Tag Archives: people

The Soil Association’s mission is organic – and it always will be! Updated for 2026





Since the 1940s the Soil Association has campaigned for food and farming systems that support the health of our people and environment.

This work is just as relevant now as it was back then. We want to see a future where good food, organic food, is accessible to everyone and where we farm in a way that supports biodiversity, improves animal welfare and addresses climate change.

Though there is always more to do, we are making progress towards achieving this vision.

Last month, four of the Soil Association’s 17 Trustees resigned following the rejection by their fellow Trustees of a motion challenging our three-year old strategy, ‘The Road to 2020‘. Our strategy focusses as strongly as ever on organic food and farming, and also reaches out to broader audiences.

We are sorry these trustees felt unable to support our initiatives to work with non-organic as well as organic farmers, and with many other people in schools, hospitals and society more widely. We think the challenges facing our food systems today are so urgent that we need to work with all who are interested in finding solutions that are in line with our founding principles.

Transforming Britain’s food culture

Food, and how we produce it, is an entry point into people’s lives and health. It helps develop an understanding of our connection with the natural world, as well as being critically important in its own right.

We understand the pressures facing consumers today. Far from eschewing the term organic, we are working to change perceptions, by ensuring that many more people routinely eat better food, including organic, in schools and hospitals for instance.

We work with schools across the UK transforming food culture with great school meals, children growing and cooking food, and even holding their own farmers markets in partnership with local farmers and growers.

Our Catering Mark is transforming an industry previously driven by cost, not quality, and everyday hundreds of thousands of people in nurseries, schools, workplaces, hospitals and care homes people now eat fresh, healthy and locally sourced meals. At silver and gold Catering Mark award these meals now all include organic.

This work couldn’t be more important. Earlier this year, the Department of Health identified hospital food as a clinical priority for the first time and the Hospital Food Standards Panel recognised the Catering Mark as a scheme that improves food in hospitals for patients, staff and visitors.

We are working with an increasing number of hospitals to improve food served, including Nottingham University Hospital Trust whose meals have a minimum 15% spend on organic ingredients.

Our commitment to organic food and farming is as strong as ever

Organic farming has many of the answers that can help with some of the big challenges of the future such as climate change and the crisis now facing our soils. Organic farmers and growers are the true pioneers and heart of the organic movement and we remain absolutely committed to supporting them and continuing to grow the organic market.

We also know if we are to see real change in the world we need to work positively with all farmers – organic or not – sharing the research and knowledge of organic farming techniques, and learning from them too.

With World Soils Day on Friday (5th December) and the UN International Year of Soil in 2015, it’s a good moment to reflect that the health of our soil is critical to all farmers, not just organic ones.

So it was inspiring to see more non-organic farmers than ever before at our annual Soil Symposium last week, sharing ideas how to improve our soil and produce the very best food we can.

Through our Duchy Originals Future Farming programme we are supporting innovation in organic and low input agriculture, and helping farmers develop practices to improve productivity while caring for the environment and animal welfare.

Most farmers don’t have this ‘us and them’ attitude We are all trying to make a living the best we can, working together to find solutions to the issues facing agriculture in the UK. We would like to think we can find solutions which bring the farming community and wider society together – that doesn’t mean we won’t sometimes disagree, but we want to work constructively wherever possible with as many people as possible.

Farming must be fair, humane, healthy and ecologically based

We need to move beyond just telling others they are wrong; we need to share ideas and solutions to some of the big challenges facing our food system today. We want the Soil Association to become much more relevant to a lot more people – the public, farmers, businesses, schools and the public.

I want us to become better known for what we are for, rather than for what we are against. Our goal is to ensure that all farming and food is grounded in the organic principles – fair, humane, healthy and ecologically based – even if not all of it will be ‘certified’ organic.

I hope that this has made it clear that we remain completely committed to organic farming and to growing the market for organic food as the current ‘gold standard’ for good food.

The Soil Association was founded to research and disseminate the links between the way we manage our soils, and the impacts on human and environmental health.

Nothing could be more important, and our remaining trustees are fully committed to our approach, as laid out clearly in ‘The Road to 2020.

 


 

Helen Browning is Chief Executive of the Soil Association.

 

 




387660

The Soil Association’s mission is organic – and it always will be! Updated for 2026





Since the 1940s the Soil Association has campaigned for food and farming systems that support the health of our people and environment.

This work is just as relevant now as it was back then. We want to see a future where good food, organic food, is accessible to everyone and where we farm in a way that supports biodiversity, improves animal welfare and addresses climate change.

Though there is always more to do, we are making progress towards achieving this vision.

Last month, four of the Soil Association’s 17 Trustees resigned following the rejection by their fellow Trustees of a motion challenging our three-year old strategy, ‘The Road to 2020‘. Our strategy focusses as strongly as ever on organic food and farming, and also reaches out to broader audiences.

We are sorry these trustees felt unable to support our initiatives to work with non-organic as well as organic farmers, and with many other people in schools, hospitals and society more widely. We think the challenges facing our food systems today are so urgent that we need to work with all who are interested in finding solutions that are in line with our founding principles.

Transforming Britain’s food culture

Food, and how we produce it, is an entry point into people’s lives and health. It helps develop an understanding of our connection with the natural world, as well as being critically important in its own right.

We understand the pressures facing consumers today. Far from eschewing the term organic, we are working to change perceptions, by ensuring that many more people routinely eat better food, including organic, in schools and hospitals for instance.

