europarl.europa.eu
The conference will be webstreamed on
http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/default/rubrik/6/6270.greensefa_org@en.htm

G8 Urged to Reject Another 'Green Revolution' U.S. working group on the food crisis urges G8 to reject failed green revolution policies for Africa

Posted April 17th, 2009 

"'Business as Usual' Will Not Solve Global Hunger Crisis"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 16, 2009

WASHINGTON - April 16 - The U.S. Working Group on the Food Crisis, a group representing anti-hunger, family farm, community food security, environmental, international aid, labor, food justice, consumers and other food system actors, urges the G8 at the upcoming Agricultural Ministerial in Treviso, Italy to reject the failed policies of the Green Revolution. A recent landmark report backed by the UN and World Bank argues for agroecological and sustainable agriculture, rather than reliance on chemical-intensive practices and genetic engineering.

The U.S. Working Group is deeply disappointed by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s hasty passage of the Global Food Security Act (S. 384) on March 31. This bill would mark a significant shift in U.S. policy by specifically mandating foreign agriculture research for genetic engineering. Previously, we had criticized the Committee’s March 24 hearing on “Alleviating Global Hunger” that relied on testimonies from “Green Revolution” advocates for the industrial agriculture system. We urge the G8 summit to resist pressure from the biotech industry and embrace genuine solutions to the food crisis.

The U.S. Working Group on the Food Crisis’s vision for reforming agriculture policy to help end the global food crisis calls on governments to:

* Re-regulate commodity futures markets to end excessive speculation
* Halt expansion of industrial agrofuels in developing countries
* Stabilize commodity prices through international and domestic food reserves
* Establish fairer regional and global trade arrangements
* Direct farm policy, research, education and investment toward agroecological farming practices.

The United States should reject the approach of the Global Food Security Act, sponsored by Senators Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Bob Casey (D-PA), and instead bring our agricultural research and foreign aid strategy in line with the findings of the acclaimed International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), backed by United Nations agencies, the World Bank and over 400 contributing scientists from 80 countries. The IAASTD found that the most promising solutions to the world’s food crisis include investing in agroecological research, extension and farming.

Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, Senior Scientist at Pesticide Action Network and a Lead Author of the IAASTD report said, “Today’s global food crisis demands immediate action. But the Lugar-Casey Global Hunger Bill takes us in exactly the wrong direction. As numerous scientific reports from the UN have confirmed, African productivity can be most effectively increased through investment in organic and agroecological farming.” Ishii-Eiteman further cautioned the G8 not to focus simply on production: “The bigger, more fundamental challenge today is about restoring fairness and democratic control over our food systems. It is about increasing the profitability, well-being and resilience of small-scale and family farmers in the face of massive environmental and global economic challenges.”

Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy has released a policy brief on “Why the Lugar-Casey Global Food Security Act Will Fail to Curb Hunger”http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2412
Eric Holt-Gimenez, Executive Director of Food First, said, “The Global Food Security Act, while commendable for its renewed focus on investing in agricultural development in Africa, mandates funding for genetically modified (GM) crop research. Past public-private partnerships on GM crops for Africa have proven to be colossal failures. The failed GM sweet potato project between Monsanto, USAID and a Kenyan research institute is a good example of 14 years’ worth of wasted money and effort. The G8 Conference should focus on solutions that actually work.”

Anti-hunger groups also criticized the Global Food Security Act’s approach and warned about the effects of promoting biotechnology on the poor. Bill Ayres, Executive Director of World Hunger Year, said, “The recent Global Food Security Act to improve the U.S. response to the world food crisis starts from a flawed premise. Indeed, the world – and the U.S. in particular – must refocus antihunger efforts to support aid and agricultural research for small farmers throughout the world. But the emphasis on genetically modified crops is misplaced. We saw Germany this week ban genetically engineered maize based on health and environmental grounds. GM maize has also been banned in France and Greece. We should focus on helping African farmers maintain control over their land and seeds, earn a living wage, and enhance – not degrade – the quality of their land and water.”

Faith groups also recommended a new approach to eliminating global hunger and warned that the G8 should not emphasize biotechnology. Andrew Kang Bartlett of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) said, “While the intentions behind the Global Food Security Act may be laudable, the question is whether poorer farmers left behind by the last Green Revolution will again be swept aside by a top-down approach that benefits mostly transnational corporations.” Dave Kane, of Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns, a Catholic missionary organization with priests, brothers, sisters and lay people working in Asia, Africa and Latin America, added, “We have found GM technology to be disastrous for small farmers and rural communities. Our missioners in Latin America and Asia have seen farmers get deeper and deeper into debt as they struggle to pay for all the seeds, fertilizers and herbicides that GMO technologies require. The result: farmers lose their land and with it, the ability to feed themselves and their families.”

