Tag Archives: farmers

New technologies can help poor farmers – just not the ones you’re thinking of Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




During recent years we’ve become used to hearing that the answer to looming food security challenges is technology. For example, more sophisticated pesticides, genetic modification and machinery to grow food at ever-greater scale.

It is an especially believable narrative because – broadly speaking – this what has delivered some level of food security to most people during the period of explosive population growth that started during the 20th century, and continues today.

But while marking a success at one level, there are serious downsides, not least seen in how modern farming is responsible for driving several worsening global ecological trends.

These include climate change caused by the build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; the progressive pollution of ecosystems (especially aquatic and marine ones) with excess nitrogen and phosphorous; and the loss of biological diversity, caused by both of the above and habitat loss, mostly driven by conversion of more natural ecosystems to farmland.

Agriculture is also responsible for depleting resources that are vital for its own future – not least soils and freshwater.

That we cannot go on like this is not in doubt. The question is, will more technology present solutions that will actually work? The answer to that is an emphatic ‘yes!’ – although perhaps not the kind of technology many generally associate with farming policy.

A glimpse as to what technologies might work better in producing more food while protecting the natural systems we depend upon was glimpsed this week at the Slow Life Foundation‘s Slow Life Symposium taking place in the Maldives.

Digital technologies supporting India’s farmers

Rikin Gandhi is Chief Executive of an organization called Digital Green, and he presented to Symposium participants some of the methods being successfully deployed by his organization in dramatically increasing yields among small-scale farmers.

His basic idea is to exploit a particular fact of life that is seen right across the world. It stems from where most farmers get most of their new ideas from: namely other farmers.

Government training and information schemes can make an impact, so can advice from agrochemical companies (albeit biased at times), but by far the most convincing source of new ideas is other farmers.

Working with this reality Digital Green set out to improve yields through helping farmers make videos that would be shown to other farmers nearby.

Using off-the-shelf equipment including pocket video cameras and pico projectors, Digital Green assists farmers to generate content for use among tribal communities living in remote areas without electricity. (see photo)

Battery powered video and projection enables best practice to be shared even among illiterate groups where the written word is near to useless. Gandhi got results with better farming methods adopted more quickly and more cost-effectively than earlier attempts to do the same.

Indeed, Digital Green has demonstrated that for every dollar spent, the system persuaded seven times as many farmers to adopt new ideas as an existing official program of training and visits.

Twice the rice, half the water

Another measure of success is how many farmers have been empowered through new knowledge to the point where they are producing twice as much rice with half as much water – thereby helping to address the twin emerging challenges of food and water security, while keeping people on the land (and out of the fast expanding cities) by increasing their incomes.

And when farmers have more knowledge about soil health and the role of composts as at least a partial alternative to commercial fertilisers then opportunities are presented to cut costs while reducing environmental impacts.

Other technologies can complement this basic means of sharing ideas, including mobile phones. Although most farmers are still not yet connected in this way, the proportion that are is growing fast, in turn offering the prospect to lever further value from existing agricultural resources in terms of people and land through, for example, sharing of information about market conditions and weather forecasts.

There is of course a cautionary note to strike, as Gandhi observes: “During the Green Revolution era it was all about agricultural technology being transferred to farmers. That did boost yields but had issues coming with it.

“The same thing can be said about information technology. This is powerful but also needs to be supported through partnerships and working with social organisations. We need to think about the context for the technology, and the people using it, not just the technology.”

The new ‘intensification’: producing more, from less

Alongside a flipping of the narrative relating to agricultural technology is a change in tone regarding the very concept of intensification. For decades that idea has been associated with ever more chemical inputs, with all the attendant consequences as seen for example in resource depletion and greenhouse gas emissions.

Those close to the emerging challenge of how best to achieve food security while maintaining ecological integrity see a new definition here too.

‘Intensification’ is now regarded as empowering farmers to use their ingenuity and local resources more effectively, rather than being based on strategies to import energy intensive inputs.

David Monsma, Executive Director at the Aspen Institute‘s Energy and Environment Programme, emphasised that “Smallholder farmers remain the backbone of food supply systems in most low income and many middle income countries.”

Their “awareness of and access to agricultural technologies and techniques is often lacking”, he added, but that fact opens up a huge opportunity for sustainable growth in both food supply, and rural incomes:

“Training in production techniques and technologies that conserve soil and water, or that reduce waste and loss of crops, communications tools such as cellphones and videos and organizational innovations such as setting up market-oriented farmer based organisations, can lead toward more sustainable intensification while broadly increasing food security.”