We work with schools across the UK transforming food culture with great school meals, children growing and cooking food, and even holding their own farmers markets in partnership with local farmers and growers.

Our Catering Mark is transforming an industry previously driven by cost, not quality, and everyday hundreds of thousands of people in nurseries, schools, workplaces, hospitals and care homes people now eat fresh, healthy and locally sourced meals. At silver and gold Catering Mark award these meals now all include organic.

This work couldn’t be more important. Earlier this year, the Department of Health identified hospital food as a clinical priority for the first time and the Hospital Food Standards Panel recognised the Catering Mark as a scheme that improves food in hospitals for patients, staff and visitors.

We are working with an increasing number of hospitals to improve food served, including Nottingham University Hospital Trust whose meals have a minimum 15% spend on organic ingredients.

Our commitment to organic food and farming is as strong as ever

Organic farming has many of the answers that can help with some of the big challenges of the future such as climate change and the crisis now facing our soils. Organic farmers and growers are the true pioneers and heart of the organic movement and we remain absolutely committed to supporting them and continuing to grow the organic market.

We also know if we are to see real change in the world we need to work positively with all farmers – organic or not – sharing the research and knowledge of organic farming techniques, and learning from them too.

With World Soils Day on Friday (5th December) and the UN International Year of Soil in 2015, it’s a good moment to reflect that the health of our soil is critical to all farmers, not just organic ones.

So it was inspiring to see more non-organic farmers than ever before at our annual Soil Symposium last week, sharing ideas how to improve our soil and produce the very best food we can.

Through our Duchy Originals Future Farming programme we are supporting innovation in organic and low input agriculture, and helping farmers develop practices to improve productivity while caring for the environment and animal welfare.

Most farmers don’t have this ‘us and them’ attitude We are all trying to make a living the best we can, working together to find solutions to the issues facing agriculture in the UK. We would like to think we can find solutions which bring the farming community and wider society together – that doesn’t mean we won’t sometimes disagree, but we want to work constructively wherever possible with as many people as possible.

Farming must be fair, humane, healthy and ecologically based

We need to move beyond just telling others they are wrong; we need to share ideas and solutions to some of the big challenges facing our food system today. We want the Soil Association to become much more relevant to a lot more people – the public, farmers, businesses, schools and the public.

I want us to become better known for what we are for, rather than for what we are against. Our goal is to ensure that all farming and food is grounded in the organic principles – fair, humane, healthy and ecologically based – even if not all of it will be ‘certified’ organic.

I hope that this has made it clear that we remain completely committed to organic farming and to growing the market for organic food as the current ‘gold standard’ for good food.

The Soil Association was founded to research and disseminate the links between the way we manage our soils, and the impacts on human and environmental health.

Nothing could be more important, and our remaining trustees are fully committed to our approach, as laid out clearly in ‘The Road to 2020.

 


 

Helen Browning is Chief Executive of the Soil Association.

 

 




387660

The Soil Association’s mission is organic – and it always will be! Updated for 2026





Since the 1940s the Soil Association has campaigned for food and farming systems that support the health of our people and environment.

This work is just as relevant now as it was back then. We want to see a future where good food, organic food, is accessible to everyone and where we farm in a way that supports biodiversity, improves animal welfare and addresses climate change.

Though there is always more to do, we are making progress towards achieving this vision.

Last month, four of the Soil Association’s 17 Trustees resigned following the rejection by their fellow Trustees of a motion challenging our three-year old strategy, ‘The Road to 2020‘. Our strategy focusses as strongly as ever on organic food and farming, and also reaches out to broader audiences.

We are sorry these trustees felt unable to support our initiatives to work with non-organic as well as organic farmers, and with many other people in schools, hospitals and society more widely. We think the challenges facing our food systems today are so urgent that we need to work with all who are interested in finding solutions that are in line with our founding principles.

Transforming Britain’s food culture

Food, and how we produce it, is an entry point into people’s lives and health. It helps develop an understanding of our connection with the natural world, as well as being critically important in its own right.

We understand the pressures facing consumers today. Far from eschewing the term organic, we are working to change perceptions, by ensuring that many more people routinely eat better food, including organic, in schools and hospitals for instance.

We work with schools across the UK transforming food culture with great school meals, children growing and cooking food, and even holding their own farmers markets in partnership with local farmers and growers.

Our Catering Mark is transforming an industry previously driven by cost, not quality, and everyday hundreds of thousands of people in nurseries, schools, workplaces, hospitals and care homes people now eat fresh, healthy and locally sourced meals. At silver and gold Catering Mark award these meals now all include organic.

This work couldn’t be more important. Earlier this year, the Department of Health identified hospital food as a clinical priority for the first time and the Hospital Food Standards Panel recognised the Catering Mark as a scheme that improves food in hospitals for patients, staff and visitors.

We are working with an increasing number of hospitals to improve food served, including Nottingham University Hospital Trust whose meals have a minimum 15% spend on organic ingredients.

Our commitment to organic food and farming is as strong as ever

Organic farming has many of the answers that can help with some of the big challenges of the future such as climate change and the crisis now facing our soils. Organic farmers and growers are the true pioneers and heart of the organic movement and we remain absolutely committed to supporting them and continuing to grow the organic market.

We also know if we are to see real change in the world we need to work positively with all farmers – organic or not – sharing the research and knowledge of organic farming techniques, and learning from them too.

With World Soils Day on Friday (5th December) and the UN International Year of Soil in 2015, it’s a good moment to reflect that the health of our soil is critical to all farmers, not just organic ones.