The National Family Farm Coalition, a North American member of La Via Campesina, the international peasants movement, will be pressing the G8 to reconsider policies that advocate for food sovereignty. Ben Burkett, a Mississippi farmer and president of NFFC said, “Farmers both here and in Africa know that the current industrial agriculture model—and the push to fast-track trade liberalization—has failed to alleviate global hunger and denied family farmers a sustainable livelihood. A recently released report this month by Union of Concerned Scientists titled “Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops,” showed that despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields while only driving up costs for farmers. In comparison, traditional breeding continues to deliver better results. The G8 needs to move away from Green Revolution monoculture practices and instead implement the IAASTD’s most promising options: support ecologically sound practices, more equitable trade rules and local food distribution systems to empower family farmers.”

###

The US Working Group on the Food Crisis is an ad hoc group of organizations from around the US, representing various sectors of the food system, including anti-hunger, family farm, community food security, environmental, international aid, labor, food justice, consumer, and other groups. We do not view the food crisis as an unexpected, sudden emergency of the last year, but as the inevitable consequence of the development of a long list of misguided agricultural and food policies over the last 30+ years.

CONTACT: US Working Group on the Food Crisis
http://www.usfoodcrisisgroup.org/

SOURCE: http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2419

Food First on cellulosic ethanol

http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2263

Green Gold: Why cellulosic ethanol is a threat to farmers and the planet

Posted October 3rd, 2008 by rjonasse

By Annie Shattuck

Cellulosic ethanol has everyone from John McCain to the Natural Resources Defense Council excited with the promise of greening the planet and the economy in one stroke. … The irony of cellulosics however, is the unprecedented threat they pose to small farmers, the environment and our global carbon balance: the very things they pretend to protect.

	Download	Size
	greengold21.pdf	57.8 KB

Monsanto's Vultures are Closing In on the Food Crisis

by Annie Shattuck

The vultures of corporate America are closing in on the carcass of cheap food. With corn selling at $5.86 a bushel (up from just $2.00 in 2005, and $4.28 just six months ago), the food price crisis has been somewhat of a windfall for farmers. But the briefly glimmering hope for rural communities is about to go out.

Last week Monsanto announced it would increase the price of its corn seed by $100 a bag, or about 35%. $100 a bag! So if you are a farmer with 1,000 acres in corn, Monsanto will be demanding an extra forty grand this year.

The timing on Monsanto's unilateral price hike is especially heinous. With the world thrust into a profound food crisis, governments shaken, and children hungry, Monsanto is pushing the envelope on one of the world's most important grains. This in combination with the outrageous inflation in the price of fertilizer, (over 400% in the past two years, due to the increase in the price of natural gas, from which fertilizers are made) means farmers are once again barely braking even.

Agriculture is a particularly risky business. Vagaries of weather, markets, pests and floods make it impossible to guarantee that Jill Farmer's tomato or corn crop will actually make it to market this year, much less at a certain price. That is why large corporations generally deal in inputs, like seed and fertilizer, or in post-harvest processing and exporting. Farmers take the risks, while big business hides safely one step away from actual production. Large companies like Monsanto and Dupont have made millions selling seed and inputs, while Cargill and ADM, large food processors make a $40 billion a year business on the back end. Monsanto, through a rapid process of acquisition and attrition has swallowed up all but the largest of its competitors, controlling 20% of the global seed market and a near monopoly of its key crops.

Why is this so worrisome? At the UN Food Summit in Rome on June 5th of this year, Monsanto announced that the company would be here to save us from the food crisis, injecting millions of dollars in to public research on wheat and rice, and pledging to double yields on soy and cotton over the next 20 years. CNBC analysts are even saying “there is no hope” for the food crisis without Monsanto's wares. But it is precisely Monsanto's wares that are so worrisome.

Monsanto is using the food crisis to stack our food system on an increasingly genetically narrow and physiologically fragile set of genes. Remember the Irish potato famine? Genetic diversity keeps our food system resistant to disease. Planting all one variety is dangerous, like marrying your cousin: something is bound to go wrong. Not only is Monsanto leeching the first real profit in years from small farmers, but planting our food system in ever-more shaky ground. The irony of course, is that in establishing themselves as the white knights of the global food crisis, Monsanto puts us at risk of an even deeper hunger.

http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2177