Tag: Civil Justice
ALASKA INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL STATEMENT OF INDIGENOUS SOLIDARITY FOR ARCTIC PROTECTION
The Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, North Aleutian Basin (Bristol Bay) and Cook Inlet are critical habitat for many subsistence resources including bowhead whale, beluga whale and other marine mammal species central to the health, well-being and cultural survival of our people.
Off Shore Industrial oil and gas activities present a grave threat to Alaska marine environment and Alaska Native Subsistence cultures who rely strongly on their ability to utilize our oceans, inland waters, and lands for subsistence in which the whales, marine mammals, birds and fish migrate to and from, through our oceans and lands.
Alaska Inter-Tribal Council supports the JOINT STATEMENT OF INDIGENOUS SOLIDARITY FOR ARCTIC PROTECTION where the representatives of the Indigenous Peoples of the North, the participants of the international conference “Arctic Oil: Exploring the Impacts on Indigenous Communities”, held August 14-16, 2012, in Usinsk, Komi Republic, Russia, address to all Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic, governments of Arctic nations, governments of other nations of the world and international organizations.
In solidarity with the Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic we stand together in our call for a ban for the Arctic Off-Shore Drilling on the Shelf. We do not accept the ecological risks and destructive impacts of oil spills, chemical spills in our seas and our lands.
There is significant global evidence of irresponsible practices of oil companies that provides us with evidence that oil spills in any marine environment is inevitable and there is no proven method to clean up oil in the freezing, icy arctic conditions.
To: Dr. Cao Duc Phat, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Vietnam
Mr. Maxime Verhagen, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, The Netherlands
Dr. Jim Yong Kim, President, World Bank
Mr. Jose Graziano da Silva, Director-General, Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Civil Society Statement of Concern on the 2nd Global Conference on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change in Hanoi, Viet Nam, 3-7 September 2012:
We, the undersigned civil society organizations from around the world, are concerned that the objectives of this Conference reflect the same flawed approach as the first Conference on Agriculture, Food Security and Climate Change, held in the Hague in October 2010. The approach also regrettably continues to marginalize peasants and small-scale food producers, yet they are the ones whose livelihoods are most at risk and who most urgently need to be heard.
The central themes of the 2nd Global Conference, including “climate-smart agriculture,” “green growth” and the “landscape approach”, are heavily contested. Many civil society organizations believe these approaches have not been sufficiently considered from the perspective of peasants, small-scale producers and indigenous peoples, who are suffering the worst impacts of climate change. We remain concerned about the continued lack of transparency, participation and consultation with many governments, farmers and civil society in preparing for the Conference. We note that the “Roadmap” from the first Conference was neither endorsed by attending governments nor accepted as a binding outcome.
Address the impacts of the climate crisis on food production
The most important agenda for a conference on food security, agriculture and climate change should focus on the protection of agriculture from climate change. Climate change is already threatening the livelihoods and food security of the poor and vulnerable. The industrial model of agricultural production threatens the viability of ecosystems and contributes massively to climate change. Nothing less than a system change – towards ecological agriculture, based on principles that create healthy soils and cultivate biological diversity, and which prioritize farmers’ and traditional knowledge – is needed in the face of climate change. There is also a critical need to reverse the economic concentration of global markets – particularly for grains, livestock and food processing – that has led to unsustainable forms of industrial agriculture worldwide and the bulk of the emissions from the agriculture sector. Unfortunately, the program fails to address these necessary system changes. Instead, it appears to endorse a greater role for the private sector to invest in schemes that will commodify natural resources and disenfranchise local and indigenous communities.
A focus on adaptation
Resources must be urgently directed to adaptation, given the serious current threats posed by climate change to agriculture. Agroecology is the most important, reliable set of practices to protect yields in the face of climate change and should be supported significantly with public finance. The Conference should emphasize identified adaptation priorities of developing countries and the provision of steady and reliable public finance to developing countries that will have to cope with the worst consequences of climate change. In addition, adaptation financing should be in the form of grants, not loans.
Key policy developments should be to work with local food providers and help them to conserve, store and further develop their own varieties and breeds. It is clear that the best hedge against the increasing instability of local climates in the future is a diversity of varieties and breeds to address the threat of increasing floods, drought and storms. Industrial agriculture has reduced the number of farmers’ varieties and breeds drastically and thereby dangerously reduced the basis of food security for the future. This must end now; we need new policies centered on the real needs of peasants, small-scale producers and indigenous peoples.