So it was inspiring to see more non-organic farmers than ever before at our annual Soil Symposium last week, sharing ideas how to improve our soil and produce the very best food we can.

Through our Duchy Originals Future Farming programme we are supporting innovation in organic and low input agriculture, and helping farmers develop practices to improve productivity while caring for the environment and animal welfare.

Most farmers don’t have this ‘us and them’ attitude We are all trying to make a living the best we can, working together to find solutions to the issues facing agriculture in the UK. We would like to think we can find solutions which bring the farming community and wider society together – that doesn’t mean we won’t sometimes disagree, but we want to work constructively wherever possible with as many people as possible.

Farming must be fair, humane, healthy and ecologically based

We need to move beyond just telling others they are wrong; we need to share ideas and solutions to some of the big challenges facing our food system today. We want the Soil Association to become much more relevant to a lot more people – the public, farmers, businesses, schools and the public.

I want us to become better known for what we are for, rather than for what we are against. Our goal is to ensure that all farming and food is grounded in the organic principles – fair, humane, healthy and ecologically based – even if not all of it will be ‘certified’ organic.

I hope that this has made it clear that we remain completely committed to organic farming and to growing the market for organic food as the current ‘gold standard’ for good food.

The Soil Association was founded to research and disseminate the links between the way we manage our soils, and the impacts on human and environmental health.

Nothing could be more important, and our remaining trustees are fully committed to our approach, as laid out clearly in ‘The Road to 2020.

 


 

Helen Browning is Chief Executive of the Soil Association.

 

 




387660

The Soil Association’s mission is organic – and it always will be! Updated for 2026





Since the 1940s the Soil Association has campaigned for food and farming systems that support the health of our people and environment.

This work is just as relevant now as it was back then. We want to see a future where good food, organic food, is accessible to everyone and where we farm in a way that supports biodiversity, improves animal welfare and addresses climate change.

Though there is always more to do, we are making progress towards achieving this vision.

Last month, four of the Soil Association’s 17 Trustees resigned following the rejection by their fellow Trustees of a motion challenging our three-year old strategy, ‘The Road to 2020‘. Our strategy focusses as strongly as ever on organic food and farming, and also reaches out to broader audiences.

We are sorry these trustees felt unable to support our initiatives to work with non-organic as well as organic farmers, and with many other people in schools, hospitals and society more widely. We think the challenges facing our food systems today are so urgent that we need to work with all who are interested in finding solutions that are in line with our founding principles.

Transforming Britain’s food culture

Food, and how we produce it, is an entry point into people’s lives and health. It helps develop an understanding of our connection with the natural world, as well as being critically important in its own right.

We understand the pressures facing consumers today. Far from eschewing the term organic, we are working to change perceptions, by ensuring that many more people routinely eat better food, including organic, in schools and hospitals for instance.

We work with schools across the UK transforming food culture with great school meals, children growing and cooking food, and even holding their own farmers markets in partnership with local farmers and growers.

Our Catering Mark is transforming an industry previously driven by cost, not quality, and everyday hundreds of thousands of people in nurseries, schools, workplaces, hospitals and care homes people now eat fresh, healthy and locally sourced meals. At silver and gold Catering Mark award these meals now all include organic.

This work couldn’t be more important. Earlier this year, the Department of Health identified hospital food as a clinical priority for the first time and the Hospital Food Standards Panel recognised the Catering Mark as a scheme that improves food in hospitals for patients, staff and visitors.

We are working with an increasing number of hospitals to improve food served, including Nottingham University Hospital Trust whose meals have a minimum 15% spend on organic ingredients.

Our commitment to organic food and farming is as strong as ever

Organic farming has many of the answers that can help with some of the big challenges of the future such as climate change and the crisis now facing our soils. Organic farmers and growers are the true pioneers and heart of the organic movement and we remain absolutely committed to supporting them and continuing to grow the organic market.

We also know if we are to see real change in the world we need to work positively with all farmers – organic or not – sharing the research and knowledge of organic farming techniques, and learning from them too.

With World Soils Day on Friday (5th December) and the UN International Year of Soil in 2015, it’s a good moment to reflect that the health of our soil is critical to all farmers, not just organic ones.

So it was inspiring to see more non-organic farmers than ever before at our annual Soil Symposium last week, sharing ideas how to improve our soil and produce the very best food we can.

Through our Duchy Originals Future Farming programme we are supporting innovation in organic and low input agriculture, and helping farmers develop practices to improve productivity while caring for the environment and animal welfare.

Most farmers don’t have this ‘us and them’ attitude We are all trying to make a living the best we can, working together to find solutions to the issues facing agriculture in the UK. We would like to think we can find solutions which bring the farming community and wider society together – that doesn’t mean we won’t sometimes disagree, but we want to work constructively wherever possible with as many people as possible.

Farming must be fair, humane, healthy and ecologically based

We need to move beyond just telling others they are wrong; we need to share ideas and solutions to some of the big challenges facing our food system today. We want the Soil Association to become much more relevant to a lot more people – the public, farmers, businesses, schools and the public.

I want us to become better known for what we are for, rather than for what we are against. Our goal is to ensure that all farming and food is grounded in the organic principles – fair, humane, healthy and ecologically based – even if not all of it will be ‘certified’ organic.

I hope that this has made it clear that we remain completely committed to organic farming and to growing the market for organic food as the current gold standard for good food.

The Soil Association was founded to research and disseminate the links between the way we manage our soils, and the impacts on human and environmental health.

Nothing could be more important, and our remaining trustees are fully committed to our approach, as laid out clearly in ‘The Road to 2020.