The smart money is backing this new and more joined up farmer-focused approach, with big funders such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (also see here) and the Clinton Development Initiative ‘going local’ and backing strategies that help small actors do better.

Technologies for farmer empowerment

Among the approaches delivering results are those that improve storage and market access, thereby cutting food waste in the agricultural landscapes where food is grown.

Micro-finance and micro-insurance are proving vital facilities for many farmers in enabling them to make investments and to manage risk. Farmer empowerment via training is also increasingly seen as a vital plank for future food security.

Perhaps this shift of emphasis toward communications technologies and intensification based on farmer empowerment marks the opening of a new chapter in our multi-millennial efforts to ensure we have enough to eat.

It comes not a moment too soon. The days when technology could be thrown at the challenges linked with feeding ourselves and it assumed that the ecological damage was an acceptable price to pay for cheap food are over.

No longer is it feasible to trade one set of priorities at the expense of the others, for if nature doesn’t function neither will our food system. One vital strategy for navigating these tight straits is the empowerment of small scale farmers.

 

 

Tony Juniper is a campaigner, writer, sustainability advisor and leading British environmentalist. For more than 25 years he has worked for change toward a more sustainable society at local, national and international levels. His website is at tonyjuniper.com.

 

 




386927

Living with GMOs – a letter from America Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




We are writing as concerned American citizens to share with you our experience of genetically modified (GM) crops and the resulting damage to our agricultural system and adulteration of our food supply.

In our country, GM crops account for about half of harvested cropland. Around 94% of the soy, 93% of corn (maize) and 96% of cotton grown is GM. i

The UK and the rest of the EU have yet to adopt GM crops in the way that we have, but you are currently under tremendous pressure from governments, biotech lobbyists, and large corporations to adopt what we now regard as a failing agricultural technology.

Polls consistently show that 72% of Americans do not want to eat GM foods and over 90% of Americans believe GM foods should be labeled. ii

In spite of this massive public mandate, efforts to get our federal iii and state iv governments to better regulate, or simply label, GMOs are being undermined by large biotech and food corporations with unlimited budgets v and undue influence.

As you consider your options, we’d like to share with you what nearly two decades of GM crops in the United States has brought us. We believe our experience serves as a warning for what will happen in your countries should you follow us down this road.

Broken promises

GM crops were released onto the market with a promise that they would consistently increase yields and decrease pesticide use. They have done neither. vi In fact, according to a recent US government report yields from GM crops can be lower than their non-GM equivalents. vii

Farmers were told that GM crops would yield bigger profits too. The reality, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, is different. viii Profitability is highly variable, while the cost of growing these crops has spiraled. ix

GM seeds cannot legally be saved for replanting, which means farmers must buy new seeds each year. Biotech companies control the price of seeds, which cost farmers 3-6 times more than conventional seeds. x This, combined with the huge chemical inputs they require, means GM crops have proved more costly to grow than conventional crops.

Because of the disproportionate emphasis on GM crops, conventional seed varieties are no longer widely available leaving farmers with less choice and control over what they plant. xi

Farmers who have chosen not to grow GM crops can find their fields contaminated with GM crops as a result of cross pollination between related species of plants xii and GM and non-GM seeds being mixed together during storage.

Because of this our farmers are losing export markets. Many countries have restrictions or outright bans on growing or importing GM crops xiii and as a result, these crops have become responsible for a rise in trade disputes when shipments of grain are found to be contaminated with GM organisms (GMOs).xiv

The burgeoning organic market here in the US is also being affected. Many organic farmers have lost contracts for organic seed due to high levels of contamination. This problem is increasing and is expected to get much bigger in the coming years.

Pesticides and superweeds

The most widely grown types of GM crops are known as ‘Roundup Ready’ crops. These crops, mostly corn and soy, have been genetically engineered so that when they are sprayed with the herbicide Roundup – the active ingredient of which is glyphosate – the weeds die but the crop continues to grow.

This has created a vicious circle. Weeds have become resistant to the herbicide, causing farmers to spray even more. Heavier use of herbicides creates ever more ‘superweeds’ and even higher herbicide use.

A recent review found that between 1996 and 2011, farmers who planted Roundup Ready crops used 24% more herbicide than non-GMO farmers planting the same crops. xv

If we remain on this trajectory with Roundup Ready crops we can expect to see herbicide rates increase by 25% each year for the foreseeable future.