Critical review of market-based approaches needed
The framing of the Conference agenda appears to endorse market-based approaches. Yet evidence from the last two years suggests that carbon markets and market-based approaches linked to them are not appropriate for peasants and small-scale producers. These approaches need open and critical review. Carbon markets have repeatedly failed to deliver real funds to projects on the ground. Moreover, carbon market mechanisms actually finance the emissions reduction commitments of developed countries through “offsetting” projects in developing countries. This not only increases the threat of climate change by allowing developed countries to continue rather than change their unsustainable production and consumption patterns, but also forces emissions reduction responsibilities onto peasants and small producers in developing countries. Developed country mitigation and “offsetting” priorities should not and cannot drive discussions on the nexus between climate change, food security and agriculture.
We note that the landscape approach, promoted by the World Bank, has a high profile in the agenda. We believe that the Bank’s role as both policy advisor and carbon broker for soil carbon and landuse credits makes it an inappropriate institution to guide governments on the pros and cons of landuse offsets. Using a market-based approach to convert large tracts of landscapes that include water, land, agriculture and forests into commodities is unethical when it comes to questions of food security. Land-grabbing in the developing world has become an ever greater concern since the first Conference, particularly as financial assets become unreliable and both State and private actors secure land for financial gain and food security. The impacts of “climate-smart agriculture” and the landscape approach should be examined in this new economic context where land and the food grown on it have become financial assets for financial speculators and institutional investors.
Implement rather than ignore IAASTD findings
The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), initiated by the World Bank and FAO, sponsored by UN agencies and approved by 58 governments, contains some of the most complete and authoritative sets of policy options to strengthen the productivity and resilience of the world’s food and agricultural systems, while prioritizing social equity and sustainability. We call on the Hanoi Conference to endorse the recommendations of the IAASTD, and for governments and international organizations, including the World Bank and FAO, to commit to the implementation of the IAASTD findings.
We are frustrated that the peasants, small-scale producers and indigenous peoples who provide 70 percent of the world’s food continue to be left out of the debate. The Hanoi Conference is an opportunity to support fair and effective solutions to the agriculture and climate crises. We call on the conference organizers to champion a global transition to ecological agriculture, focus on enabling peasants, small-scale producers and local and indigenous communities to adapt to climate change, ensure adequate public financing for agriculture, and avoid questionable technological fixes and market mechanisms.
We believe that peasants, small scale farmers, laborers, indigenous peoples, women and civil society organizations engaged on issues of food security, food sovereignty, the right to food, and the preservation and use of traditional knowledge are essential to this debate. They provide practical, just and affordable solutions to the problems of food security and climate change. They need to be heard. No process that ignores their voices can be considered legitimate.
1. 11.11.11- Coalition of Flemish North-South Movement
2. Accion Ecologica, Ecuador
3. Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group)
4. Actions pour le Développement Durable, (ADeD), Benin
5. African Biodiversity Network
6. African Centre for Biosafety, South Africa
7. Agricultural Missions, Inc., USA
8. Aliansi Petani Indonesia (Indonesian Peasants’ Alliance)
9. Alternate Forum for Research in Mindanao (AFRIM), Philippines
10. Amigos de la Tierra España/Friends of the Earth Spain
11. Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development (AFA)
12. Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC)
13. Asia-Pacific Network for Food Sovereignty (APNFS)
14. Asociación ANDES, Peru
15. Association of Citizens’ Solidarity for Campaign Against Famine in Ethiopia (CS-CAFE)
16. Association of Communities of the Potato Park, Peru
17. Association of Voluntary Agencies in Rural Development (AVARD), India
18. Association for Land Reform and Development (ALRD), Bangladesh
19. Beyond Copenhagen Collective, India