 


 

Helen Browning is Chief Executive of the Soil Association.

 

 




387660

Explaining Burma’s missing 9 million people – evaporation, or genocide? Updated for 2026





Last year, when I was in Ma Ja Yang in Northern Kachin State, Burmese fighter bombers, at the height of the peace process, had just flown low over the nearby IDP camp.

Two terrified children dug themselves into an earth bank for refuge. In heavy rains the bank collapsed and they suffocated to death: two unrecorded deaths in a sixty year old war involving, arguably, the deaths of millions.

But this year these two children may have surfaced, along with millions of others, in the most unlikeliest of places: the government’s 2014 census. Burma’s population, it turns out, is about 9 million below what was expected.

Don’t ask, don’t tell

These two children, and 9 million others, are not there. No one is commenting on this. No one is asking why. The most significant and extraordinary information to have come out of the country for decades, identifying 20% of Burma’s expected population is ‘missing’, is disregarded.

This figure cannot be explained away by the flawed methodology of  the census, which, albeit inadvertently, exacerbated the intimidation, persecution and dehumanisation by the Rohingya. It is the result itself which needs to be examined.

The census may in fact have come up with an inconvenient Truth: millions of people may be missing in Myanmar who were expected to be alive based on the perfectly modest realistic estimates of the 1983 census which predicted an annual 2% growth rate.

Exculpatory explanations for some of the missing millions can, admittedly, be made:

  • Many people were simply not counted, including the Rohingya and some Kachin;
  • so called economic migrants, in reality often refugees escaping persecution, were, by their very nature, out of the country;
  • others were inaccessible;
  • AIDS and drug addiction have probably substantially contributed to many premature deaths;
  • 130,000 perished during Cyclone Nargis and its aftermath;
  • cultural practices, such as celibacy and monasticism, may have lowered birthrates;
  • the 1983 census may itself have been flawed.

Finally, the global media’s failure to expose decades long destruction may have contributed to the disregard of the result: people slowly dying over decades do not fit the media’s 24-hour news cycle, especially when most victims have disappeared in remote jungle mountainous terrain far from journalists and diplomats.

These factors, amongst others, may help explain away some of the missing millions, and the disregard of the result. They cannot, however, fully account for 9 million missing people.

Official, but ignored: ‘elements of genocide’

The elephant in the room is government policy. Widespread, systematic human rights violations, i.e., crimes against humanity, have been identified and condemned by successive UN Special Rapporteurs and General Assembly Resolutions since 1992.

The country was specifically placed on the UN Genocide Watch list back in 2005 and, I understand, still remains so. The outgoing UN Special Rapporteur, Tomas Ojea-Quintana, affirmed “Elements of genocide” apply as recently as June 2014.

Genocide, we should remind ourselves, involves the physical “Destruction of ethnic, racial, religious or national groups in whole or”, significantly, “In part”. If even a small fraction of these millions of missing people have disappeared due to government policies, the Genocide Convention would apply.

The decades long systematic violations targeting mostly ethnic civilians with destruction need to be seen in their historical context. UN condemnations have been explicit and specific. Special Rapporteur, Rajsoomer Lallah QC in 1998, condemned widespread, systematic violations, including “The killing of women and children”, as:

“The result of policy taken at the highest level entailing legal and political responsibility.” (Situation of Human Rights Myanmar, para. 59, Report to the UN Economic and Social Council, July, 1998.)

Systematic and widespread violations, inflicted for decades have inevitably caused the deaths of many people; the two aforementioned children died as a consequence of the Burmese army’s military attack.

Exposing the lie of the ‘new Burma’

We need to reflect on 9 million missing people: the number is about the same as the population of Sweden. It is about one and a half times the number of Jews who perished in the Holocaust. It is nearly twice the number who died as a result of Stalin’s inflicted famine in the Ukraine.

In Burma nearly one in five people is not alive who was expected to be alive based upon a modest estimate of the 2% population growth rate. Despite its significance, the news does not chime with the media’s brave new world: “Burma Unbound”“Burma booming”, the “Mandela-like transition”. The figure is met instead with silence.

A connection between systematic, widespread human rights violations and possible missing millions exists, however. Martin Smith, generally regarded as a leading authority on Burma’s ethnic peoples, identified a dramatic “slump in birth rates” back in 1990, opining:

“The birth rates of most minority races (and not just the Mons and the Karens) have inexplicably slumped.” (‘Burma, Insurgency and the Politics of Ethnicity‘, page 38, Zed Books, 1991)

We should note his use of the word “slump”, i.e. a sudden and dramatic fall. This “slump” in birth rates, moreover, has been accompanied by some outright “collapses in population” as identified by Amnesty International:

“In some areas complete collapse in ethnic populations has occurred, such as in Kunhing Township in Shan State where a 70 percent drop in population was recorded.” (‘Atrocities in Shan State‘, Amnesty International, 1998.)

Smith estimated 10,000 dying a year for four decades back in 1990 which would make 400,000. Extrapolated forward to 2014 the figure would approach 550,000, a figure which would be unlikely to include the hundreds of thousands who have died indirectly from denial of shelter, food and medicines.

Nor would it include the hundreds of thousands of Rohingya forced to flee, and often die, in the Indian Ocean and elsewhere. The Transnational Institute cited a figure of 600,000 casualties in 2005.

“The true death toll”, Smith wrote, quoting former SLORC Chairman General Saw Maung vack in the 1980′s, “Would reach as high as millions”. (‘Burma‘, Zed Books, 1990 ed. p.101.)