This pesticide treadmill means that in the last decade in the US at least 14 new glyphosate-resistant weed species have emerged, xvi and over half of US farms are plagued with herbicide-resistant weeds. xvii

Biotech companies, which sell both the GM seeds and the herbicides, xviii have proposed to address this problem with the creation of new crop varieties that will be able to withstand even stronger and more toxic herbicides such as 2,4-D and dicamba.

However it is estimated that if these new varieties are approved, this could drive herbicide use up by as much as 50%. xix

Environmental harm

Studies have shown that the increased herbicide use on Roundup Ready crops is highly destructive to the natural environment. For example, Roundup kills milkweeds, which are the key food source for the iconic Monarch butterfly xx and poses a threat to other important insects such as bees. xxi

It is also damaging to soil, killing beneficial organisms that keep it healthy and productive xxii and making essential micronutrients unavailable to the plant. xxiii

Other types of GM plants, which have been engineered to produce their own insecticide (e.g. “Bt” cotton plants), have also been shown to harm beneficial insects including green lacewings xxiv, the Daphnia magna waterflea xxv and other aquatic insects, xxvi and ladybugs (ladybirds). xxvii

Resistance to the insecticides in these plants is also growing xxviii, creating new varieties of resistant “superbugs” and requiring more applications of insecticides at different points in the growth cycle, for instance on the seed before it is planted. xxix In spite of this, new Bt varieties of corn and soy have been approved here and will soon be planted.

A threat to human health

GM ingredients are everywhere in our food chain. It is estimated that 70% of processed foods consumed in the US have been produced using GM ingredients. If products from animals fed GM feed are included, the percentage is significantly higher.

Research shows that Roundup Ready crops contain many times more glyphosate, and its toxic breakdown product AMPA, than normal crops. xxx

Traces of glyphosate have been found in the breastmilk and urine of American mothers, as well as in their drinking water. xxxi The levels in breastmilk were worryingly high – around 1,600 times higher than what is allowable in European drinking water.

Passed on to babies through breastmilk, or the water used to make formula, this could represent an unacceptable risk to infant health since glyphosate is a suspected hormone disrupter. xxxii Recent studies suggest that this herbicide is also toxic to sperm. xxxiii

Likewise, traces of the Bt toxin have been found in the blood of mothers and their babies. xxxiv

GM foods were not subjected to human trials before being released into the food chain and the health impacts of having these substances circulating and accumulating in our bodies are not being studied by any government agency, nor by the companies that produce them.

Studies of animals fed GM foods and/or glyphosate, however, show worrying trends including damage to vital organs like the liver and kidneys, damage to gut tissues and gut flora, immune system disruption, reproductive abnormalities, and even tumors. xxxv

These scientific studies point to potentially serious human health problems that could not have been anticipated when our country first embraced GMOs, and yet they continue to be ignored by those who should be protecting us.

Instead our regulators rely on outdated studies and other information funded and supplied by biotech companies that, not surprisingly, dismiss all health concerns.

A denial of science

This spin of corporate science stands in stark contrast to the findings of independent scientists.

In fact, in 2013, nearly 300 independent scientists from around the world issued a public warning that there was no scientific consensus about the safety of eating genetically modified food, and that the risks, as demonstrated in independent research, gave “serious cause for concern.” xxxvi

It’s not easy for independent scientists like these to speak out. Those who do have faced obstacles in publishing their results, been systematically vilified by pro-GMO scientists, been denied research funding, and in some cases have had their jobs and careers threatened. xxxvii

Control of the food supply

Through our experience we have come to understand that the genetic engineering of food has never really been about public good, or feeding the hungry, or supporting our farmers. Nor is it about consumer choice. Instead it is about private, corporate control of the food system.

This control extends into areas of life that deeply affect our day-to-day well-being, including food security, science, and democracy. It undermines the development of genuinely sustainable, environmentally friendly agriculture and prevents the creation of a transparent, healthy food supply for all.

Today in the US, from seed to plate, the production, distribution, marketing, safety testing, and consumption of food is controlled by a handful of companies, many of which have commercial interests in genetic engineering technology.

They create the problems, and then sell us the so-called solutions in a closed cycle of profit generation that is unequalled in any other type of commerce.

We all need to eat, which is why every citizen should strive to understand these issues.

Time to speak out!

Americans are reaping the detrimental impacts of this risky and unproven agricultural technology. EU countries should take note: there are no benefits from GM crops great enough to offset these impacts. Officials who continue to ignore this fact are guilty of a gross dereliction of duty.