20. Bharatiya Krishak Samaj, India
21. Bharat Jan Vigyan Jatha, India
22. Bina Desa, Indonesia
24. Biowatch, South Africa
25. Both ENDS, Netherlands
26. California Communities Against Toxics, USA
27. Center for Community, Democracy and Ecology, USA
28. Center for Environmental Education and Development (CEED), Nigeria
29. Center for Food Safety, USA
30. Center for Rural Communities Research and Development (CCRD), Vietnam
31. Center for Sustainable Rural Development (SRD), Vietnam
32. Center of Concern, USA
33. China NGO Association (CANGO), China
34. CIP Americas Program
35. Coalicion Clima España
36. Coalition for the Protection of African Genetic Heritage (COPAGEN)
37. COECOCEIBA/Friends of the Earth Costa Rica
38. Community Self-Reliance Centre (CSRC), Nepal
39. Consumers’ Association of Penang (CAP), Malaysia
40. Cumberland Countians for Peace & Justice, USA
41. Development Fund, Norway
42. Earth in Brackets
43. Earth Peoples
44. Eastern and Southern Africa Farmers’ Forum (ESAFF)
45. Ecological Society of the Philippines
46. Ecologistas en Acción, Spain
47. Ecology Ministry Archdiocese of Manila, Philippines
48. EcoNexus, UK
50. Fairwatch, Italy
51. Farmworker Association of Florida, USA
52. FERN, Belgium
53. Focus on the Global South
54. Food & Water Europe
55. Food Security and Poverty Elimination Network (CIFPEN), Vietnam
56. Foundation on Future Farming, Germany
57. Friends of the Bees, UK
58. Friends of the Earth International
59. Friends of the Earth Mauritius
60. Friends of the Environment in Negros Oriental, Philippines
61. Fundación IPADE, Spain
62. Gaia Foundation
63. GRABE, Benin
64. Grassroots International, USA
65. Green Convergence for Safe Food, Healthy Environment and Sustainable Economy, Philippines
66. GREEN Foundation, India
67. Groundswell International
68. Hope Restoration Center (HORECE), Cameroon
69. Inades-Formation (African Institute for Economic and Social Development)
70. Indigenous Environmental Network
71. Indonesia Organic Alliance (IOA)
72. In Loco, Portugal
73. Institut de Recherche et de Promotion des Alternatives en Développement (IRPAD)
74. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, USA
75. Institute for Policy Studies – Sustainable Energy & Economy Network, USA
76. Institute for Sustainable Development, Ethiopia
77. Intercontinental Network of Organic Farmers Organisations (INOFO)
78. Interface Development Interventions Inc. (IDIS), Philippines
79. Irish Seed Savers Association
80. JINUKUN, Benin
81. Just Forests, Ireland
82. Kenya Debt Relief Network – KENDREN
83. Konsorsium Pelestarian Hutan dan Alam Indonesia (KONPHALINDO)
84. Labour Resource Centre, India
85. Local to Global Advocates for Justice, USA
86. Management and Organizational Development for Empowerment (MODE), Philippines
87. MELCA, Ethiopia
88. MISEREOR, Germany
89. National Alliance Against Hunger and Malnutrition (NAAHM), Nigeria
90. National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE)/Friends of the Earth Uganda
91. Negros Organic Agriculture Movement (NOAM), Inc., Philippines
92. Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility, USA
93. NGO Federation of Nepal (NFN)
94. North Chickamauga Creek Conservancy (NCCC), USA
95. Oakland Institute, USA
96. Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM), Kenya
97. Partners for the Land & Agricultural Needs of Traditional Peoples (PLANT)
98. Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PANAP)
99. Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA)
100. Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas (PhilDHRRA)
101. Platform ABC (Platform Aarde Boer Consument), Netherlands
102. Plataforma Rural, Spain
103. Pro REGENWALD, Germany
104. Red de Coordinación en Bioviersidad (Coordinating Biodiversity Network), Costa Rica
105. REDES/Friends of the Earth Uruguay
106. ReSCOPE Programme, Malawi
107. Reseau Des Organisations Paysannes Et Des Producteurs Agricoles De L’afrique De L’ouest (ROPPA)
108. Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM)/Friends of the Earth Malaysia
109. SARILAYA, Philippines
110. SEED Trust, South Africa
111. Send a Cow, UK
112. Society for Conservation and Protection of Environment (SCOPE), Pakistan
113. South Asia Rural Reconstruction Association (SARRA), India
114. Southeast Asian Rural Social Leadership Institute (SEARSOLIN), Philippines
115. Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE)
116. Sri Lanka Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement
117. Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)/Friends of the Earth Liberia
118. Third World Network (TWN)
119. Transnational Institute, Netherlands
120. WAEDAT, Jordan
121. War on Want
122. WhyHunger, USA
A rather incredible and accurate musical portrayal of current global reality and our unsustainable way of life.