The ‘Four Cuts’ strategy – aimed at the civilian population

Specific evidence of  widespread destruction has been documented, often graphically, in Karen, Karenni, Chin, Kachin, Shan, Mon, Delta, Karen, Rohingya areas over the decades. Mass forced location of the Bamar population, we should remember, was also inflicted in lowland Burma during the 1990′s.

These “slumps in birth rates”, and local “collapses in population” contrast with earlier “Prolific high birth rates of ethnic peoples” identified in the unique, in depth, detailed bench mark study carried out just before Burma’s civil war began by W.D. Hackett. He explains:

“The minorities … are more prolific than the Burman population and increasing at a very rapid rate.” (‘The Pao People of Shan State‘, p. 3, W.D. Hackett, PhD Thesis, University of Cornell, 1953.)

Although Smith does state the slump in birth rates as being “inexplicable”, observation of what has been inflicted in conflict areas; analyses of infant and maternal mortality rates documented by, amongst others, the Mae Tao Clinic; detailed mapping of widespread, systematic destruction in eastern, western, northern regions and the Delta, including satellite imagery, and numerous reports, demonstrate the destruction must have inevitably resulted in the deaths of large numbers of people.

Moreover, these “collapses in population” and “slumps in birth rates” is certain to be greatest in so called ‘ethnic areas’. If the full regional breakdown of the results of the 2014 census is ever revealed, it will probably confirm this. Latest reports, however, indicate this information is not being released indicative of  a cover up.

We need to ask, however, what government strategies have contributed to the slump in birth rates and much lower than expected population figure.

The central strategy outlined by Smith is known as the Four Cuts strategy which is explicitly intended to destroy the civilian base of resistance. Ethnic civilians are thus the target.

The first circle: deliberate mass killing

Successive military juntas, and the current hybrid civilian / military successor, have been killing and causing deaths for decades.

In January 2013 I was in Kachin State. A young boy, sitting on a wall, described to me how soldiers had come to his mother’s kitchen and shot her while he looked on from the edge of a sugar cane field.

An old man sobbed hysterically next to him: he had just described his daughter bayoneted to death through the left breast. That’s also where I head about the deaths of the two small boys as they hid from fighter bombers.

These small boys, the old man’s daughter and the boy’s mother are part of Myanmar’s missing millions. In this case they died as a result of a systematic onslaught – not ‘ethnic conflict’ –  by the Burma army.

This attack occurred just after President Thein Sein had formally announced a ceasefire on prime time television, supported by a vote of the whole lower house, and dutifully echoed by the global media and Ban Ki Moon.

Along the “ceasefire line” human wave attacks were carried out on Kachin positions involving tens of thousands of troops, helicopter gun ships and fighter bombers. Jane’s Intelligence reportedly estimated 5,000 Burmese troops and 1,000 Kachin were killed – that’s double the number estimated killed in the 1988 student uprising.

These deaths predictably remain disregarded, downplayed, understated or denied. They don’t fit the narrative of democratic transition, or the assumptions of top down, urban, Burman centred journalists, politicians and diplomats whose views have been co-opted by the rhetoric of ‘transition’.

Needless to say young Burmese conscripts, forced to fight and die are also victims and just as deserving of our compassion, as ethnic victims.

Let’s rewind to the autumn of 2000 when I was in the mountainous areas of Karen State. Four women were brought into our encampment who had just been forced to watch their husbands being beheaded in front of them.

Nearby in a burning village two toddlers had been thrown into the flames. Their dying screams were heard in the surrounding hills for minutes.

An old lady, unable to move, burnt to death silently. In a nearby village a Baptist pastor was beaten for three days, his Bible shredded and then beheaded. I could go on.

These people were murdered by the Burmese army. This has been going on for decades, and is still going on. These dead are part of the missing nine million.

These killings include not just individuals, but massacres such as in the Delta in September 2001 and Dooplaya district. Karen State in May 2002 (‘Dying Alive’, Images Asia, 2005)

The second circle: cyclone Nargis 

About 130,000 people, more than the victims of the Hiroshima atomic bomb, died in the Delta as a result of Cyclone Nargis.

Many of these deaths resulted from the Junta’s criminal negligence failing to warn the population and impeding relief efforts.

We can infer that the population of the Delta would now be higher if the government had carried out its responsibilities effectively.

The third circle: sexual violence

If systematic killing is the first circle, denial of aid the second circle, widespread, systematic rape and sexual violence represents the third.

The UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights, Rajsoomer Lallah QC, condemned it as being a “regular, routine feature” and “the result of policy” as far back as 1998. It has been condemned in most UN reports.

This form of targeted violence of women undermines birth rates because, amongst other things, it often destroys women’s desire and ability to marry and have children.

The fourth circle: indirect destruction, denial of medical care

This encompasses those subjected to slow, indirect violence, defined in the Rome Statute as: “The deliberate deprivation of resources indispensable for survival, such as food, medical services,  or systematic expulsion from homes.” (Rome Statute, Genocide, Article 6c).

Burning people out of their  homes, like the 3,600 villages documented by the Thai Burma Border Consortium in eastern Burma, or what has been inflicted in Rohingya and Kachin areas recently, leads, indirectly, to death because people lack shelter or basic services.

I remember the gloves of a back pack medic being destroyed in order, presumably, so that babies could not be born hygienically and die as result. I recall a report of  a man shot through the leg for carrying antibiotics in 2005.