We, the undersigned, are sharing our experience and what we have learned with you so that you don’t make our mistakes.

We strongly urge you to resist the approval of genetically modified crops, to refuse to plant those crops that have been approved, to reject the import and/or sale of GM-containing animal feeds and foods intended for human consumption, and to speak out against the corporate influence over politics, regulation and science.

If the UK and the rest of Europe becomes the new market for genetically modified crops and food our own efforts to label and regulate GMOs will be all the more difficult, if not impossible. If our efforts fail, your attempts to keep GMOs out of Europe will also fail.

If we work together, however, we can revitalize our global food system, ensuring healthy soil, healthy fields, healthy food and healthy people.

 

 

See below for Signatories – NGOs, academics, scientists, anti-GM groups, celebrities, food manufacturers, and others representing around 57 million Americans.

References

i

Corporate-smart greenwash: the Global Alliance on Climate-Smart Agriculture Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




We, the undersigned civil society organisations, hereby manifest our rejection of the proposed Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture launched at the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Change Leaders’ Summit.

This proposed alliance is a deceptive and deeply contradictory initiative.

Food producers and providers – farmers, fisherfolk, and pastoralists – together with our food systems, are on the front lines of climate change.

We know that urgent action must be taken to cool the planet, to help farming systems – and particularly small-scale farmers – adapt to a changing climate, and to revive and reclaim the agroecological systems on which future sustainable food production depends.

The Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture, however, will not deliver the solutions that we so urgently need. Instead, ‘climate-smart’ agriculture provides a dangerous platform for corporations to implement the very activities we oppose.

Our concerns have been ignored

By endorsing the activities of the planet’s worst climate offenders in agribusiness and industrial agriculture, the Alliance will undermine the very objectives that it claims to aim for.

Some organizations have constructively engaged in good faith for several months with the Alliance to express serious concerns through a number of different routes – including a sign-on letter signed by over 80 organisations, participation in the Friends of the Alliance conference calls, and attending a meeting of the Alliance in the Hague in July 2014.

But the concerns have been ignored. Instead, the Alliance is clearly being structured to serve big business interests, not to address the climate crisis.

We reject ‘climate-smart’ agriculture and the Global Alliance for a number of reasons already articulated in previous efforts to interface with the promoters, including:

1. No environmental or social criteria

The final framework of the Alliance does not contain any criteria or definitions for what can – or cannot – be considered ‘climate-smart agriculture’.

Industrial approaches that increase greenhouse gas emissions and farmers’ vulnerability by driving deforestation, using genetically modified (GM) seeds, increasing synthetic fertiliser use or intensifying industrial livestock production, are all apparently welcome to use the ‘climate-smart’ label to promote their practices as solutions to climate change.

2. Carbon trading

The originators of ‘climate-smart’ agriculture – the FAO and the World Bank – have a vision that ‘climate-smart’ projects will be funded in part by carbon offset schemes.

Many of our groups question the environmental and social integrity of carbon offsetting. Carbon sequestration in soils is not permanent and is easily reversible, and should be especially excluded from schemes to offset emissions.

Carbon offset schemes in agriculture will create one more driver of land dispossession of smallholder farmers, particularly in the Global South, and unfairly place the burden of mitigation on those who are most vulnerable to, but have least contributed to, the climate crisis.

3. A new space for promoting agribusiness and industrial agriculture

Companies with activities resulting in dire social impacts on farmers and communities, such as those driving land grabbing or promoting GM seeds, already claim that they are ‘climate-smart’.

Yara (the world’s largest fertilizer manufacturer), Syngenta (GM seeds), McDonald’s and Walmart are all at the ‘climate-smart’ table. Climate-smart agriculture will serve as a new promotional space for the planet’s worst social and environmental offenders in agriculture.

The proposed Global Alliance on Climate-Smart Agriculture seems to be yet another strategy by powerful players to prop up industrial agriculture, which undermines the basic human right to food. It is nothing new, nothing innovative, and not what we need.

A covert promotion of industrial agriculture

We do urgently need climate action! Unfortunately, the Alliance seriously misses the mark. Real climate solutions are already out there in farmers’ fields – based on agroecological practices and the relocalisation of food systems to effectively fight hunger.