Unsustainable, by Muse.
During the COP17 spectacle (17th Conference of Parties, the UN summit on Climate Change) in Durban, South Africa, in December 2011, La Via Campesina, the International Peasants Movement, issued a statement declaring certain actions be taken and conditions be met in order to prevent, forestall, or otherwise derail climate catastrophe. Because several of the actions do not appear to be copacetic with scientific reality, we endeavored to contact the organization, and sent the following email on December 7:
Dear Boa Monjane:
I write to you today with grave concerns about your recently publicized statement at
COP17, and hope this will bring a fruitful dialogue.
Your statement exclaims a set of solutions seeking to limit “further” temperature
rise to 1 degree. Given that the planet is currently up .8 by all relevant
calculations, your statement leads a reader to believe you are seeking a ceiling at
1.8. If so, this is an incredibly dangerous number to stand behind, given the
mathematical reality that we are, at a minimum, locked into 1.8 due to inertia,
hydrates, and other feedback mechanisms. If not, and your statement purports an
argument that we can and should stay below 1.0 total, it is an unachievable dream
and must be clarified as such.
Returning to 1.8 and the best case reality of that number, it is only achievable
with immediate and irreversible 100% reductions, yet your statement calls for a
minimum of 50% to achieve your solution set. I believe it is irresponsible to
promote 50% as a solution to climate crisis when anything less than 100% locks us
into the scientific reality of inertia and systems betrayal through feedback
mechanisms. It also comes nowhere close to making 1.8 – where we are already
committed assuming 100% emissions reduction today – achievable, even with an
unlikely assumption that methane hydrates are completely negated by nature.
I would very much like to understand why you claim 50% is part of the solution.
Another point of contention is your stated reliance on capitalism in the developed
world for various funding mechanisms. It should be well understood that reliance
upon any functional component of industrial capitalism for mitigation, adaptation,
and reparation for any length of time lends credence to the mechanism, perpetuates
it, and demands the growth of it, ironically, as the world condition grows more
dire. Making statements where the world utilizes the very economic machinery
responsible for the planet being on the brink of collapse in order to prevent the
collapse is more than troubling. It is criminal.
Do you really believe the patriarchal industrial north has the means, the motive,
and the benefit of planetary reality to stem the tide through finance?
Many of us in developed countries know what it means to call for, and succeed in
getting, 100% reductions. It means the end of nearly all we know, save maybe the
planet. Those of us who understand the demands of Mother Earth in that context also
recognize more people must rise up and fight for 100% all over the globe. Will La
Via Campesina do so?
I very much look forward to your responses and the ensuing dialogue. I have cced my
dear colleague and friend based in Canada, Cory Morningstar.
We received no response. On January 5, Cory Morningstar again sought feedback from the Via Campesina representative. No response. And now we are at the eve of Rio+20, where most of the same players will convene and further deteriorate any reasonable chance we have, as civil society, to stem the tide of climate change. As expected, the usual troop of NGOs will attend, claiming to speak for all of us while clamoring for cozy seats and sharp cocktails amongst the global elite. La Via Campesina will be there, too.
Climate justice allies would like to continue to convince us that an inside-outside strategy is to our advantage. That it is tenable. Yet the historical results state otherwise. This culture of compromise where lesser-evilism prevails and excuses for maintaining the status quo flow eloquently from the lips as well as the pen must end. From the Tongass in the north, to Durban in the south, the mechanisms we have employed collectively and individually have done nothing but render a trail of tears and destruction for all peoples, and all ecologies. The time for strategic charades and whimsical hopes is over.
It starts with one entity willing to say no, loudly, to the nefarious players (NGOs, governments, and corporations) creating the Green Climate Fund (GCF). We understand the fraudulent nature of the participatory process, the criminal dependence upon industrialized capitalism, and the woefully inadequate reality of yet another false solution. We say no.
It continues with another entity joining in the refusal, and rejecting the corporate tradeshow that is Rio+20. Canadians for Action on Climate Change so declares.
And the movement grows with you. Individuals and organizations are needed to rise above the fray, side by side, against the struggle of recidivist pursuits. Will you join?
We, the undersigned, reject in full your process, and are not, in any form, represented by any entity or organization claiming to represent civil society at Rio or any other fraudulent gathering related to the global condition. In fact, we boycott Rio and hereby issue a call of no confidence in the process and the participants.