The denial and destruction of medical services and supplies, deprivation of clean water and food, often inevitably results in death. The Rohingya are particularly victimised by this slow motion, low intensity form of genocide.

Very many people have died prematurely and unnecessarily over the decades as a result of these deliberately inflicted conditions. Maternal and infant mortality rates in particular, documented by the Mae Tao Clinic and others, resulting from these conditions have been some of the highest in the world.

We should note that 250,000 people, a quarter of a million, have been terrorised out of their homes since the ‘democratic transition’ began and ‘peace’ broke out.

The fifth circle: systematic persecution

In the fifth circle there are the millions who over the decades have been forced to flee persecution, i.e., the denial of their fundamental rights. Many of those in the refugee camps, or those fleeing into the Indian Ocean, or into China, India, Malaysia etc., are not economic migrants, but victims of systematic Persecution.

In the case of the Rohingya,  as the former Special UN Rapporteur asserted, the conditions they are escaping include “elements of genocide”.

The sixth circle: enforced migration

In the sixth circle we do admittedly find very many economic migrants working in foreign countries. Many of these have, however, not really made free choices but have had to escape  the extreme poverty resulting from government policies which have failed to provide people with, amongst other things, adequate medical and educational services.

The seventh circle: general poverty

Here are the great majority of the Burmese people who are mired in the poverty resulting from governmental negligence. Such conditions can lead people to put off, or not marry, or have smaller families than they otherwise would have had, which leads, in turn, to a probable reduction in birth rates.

In conclusion, decades long State inflicted violence and deliberate deprivation of the necessities for life must have resulted in at least hundreds of thousands, and if former SLORC Chairman General Saw Maung was right, “millions”, of premature deaths.

The numerical qualifying criteria of  what comprises the attempted destruction of a part of a people to justify a charge of genocide is: “substantial”.

Those two young children should not have died, nor should hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, be allowed to disappear into a vortex of complicit silence.

A Truth Commission should be set up to find out what has really happened. Perpetrators should be held to account.

And cheerleaders for the bright, new, booming Burma should take a hard, cold look at the country they are applauding, and ask themselves – did the missing 9 million people evaporate? Or are the country’s rulers the perpetrators of a genocide that ranks in scale with Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot?

 


 

Also on The Ecologist:Aung San Suu Kyi: complicity with tyranny‘ by Guy Horton.

This article was originally published by DVB.

Guy Horton has worked on Burma and its border areas since 1998. His 2005 report, “Dying Alive” and supporting video footage, received worldwide coverage and contributed to the submission of Burma to the UN Security Council in January 2007. As a result of the report, the UN Committee on the Prevention of Genocide carried out an investigation and placed Burma/Myanmar on the Genocide Watch list.

Since 2005 Guy Horton has focussed on establishing a coalition of governments, funders, institutions and leading international lawyers with the aim of getting the violations investigated and analysed so that impunity can be addressed. He is currently a researcher at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

He was short-listed for the post of UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Myanmar 2014. He can be contacted at: ghrtn7@gmail.com

 

 




365214

Extreme Inequality Updated for 2026





In January 2014 Oxfam revealed that the richest 85 people in the world had the same amount of wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population: over 3 billion people. This attracted global media interest. As usual, our claim was challenged, but not in the usual way. When Forbes magazine updated the data just a few months later, they found that we were wrong. It now took just the richest 69 people to equal the wealth of the poorest half!

The disparities between the rich and the poor are increasing. Just a few feet of wall in Rio separates the have-nots living in slums from the have-it-alls in the penthouse apartments next door. In the UK, newspaper articles on bankers’ billions sit alongside those documenting the rising number of people forced to rely on food banks.

Does this really matter? Some say that economic growth benefits and creates opportunities for all and that this must involve some getting richer than others; that attacking the very rich is an ideological position that helps no one. Oxfam’s interest is not about the rights and wrongs of wealth per se. It is about the fact that extreme inequality of wealth leads to extreme inequalities in all forms of power, policy and wellbeing, so that poor people do not benefit from improved health, education or opportunity, even in an economy that seems to be growing.

Over the last year there has been widespread recognition that increasing inequality of income and wealth cannot go on unabated. President Obama promised in his State of the Union address to tackle inequality of opportunity. Pope Francis tweeted to warn that inequality is “the root of social evil”. Even the global institutions with orthodox economic outlooks – including the IMF and the World Bank – have been warning of the dangers of inequality, and, in the case of the IMF’s Christine Lagarde, quoting Oxfam.

Leaders and institutions are beginning to challenge inequality head-on and people are paying attention to this debate. Not only was Thomas Piketty’s book Capital in the Twenty-first Century, about the link between rising inequality and wealth, a massive publishing success, but it also sparked a flood of soul-searching about the state of modern capitalism (see review page 58). That an economics tome of graphs and data can top best-seller lists on both sides of the Atlantic clearly demonstrates the resonance of this issue.

Why does this matter for development and wellbeing?
Over the last two decades we have seen impressive reductions in poverty and improvements in health, education and other key indicators in many of the poorest countries around the world. The rapid economic growth of emerging economies has seen many countries improve their prospects dramatically. While this is hugely encouraging, looking through the lens of simple averages masks the unequal fate of those left behind. A baby born into a rich family in prospering Nigeria will live a longer life with far greater opportunities than a baby born into a poor family.

Gender inequalities will exacerbate these discrepancies even further, with a boy likely to spend more than 10 years in school, compared to the three years of schooling that a girl can expect. These disparities are not just a phenomenon in developing countries. Here in the UK a child born in leafy Richmond, South West London can expect to live 15 years longer than one born in Tower Hamlets in the east of the city. That is a year of extra life for every mile covered as you travel across London.