Instead of creating one more body for business-as-usual, governments, funding agencies, and international organizations should be taking bold action: committing to shift resources away from climate-damaging practices of chemical-intensive industrial agriculture and meat production and towards investment in and commitment to agroecology, food sovereignty, and support to small-scale food producers.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development concluded in 2008 that business-as-usual in agriculture is not an option. Instead, a thorough and radical overhaul of present international and agricultural policies is essential to meet the challenges of the future.

We reject the Global Alliance as one more step by a small percentage of the UN’s total membership to promote industrial agriculture against all the evidence of its destructive impacts on people, biodiversity, seed, water, soils, and climate.

It is merely one more attempt to block the real change needed to fix our broken food systems and our broken climate – change which instead must be based on food sovereignty and agroecological approaches for agriculture and food production and the effective reduction of greenhouse gases.

 

 

Source: Climate Smart Ag Concerns. This article is a minimally edited version of the original letter. Signatories are listed below:

International Organisations & Farmers’ Movements

ActionAid International
Centro de Estudios Internacionales y de Agricultura Internacional (CERAI)
CIDSE
Coalition pour la Protection du Patrimoine Genetique African (COPAGEN)
Corporate Europe Observatory
Earth in Brackets
Foro Rural Mundial (FRM)
Friends of the Earth International
IBON International
Inades-Formation
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)
International-Lawyers.Org (INTLawyers)
GRET
LDC Watch
Mesa de Coordinación Latinoamericana de Comercio Justo
Send a Cow
South Asia Alliance for Poverty Eradication (SAAPE)
South Asia Peasants Coalition
Third World Network

National Organisations & Farmers’ Movements

Abalimi Bezekhaya (Farmers of Hope), South Africa
ACRA-CCS Foundation, Italy
Action Contre la Faim, France
Africa Europe Faith & Justice Network (AEFJN), Brussels
Agrosolidaria Federacion el Tambo Cauca, Colombia
Alliance International sur les OMD (AIOMD), Niger
All Nepal Peasants Federation (ANPFa), Nepal
Antenne Nationale du Niger (AAIOMD-Niger)
Asemblea Nacional Ambiental (ANA), República Dominicana
Asociacion de Prosumidores Agroecologicos “Agrosolidaria Seccional Viani” Colombia
Asociacion Nacional de Produtores Ecologistas del Peru (ANPE)
Asociacion Viva Amazonica de San Martin, Peru
Association Malienne pour la Sécurité et la Souverainté Alimentaires (AMASSA)
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC)
Beyond Copenhagen, India
Biofuelwatch, UK
Biowatch South Africa
Bolivian Platform on Climate Change, Bolivia
Campaign for Climate Justice Nepal (CCJN)
Carbon Market Watch, Belgium
CCFD-Terre Solidaire, France
Centre for community economics and development consultants society (CECOEDECON), India
Cecosesola, Barquisimeto, Venezuela
Centre d’Actions et de Réalisations Internationales (CARI), France
Centre for Learning on Sustainable Agriculture (ILEIA), the Netherlands
Community Development Association (CDA), Bangladesh
Community Empowerment for Progress Organization (CEPO), South Sudan
CONCEPT ONG, Sénégal
EcoFrut, Colombia
EcoNexus, UK
Equity and Justice Working Group Bangladesh (EquityBD).
Family Farmers’ Association, UK
Farm & Garden Trust, South Africa
Farms Not Factories, UK
Féderation des Eglises Evangéliques des Frères (FEEF), the Central African Republic
Federacion Nacional de Cooperativas Agropecuarias y Agroindustriales de Nicaragua (FENACOOP)
Find Your Feet, UK
Food First Information and Action Network (FIAN) Nepal
Forum des Femmes Africaines pour l’Education (FAWECOM), Comoros
Friends of Siberian Forests, Russia
Friends of the Earth – England, Wales & Northern Ireland
Friends of the Earth – Latvia
Fundación Caminos de Indentidad (FUCAI) Colombia
Fundación Lonxanet para la Pesca Sostenible, Spain
Fundación Solidaridad, Bolivia
Harvest of Hope, South Africa
Gramya Resource Centre for Women, India
Groupe d’Action de Paix et de Formation pour la Transformation (GAPAFOT), Central African Republic
Human Rights (HR) Alliance, Nepal
Human Rights Organisation of Bhutan (HUROB)
INHURED International, Nepal
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), USA
Instituto de Cultura Popular, Argentina
Jagaran Nepal
Jubilee South Asia/Pacific Movement on Debt and Development (JSAPMDD), Philippines
Karnataka State Red Gram Growers Association, India
Labour, Health and Human Rights Development Centre, Nigeria
L’Association des Jeunes Filles Pour la Promotion de l’Espace Francophone (Membre du CNOSCG), Republic of Guinea
MADGE Australia
MASIPAG, Philippines
National Civic Forum, Sudan
National Federation of Youth Organisations in Bangladesh
National Network on Right to Food, Nepal (RtFN)
Organización Casa de Semillas Criollas Atenas, Costa Rica
Pakistan Fisher Folk Forum (PFF), Pakistan
Partners for the Land & Agricultural Needs of Traditional Peoples (PLANT), USA
People’s Alliance of Central-East India (PACE-India)
PHE Ethiopia Consortium
Plateforme Haïtienne de Plaidoyer pour un Développement Alternatif (PAPDA), Haïti
Plateforme pour le Commerce Equitable, France
Public Advocacy Initiatives for Rights and Values in India (PAIRVI)
Red Ecologista Autónoma de la Cuenca de México
Red Nicaraguense de Comercio Comunitario (RENICC)
Red Peruana de Comercio Justo y Consumo Ético, Perú
Rural Reconstruction Nepal (RRN)
SADF ONG, Democratic Republic of Congo
Sanayee Development Organisation, Afghanistan
Secours Catholique (Caritas), France
SOCDA (Somali Organization for Community Development Activities)
Sudan Peace and Education Development Program (SPEDP), South Sudan
Texas Drought Project, USA
Unión Nacional de Agricultores y Ganaderos de Nicaragua (UNAG)
Unión LatinoAmerica de Technicos Rurales y Agrarios, Argentina
UK Food Group, UK
Vicaria del Sur, Diócesis de Florencia, Colombia
Voluntary Action for the fight against climate change and the adverse effects of Sulfur Diesel, (AVOCHACLISD), Burundi
World Development Movement, UK
Youth Network for MDGs, Madagascar

