(The four
pictures change as you move over them with the mouse.)
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Monday, April 15, 2013
Monday, April 8, 2013
Will This End Death and Provide Security??? Will Our Congress Approve This Treaty???
The United Nations General Assembly's passage of the international arms trade treaty on Tuesday is being hailed as "a landmark agreement that will save lives and ease the immense human suffering caused by armed conflict around the world," says British Prime Minister David Cameron. The treaty requires ratification by 50 countries and would take effect three months after that time. The Washington Post/The Associated Press (4/2) The Huffington Post (4/2) The New York Times (tiered subscription model) (4/2) ForeignPolicy.com/Turtle Bay blog (4/2)
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Monday, March 18, 2013
When Will the Poor Live In Peace and Security?
Land Grabs Spread Throughout Developing World
Hunger and Human Rights abuses threaten fragile rural communities
By Sophia Murphy
Economy and Markets, Food and Agriculture, International
Food Justice advocated have always argued that trade agreements need to respect and promote human rights, not drive a process of globalization that privileges commercial interests and tramples on public interests. In my new paper on land grabs from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, that position is affirmed.
“Land grabs” are large-scale purchases or leases of agricultural or forested land on terms that violate the rights of the people who live on or near that land. The problem has commanded enormous public policy and media attention for the last few years. In our paper, IATP sets some context for the land grabs phenomenon. We focus on two forces that have contributed significantly to the problem:
Globalization, or the deregulation of trade and foreign investment laws, which has greatly eased cross-border capital flows; relaxed the limits on foreign land ownership; and, opened markets to agricultural imports. The food price crisis of 2007-08, which highlighted how fragile food systems in many parts of the world have become, and which shattered the confidence of net-food importing countries in international markets as a source of food security.
The situation is compounded by climate change and the resulting destabilization of weather patterns, which in turn has made agricultural production less predictable. Climate change has made domestic food supplies less certain and exports, too. In 2012, The United States, still a huge source of grains for international markets, lost 40 percent of a record large number of acres planted with corn to drought.
The sense of food insecurity has driven some of the richer net-food importers—countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait—to invest in growing food abroad for import to their domestic markets. That is one driver of land grabs.() The sense that our food systems are fragile and that supplies are scarce, where for decades they have been abundant, is another drive -- companies such as South Korea’s Daewoo are looking to source raw materials directly, rather than buying them on the market.
It’s not that investment in agriculture is a bad thing. Indeed, it’s sorely needed. But unless we have the conversation about what kind of investment, in what kind of agriculture, and in whose interests, then the investment does more harm than good.
Land grabs, as the label implies, have been overwhelmingly negative. They are associated with weak institutional capacity (and sometimes corruption) in the recipient country governments, as well as authoritarian governments in the investors’ home countries, making it hard to bring pressure there for better practices. The communities whose land is leased or bought are not adequately protected.
Hunger and Human Rights abuses threaten fragile rural communities
By Sophia Murphy
Economy and Markets, Food and Agriculture, International
Food Justice advocated have always argued that trade agreements need to respect and promote human rights, not drive a process of globalization that privileges commercial interests and tramples on public interests. In my new paper on land grabs from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, that position is affirmed.
“Land grabs” are large-scale purchases or leases of agricultural or forested land on terms that violate the rights of the people who live on or near that land. The problem has commanded enormous public policy and media attention for the last few years. In our paper, IATP sets some context for the land grabs phenomenon. We focus on two forces that have contributed significantly to the problem:
Globalization, or the deregulation of trade and foreign investment laws, which has greatly eased cross-border capital flows; relaxed the limits on foreign land ownership; and, opened markets to agricultural imports. The food price crisis of 2007-08, which highlighted how fragile food systems in many parts of the world have become, and which shattered the confidence of net-food importing countries in international markets as a source of food security.
The situation is compounded by climate change and the resulting destabilization of weather patterns, which in turn has made agricultural production less predictable. Climate change has made domestic food supplies less certain and exports, too. In 2012, The United States, still a huge source of grains for international markets, lost 40 percent of a record large number of acres planted with corn to drought.
The sense of food insecurity has driven some of the richer net-food importers—countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait—to invest in growing food abroad for import to their domestic markets. That is one driver of land grabs.() The sense that our food systems are fragile and that supplies are scarce, where for decades they have been abundant, is another drive -- companies such as South Korea’s Daewoo are looking to source raw materials directly, rather than buying them on the market.
It’s not that investment in agriculture is a bad thing. Indeed, it’s sorely needed. But unless we have the conversation about what kind of investment, in what kind of agriculture, and in whose interests, then the investment does more harm than good.
Land grabs, as the label implies, have been overwhelmingly negative. They are associated with weak institutional capacity (and sometimes corruption) in the recipient country governments, as well as authoritarian governments in the investors’ home countries, making it hard to bring pressure there for better practices. The communities whose land is leased or bought are not adequately protected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)