Whilst the marginalised are falling behind, the elite are moving further ahead. In the US, the richest 10% have captured over 90% of economic growth since the recession, while the poor have got poorer. Money yields money and power.

This massive concentration of economic resources in the hands of a few people presents a significant threat to democracy and wider wellbeing. Those with money can use it to buy power and to set the rules, regulations and policies in their favour, creating a cycle of growing inequality and poverty and undermining opportunity.

Politicians and institutions that should represent citizens and keep inequality in check are instead being influenced by the rich and powerful, resulting in policies and actions that further widen the gap between rich and poor. Society becomes a vicious circle where wealth (income, assets and access to resources) and power (particularly political decision-making) are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, reinforcing the continued marginalisation and exclusion of the many. We saw this in the response to the financial crisis, with the banks and bankers bailed out whilst the poorest in society were left to suffer the costs of their risk-taking.

Everywhere I travel I see evidence of this. Women’s low status in society means that the issue of maternal health is neglected in budget allocations. The wives, sisters and daughters of the rich and powerful give birth safely in sparkling new private hospitals, so policymakers have very little incentive to care about the health-care provisions for the half of all women in sub-Saharan Africa who give birth in unsafe conditions without trained support.

It is clear that to eliminate poverty and achieve social justice we need to look beyond the country-level average and understand and address how resources, wealth, power and voice are distributed.

Breaking the cycle of inequality
We know change is possible when governments make the right choices and are accountable to the many, not the few. Countries like Bolivia and Brazil, for example, have in the last decade managed to grow their economies whilst making them more equal. Brazil has achieved this through targeted policies, including an increase in the minimum wage that has seen the poorest 10% receive an income growth above the national average, compared to the rich, who have had income growth below the average.

Bolivia has seen a much sharper fall in inequality, with its government introducing a range of new progressive spending programmes while, crucially, funding them by renegotiating the country’s oil and gas tax revenue. Conversely, robust growth in Zambia, averaging 4.6% between 2000 and 2006, was almost entirely captured by the richest 10%, who increased their share of the country’s wealth by more than 9% while poverty rates increased by almost 4%. When I visited Zambia last year for the first time in a decade, it had moved from low to middle income status. The economy had grown but there were actually more poor people.

Extreme inequality is not inevitable but is the result of policy choices. Different choices can reverse it: free public health services that help everyone while ensuring the poor are not left behind; decent wages that end working poverty; and progressive taxation so that the rich pay their fair share. Governments also need to ensure that there is space for people to have their voices heard to rebalance the power of political influence.

Whilst the Pope tweets and the World Bank blogs about inequality, and as new data raises even louder alarm bells, governments and policymakers around the world can choose to seize this opportunity and be leaders in challenging inequality and restoring social and economic justice. Governments everywhere must commit to a more progressive agenda for redistribution and for a fairer world. Power and special interests must not be allowed to push us to the alternative of being tipped irrevocably into a world that caters only for the privileged.

 


Mark Goldring is the Chief Executive of Oxfam GB. He will be speaking at the Resurgence & Ecologist Festival of Wellbeing on 11 October 2014 in London. For more information and bookings: Festival of Wellbeing bookings

 

 




384965

Show your face for a GM Free UK Updated for 2026





I believe in people power.

It’s a belief that rarely lets me down. An informed and motivated populace is one of our best defences defence against corporate lies, political corruption and media laziness.

And frankly doing things together is more effective and fun than trying to change the world all on your own!

I’ve seen people power work in my own career. My Behind the Label series for The Ecologist is a good example. Armed with the facts about all the toxic ingredients that get put into everyday products such as food and cosmetics, it gave consumers the confidence to make better choices.

It often provoked an indignant response from companies. But over the years, as the momentum grew and public calls for safer products got louder, many manufacturers began to take some of the worst chemicals out of their products.

And now, people power is just what we need

In the UK we need people power again if we are going to stop the juggernaut of GMOs.

The US experience is showing what people power can do in this regard. People who never really thought of themselves as ‘activists’ has been motivated to take a stand over issues like GM labelling.

Local groups have been formed, money raised, PR organised and a big noise made – often from somebody’s back room or kitchen table – on behalf of a better food future for all. When Vermont became the first US state to vote mandatory labelling of GMO products into law that was people power in action.

But in the UK public engagement with GMOs has slipped somewhat due, I believe, to a very effective PR campaigning by biotech companies to make people feel they are too stupid to join in a discussion that is best left to scientists.

As a result GM campaigning in the UK has become a scientific and academic ‘battle of the papers’ with each side claiming that the 250 references in their paper are better than the 250 references in the other side’s paper. It’s not exactly the stuff that fuels headline news.

Worse many of the pro-GM scientists aren’t scientists at all but simply corporate lobbyists who plot with politicians behind closed doors. They’re hired guns whose job is to shoot first and not ask any questions. Ever.

We need good scientific discourse. We need good scientists on our side to show up show the multiple holes in the pro-GM argument. But GM is not just a scientific issue and scientists by their very nature are not activists and academic papers are not campaigns.

Raising the volume

What we need is a Big Noise. We need public engagement and it can’t come soon enough.

GMOs have been with us for nearly 20 years. In the early 90s a very visible public and media campaign helped keep them out of our fields and off our plates.

Because of the way that the public discussion has petered out in the UK and in many parts of the EU, people could be forgiven for believing that we are ‘safe’ from GMOs. But the issue has never gone away.