 

 




375955

UN: only small farmers and agroecology can feed the world Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Modern industrial agricultural methods can no longer feed the world, due to the impacts of overlapping environmental and ecological crises linked to land, water and resource availability.

The stark warning comes from the new United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Prof Hilal Elver, In her first public speech since being appointed in June

“Food policies which do not address the root causes of world hunger would be bound to fail”, she told a packed audience in Amsterdam.

One billion people globally are hungry, she declared, before calling on governments to support a transition to “agricultural democracy” which would empower rural small farmers.

Agriculture needs a new direction: agroecology

“The 2009 global food crisis signalled the need for a turning point in the global food system”, she said at the event hosted by the Transnational Institute (TNI), a leading international think tank.

“Modern agriculture, which began in the 1950s, is more resource intensive, very fossil fuel dependent, using fertilisers, and based on massive production. This policy has to change.

“We are already facing a range of challenges. Resource scarcity, increased population, decreasing land availability and accessibility, emerging water scarcity, and soil degradation require us to re-think how best to use our resources for future generations.”

The UN official said that new scientific research increasingly shows how ‘agroecology’ offers far more environmentally sustainable methods that can still meet the rapidly growing demand for food:

“Agroecology is a traditional way of using farming methods that are less resource oriented, and which work in harmony with society. New research in agroecology allows us to explore more effectively how we can use traditional knowledge to protect people and their environment at the same time.”

Small farmers are the key to feeding the world

“There is a geographical and distributional imbalance in who is consuming and producing. Global agricultural policy needs to adjust. In the crowded and hot world of tomorrow, the challenge of how to protect the vulnerable is heightened”, Hilal Elver continued.

“That entails recognising women’s role in food production – from farmer, to housewife, to working mother, women are the world’s major food providers. It also means recognising small farmers, who are also the most vulnerable, and the most hungry.

“Across Europe, the US and the developing world, small farms face shrinking numbers. So if we deal with small farmers we solve hunger and we also deal with food production.”

And Elver speaks not just with the authority of her UN role, but as a respected academic. She is research professor and co-director at the Project on Global Climate Change, Human Security, and Democracy in the Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara.

She is also an experienced lawyer and diplomat. A former founding legal advisor at the Turkish Ministry of Environment, she was previously appointed to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Chair in Environmental Diplomacy at the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies, University of Malta.

Industrial agriculture grabs 80% of subsidies and 90% of research funds

Hinting at the future direction of her research and policy recommendations, she criticised the vast subsidies going to large monocultural agribusiness companies. Currently, in the European Union about 80% of subsidies and 90% of research funding go to support conventional industrial agriculture.

