EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Picture of the Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Bradley Manning is Off Limits at SF Gay Pride Parade, but Corporate Sleaze is Embraced
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- The Life and Death of Words, People, and Even Nature
- You and Your Family Are Guinea Pigs for the Chemical Corporations
- After Boston, Eyes-Wide Open Hope?
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Attacked at Food Summit Over Biofuels
The US came under intense criticism yesterday for its policy of promoting biofuels, which a senior UN official claimed was diverting food away from the hungry "to satisfy a thirst for fuel for vehicles".
The biofuel issue quickly emerged as the most contentious at a summit on the global food crisis being held in Rome. American claims that its subsidies for the production of corn ethanol were not playing a significant role in sharp increases in the price of food triggered an angry response during a closed-door meeting, and was contradicted by UN figures.
The issue will be debated at a round table session today, where an official of the food and agriculture organisation (FAO) predicted "sparks will fly".
Opening the summit the UN's secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said that to meet global food demand, production would have to increase by 50% by 2030.
There was general agreement that more food aid was needed in the short run, and more investment in agriculture in the long run, especially in Africa. But it was less clear who, if anyone, would pay the estimated annual cost of $30bn (£15bn) to meet the UN's goal.
The summit, called to address the sudden rise in global food prices and the consequent political instability, also exposed deep divisions over biofuels.
The summit's host Jacques Diouf, director general of the FAO, attacked western policies, targeting the US in particular. "Nobody understands how 11 to 12 billion dollar a year subsidies in 2006 and protective tariff polices have had the effect of diverting 100m tonnes of cereals from human consumption, mostly to satisfy a thirst for fuel for vehicles," Diouf said. He was referring to the annual cost of US subsidies to produce ethanol from corn.
Ed Schafer, the US agriculture secretary, responded to Diouf's speech, saying: "I thought his examples were a little critical and could have handled in a calmer and nicer manner." Schafer said the production of biofuels contributed less than 3% to the recent rapid rises in food prices but that assertion clashed with estimates by the International Monetary Fund, that they are responsible for 20-30% of the price rises.
A FAO document distributed yesterday said: "Biofuels accounted for 59% of the increase in global use of coarse grains and wheat between 2005-2007, and 56% of the increase in vegetable oils."
A participant at the closed-door meeting said that when the US delegation repeated its figures on biofuel impact, there were "irritated" responses from the other delegates.
But Brazil's president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, defended his country's use of sugar cane based biofuels and accused the critics of hypocrisy. "It offends me to see fingers pointed at biofuels, when the fingers are coated in oil and coal," he said.
"Clearly there has been a division of opinion at the conference already here today," Douglas Alexander, Britain's secretary of state for international development, told the Guardian.
He said further study was needed before long-term decisions could be made, and pointed to a number of biofuel policy reviews in Britain and Europe.
"We need to make to ensure that decision made on biofuels are informed by fact rather than anecdote," Alexander said.
The summit has also been marked by the controversy surrounding the attendance of Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe and the Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Alexander called Mugabe's appearance "obscene" accusing him of being primarily responsible for Zimbabwe's food crisis. He said he would neither be meeting Mugabe or shaking his hand. Mugabe used his time at the speaker's podium to blame Britain and its allies for undermining Zimbabwean agriculture. He said western non-governmental organisations were being used to bring about "illegal regime change".
"Funds are being channelled through non-governmental organisations to opposition political parties, which are a creation of the west," the Zimbabwean president said. "These western-funded NGOs also use food as a political weapon ... especially in the rural areas."
Ahmadinejad caused fresh controversy by predicting the demise of Israel and claiming that Washington was plotting an attack on Iran. "Now President Bush is thinking again of a military attack against Iran. He is eager for a war," the Iranian president said.
© 2008 The Guardian
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
5 Comments so far
Show All'Alexander called Mugabe's appearance "obscene" accusing him of being primarily responsible for Zimbabwe's food crisis'
wrong.The real obscenity is that the best land in zimbabwe is occupied by white farmers who grow for export. Also the sanctions or economic terrorism the west has exerted against Zimbawbe directly affects the land reform issue, and so zimbabawes ability to feed itself. Get rid of the embargo, and the situation will improve.
'These poor black farm owners (not the white commercial farms) account for the majority of maize grown in Zimbabwe. "The lack of land reform, or even a delay in
43
the implementation of land reform, could spell economic and human disaster of grand proportions", observes Elich.
In this regard, he notes that "the fertile land occupied by the large commercial farms [the areas designated for resettlement of poor black farmers] can withstand climate change much more readily than the communal areas".
Looking to the future, he adds: "It is expected that land reform will eventually result in a net increase in agricultural production."
However, it will not be a simple task. "The Government of Zimbabwe proposes spending a total of US$3 billion in support of the land reform process, much of which will be earmarked for building up the infrastructure in resettled areas, including roads, schools and clinics.
"The initial phase of the plan focuses on immediate support to allow resettled farmers to start farming."
Elich sounds a warning: "Because land reform is a long-term process, it will take years for resettled farmers to achieve full potential yields.
"Any delay in implementing land reform would run the risk of production in the resettled areas lagging dangerouly behind the rate of loss of production in the communal areas as rising global temperature eliminates farmland in arid communal regions."
Effect of sanctions
And there's the rub. "A major impediment is that the Government finds itself in a dire financial situation due to international sanctions. This is affecting its ability to implement the support structure necessary for the success of land reform." [That effect is one of the aims of the sanctions regime, of course.]
http://www.cpa.org.au/booklets/zimbabwe.pdf
'Ed Schafer, the US agriculture secretary, responded to Diouf's speech, saying: "I thought his examples were a little critical and could have handled in a calmer and nicer manner."'
Yah. The nerve of that Diouf character reminding us that we're at least partially responsible for millions of people starving so that we can fill up our SUV's. How gauche. How tactless. How rude.
High Oil price is one of the main reasons for high food price.
Oil is used to make fertilizer. It's used to run tractors, and trucks, processing and transportation.
For a poor farmer in Africa, who makes $2 / day, paying $4 a gallon appose to $1 may be the difference between bringing the food to market or not.
Biofuel may not be the best alternative to Oil, but Biofuel helps reduce the Oil price (Or at least prevent Oil price from going even higher), therefore Biofuels's affect of food price is not conclusive.
I would bet you that the UN "Official" is being "Oiled" by some fat oil producer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLRuGUPkyh4
Government's duty is to guarantee land, water and food rights for all. Farm size limited to something small, and farmers provided with recommendations and information. For example in each region the government recommends interplanting of many local species, deep-rooted perennials especially in the arid regions. Most of these produce local food, a few produce biofuel and other materials, a few are cash crops for regional trade. Very few are for global trade. Global trade has to be limited, like other vices are limited.
Letto
Convert to organic food production, it can use up to 50% less fossil fuels. Use biodigesters instead of biofuels from food crops for energy. Biodigesters use human and animal manure to produce fuel which can run electrical generating plants and the odourless effluent can be used to grow crops. Use organic fertilizers as opposed to crude oil based fertilizers.
Research shows that organic farming can produce similar yields to conventional industrial farming.
Biofuels from agricultural crops are not the only alternative to oil. Solar, wind, biogas, wave, tidal energy, oil from algae, plus, plus, plus....