“Empirical and scientific evidence shows that small farmers feed the world. According to the UN Food & Agricultural Organisation (FAO), 70% of food we consume globally comes from small farmers”, said Prof Elver.

“This is critical for future agricultural policies. Currently, most subsidies go to large agribusiness. This must change. Governments must support small farmers. As rural people are migrating increasingly to cities, this is generating huge problems.

“If these trends continue, by 2050, 75% of the entire human population will live in urban areas. We must reverse these trends by providing new possibilities and incentives to small farmers, especially for young people in rural areas.”

If implemented, Elver’s suggestions would represent a major shift in current government food policies.

But Marcel Beukeboom, a Dutch civil servant specialising in food and nutrition at the Ministry of Trade & Development who spoke after Elver, dissented from Elver’s emphasis on small farms:

“While I agree that we must do more to empower small farmers, the fact is that the big monocultural farms are simply not going to disappear. We have to therefore find ways to make the practices of industrial agribusiness more effective, and this means working in partnership with the private sector, small and large.”

A UN initiative on agroecology?

The new UN food rapporteur’s debut speech coincided with a landmark two-day International Symposium on Agroecology for Food and Nutrition Security in Rome, hosted by the FAO. Over 50 experts participated in the symposium, including scientists, the private sector, government officials, and civil society leaders.

A high-level roundtable at the close of the symposium included the agricultural ministers of France, Algeria, Costa Rica, Japan, Brazil and the European Union agricultural commissioner.

FAO Director-General José Graziano da Silva said: “Agroecology continues to grow, both in science and in policies. It is an approach that will help to address the challenge of ending hunger and malnutrition in all its forms, in the context of the climate change adaptation needed.”

A letter to the FAO signed by nearly 70 international food scientists congratulated the UN agency for convening the agroecology symposium and called for a “UN system-wide initiative on agroecology as the central strategy for addressing climate change and building resilience in the face of water crises.”

The scientists described agroecology as “a well-grounded science, a set of time-tested agronomic practices and, when embedded in sound socio-political institutions, the most promising pathway for achieving sustainable food production.”

More than just a science – a social movement!

A signatory to the letter, Mindi Schneider, assistant professor of Agrarian, Food and Environmental Studies at the Institute of Social Studies (ISS) in The Hague, said:

“Agroecology is more than just a science, it’s also a social movement for justice that recognises and respects the right of communities of farmers to decide what they grow and how they grow it.”

Several other food experts at the Transnational Institute offered criticisms of prevailing industrial practices. Dr David Fig, who serves on the board of Biowatch South Africa, an NGO concerned with food sovereignty and sustainable agriculture, said:

“We are being far too kind to industrialised agriculture. The private sector has endorsed it, but it has failed to feed the world, it has contributed to major environmental contamination and misuse of natural resources. It’s time we switched more attention, public funds and policy measures to agroecology, to replace the old model as soon as possible.”

Prof Sergio Sauer, formerly Brazil’s National Rapporteur for Human Rights in Land, Territory and Food, added: “Agroecology is related to the way you relate to land, to nature to each other – it is more than just organic production, it is a sustainable livelihood.

“In Brazil we have the National Association of Agroecology which brings together 7,000 people from all over the country pooling together their concrete empirical experiences of agroecological practices. They try to base all their knowledge on practice, not just on concepts.

“Generally, nobody talks about agroecology, because it’s too political. The simple fact that the FAO is calling a major international gathering to discuss agroecology is therefore a very significant milestone.”

 

 

Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is an investigative journalist, bestselling author, and international security scholar. He is a regular contributor to The Ecologist and The Guardian where he writes about the geopolitics of interconnected environmental, energy and economic crises. He has also written for The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Scotsman, Foreign Policy, Prospect, New Statesman, Le Monde diplomatique, among many others. His new novel of the near future is ZERO POINT.

Follow him on Twitter @nafeezahmed and Facebook.

Website: www.nafeezahmed.com

 

 




384405

Philippines: farmers call to stop ‘Golden Rice’ trials Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




A year after the uprooting of Golden Rice, more than a hundred farmers, scientists, consumers and basic sectors are calling for the immediate halt of the planned field tests and commercialization of Golden Rice (GR) in the Philippines.

GR they say, will only pose more problems rather than solving the problem on hunger and malnutrition.

The group also called for respect for farmers’ rights to land, seeds and technology and pushed for sustainable approaches to attaining food sufficiency and genuine rural development.

Mr Bert Autor, spokesperson of SIKWAL-GMO (Bicol Initiative Against Golden Rice) and member of the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Bikol (KMB) said that they do not want Golden Rice as it will pave the way towards more GMOs and tie more farmers to indebtedness.

We must protect our precious rice seed!

“More small farmers are into greater debt because of high costs of production and dependency on modern seeds and other production inputs”, said Autor.

“In a hectare, the average gross income of farmers in the Bicol River Basin is about P36,000. However, the cost of production reaches about P29,700 for the irrigation fee, fertilizer, pesticides and machineries, labor, seeds, land rent, etc.

“Now they are introducing this Golden Rice to us. We believe that this is again a ploy to further control our seeds and extract profit from farmers. We do not want Golden Rice in Bicol!”

In August 2013 more than 400 farmers and campaigners marched to the office of the Department of Agriculture’s Regional Office in Pili, Camarines Sur and uprooted the genetically modified Golden Rice.

According to the farmers, the direct action is justifiable to prevent contamination of their precious traditional and farmer-bred varieties, and protect the health of the people and the environment.

Are the wheels falling off the GR project?

Golden Rice is a genetically modified rice artificially inserted with genes from a bacteria and corn to produce beta carotene, a precursor of Vitamin A.

Golden Rice is owned by agrochemical giant Syngenta. IRRI and local partner Philrice are doing the field testing and plans to feed test it to target communities in the country.

This year, IRRI confessed that the yields of the Golden Rice variety grown in the field trials, GR2-R proved to be poor: “While the target level of beta-carotene in the grain was attained, average yield was unfortunately lower than that from comparable local varieties already preferred by farmers.”

Philrice, the local partner of IRRI in the Golden Rice project has also said that this development has set back the plan to commercialize Golden Rice for another two to three years.

Recently, news about the possible retraction of the paper on the Golden Rice feeding trials  among Chinese children are being discussed because of ethical lapses in the study. If retracted, this will leave Golden Rice proponents without a strong and factual basis of safety studies that can justify its commercialization.

Don’t want, don’t need

Citing these developments, Dr Chito Medina, National Coordinator of farmer-scientis group MASIPAG expressed strong opposition against the Golden Rice project. Dr Medina said:

“While the project was set back for a couple of years, this does not stop the proponents from doing another round of open field testing of Golden Rice. Feed testing among communities might be ongoing but we do not have any idea when and where it is being done. This project should be called off immediately, as this will not serve the interests of the Filipino people.” 

Dr Medina also said that there are existing and cheap sources of beta carotene. Dr Medina added that “the Philipines is home to green leafy vegetables and yellow fruit and rootcrops rich in Vitamin A. The yellow sweet potato (dilaw na kamote) has five times more beta carotene per gram than Golden Rice.

“Instead of focusing on the commercialization of Golden Rice, the government should focus more on ensuring access to food, diversifying food sources and sustainable food production to curb malnutrition.

“The Department of Agriculture and Philrice should also stop following the dictates of IRRI and transnational corporations, as Golden Rice will be a tool to open up the country to many more GMOs that results to further corporate control.”

Rice farmers demand GM-free

The group also initiated a campaign to encourage farmers and communities in Bicol to protect their rice and other crops from the expansion of GMOs.

Dubbed as GM Free Bicol the group called on farmers in Bicol and the other parts of the country to put up signages declaring their farms ‘GM Free’. Likewise, they also encourage communities to call for ban GM crops and products in their food and agricultural farms.

“We see this campaign as a medium to educate the farmers and people on the negative effects of Golden Rice and GM crops in general. Apart from impacts on health and the environment, farmers are also losing to GM crops such as GM corn.

“In our research, farmers do not earn much from growing GM corn as most of the farmers income are being siphoned by the skyrocketting cost of GM corn seeds, pesticides and fertilizers. We hope that thru this campaign, we can encourage farmers to stay away from GM crops and seeds”, added Dr Medina.

To combat GM rice and Vitamin A deficiency, the group are encouraging the consumption of organically grown foods that are rich in Vitamin A and other nutrients.

Their “Pangudto Organiko, Libre sa GMO!” (Organic Lunch, Free from GMOs) campaign. demonstrates that there are a multitude of safe and nutritious food available – and there’s no need to resort to Golden Rice and other GMOs.

 

 

Source: GRAIN.

More articles on The Ecologist about Golden Rice.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




383746