In reality the GM debate has, for some time, been at a stand-off, with consumers and NGOs largely refusing to accept GM and corporations, politicians and regulators trying to push it into farming and food.

This stand-off has allowed the issue to slip beneath the public radar, leaving many unaware of the latest developments or how these might affect them.

But things are changing rapidly. The biggest change is that the EU coalition that has blocked planting of GM crops has broken up. It is likely that before the end of 2014 the European Parliament will allow Member States to make their own decisions on the planting of GM crops.

This may sound like a good idea, but it creates more problems than it solves. GMOs don’t respect geographical borders and yet there is no solid provision for what might happen if GM crops in one country cross-pollinate with those in another.

Likewise, guidelines for opting out are very narrow and even require Member States to seek the consent of biotech companies before opting out. For these and other reasons, oversight at EU level is considered crucial to maintain tight control over the planting of GM crops.

If this proposed change in legislation goes ahead, the UK will likely push ahead with planting without any post-marketing monitoring or co-existence measures (necessary to protect organic and non-GMO farmers) in place.

Declare yourself GM Free Me

Now is the time to speak out. Let’s not wait for the horror headlines to appear before we get ourselves organised.

The GM Free Me initiative is one way you can begin. It’s a visual petition. Not just another selfish selfie, the campaign ask is simple.

Upload a photo of yourself holding the printable GM Free Me card, or if your are so inclined the e-card for tablets and ipads, and join this lively ‘national portrait gallery’ of real people of all ages and backgrounds who are tired of politicians, regulators, pro-industry researchers and media pushing genetic engineering technology into our farming and food system and ignoring the concerns and opposition of average people.

Once your photo is uploaded it goes onto a map of the UK divided into political constituencies. The more of us in each area, the more power we have and the more pressure we can all bring to bear locally and nationally.

So why not get your family, friends and colleagues involved too. Then share it on social media (and send it to your MP – there’s a button for that onsite!) and encourage others to join in so we can really make a noise.

Does it take longer than posting yet another angry tweet about GM? Yes. But not much longer.

And by adding your face to the gallery you are showing that people power is alive and well and determined to stop the UK becoming a GM nation.

 


 

Pat Thomas is an author and campaigner, a former Editor of the Ecologist and Director of the Beyond GM / GM Free Me campaign.

 

 




384883

World Bank ‘failing to protect Kenya forest dwellers’ Updated for 2026





A leaked copy of a World Bank investigation seen by The Guardian has accused the bank of failing to protect the rights of one of Kenya’s last groups of forest people, who are being evicted from their ancestral lands in the name of climate change and conservation.

Thousands of homes belonging to hunter-gatherer Sengwer people living in the Embobut forest in the Cherangani hills were burned down earlier this year by Kenya forest service guards who had been ordered to clear the forest as part of a carbon offset project that aimed to reduce emissions from deforestation.

The result has been that more than 1,000 people living near the town of Eldoret have been classed as squatters and forced to flee what they say has been government harassment, intimidation and arrest.

UN condemnation – but no change in policy

The evictions were condemned in February by the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples and the UN committee on the elimination of racial discrimination.

They also drew in the president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, who expressed alarm at what was described by 360 national and international civil society organisations and individuals as “cultural genocide”.

An Avaaz petition collected 950,000 names calling for the bank to urgently halt the “illegal” evictions.

Following a request by the Sengwer to assess the impact of the bank’s funding of the project, the bank’s inspection panel decided in May that it had violated safeguards in several areas. At the same time, the bank’s management decided to ignore most of the independent panel’s recommendations.

“Unfortunately, the World Bank’s own leaked management response to the report denies many of the findings, evidently sees little importance in the fact that violation of safeguard policies has occurred, and presents an inadequate action plan to be considered by the bank’s board. It simply proposes more training for forest service staff, and a meeting to examine what can be learnt”, said a spokesman for the UK-based Forest Peoples Programme.

“President Kim said the bank would not be bystanders, but only by taking seriously the many breaches of its own safeguards and approving the action plan requested by the Sengwer people themselves to overcome the human rights violations that these breaches have contributed to will the bank be able to demonstrate that the president has been true to his word”, said Peter Kitelo, a representative of Kenya’s Forest Indigenous Peoples Network.

World Bank directors to decide the Sengwer’s fate today

A final decision on the project is due today when the World Bank board meets in Washington under the chairmanship of Kim to decide on the bank’s response to the inspection panel report.

If the board decides to endorse the action plan, the evictions are certain to be completed. More than half the people evicted are thought to have returned to their lands.

“The eviction of such ancestral communities leaves the indigenous forests open to exploitation and destruction; whereas securing such communities rights to their lands and responsibility to continue traditional conservation practices, protects their forests”, said the Forest Peoples Programme.

 


 

John Vidal is Environment Editor for The Guardian.

This article was originally published by The Guardian and is reproduced with thanks via The Guardian Environment Network.

 

 




384721

World Bank ‘failing to protect Kenya forest dwellers’ Updated for 2026





A leaked copy of a World Bank investigation seen by The Guardian has accused the bank of failing to protect the rights of one of Kenya’s last groups of forest people, who are being evicted from their ancestral lands in the name of climate change and conservation.

Thousands of homes belonging to hunter-gatherer Sengwer people living in the Embobut forest in the Cherangani hills were burned down earlier this year by Kenya forest service guards who had been ordered to clear the forest as part of a carbon offset project that aimed to reduce emissions from deforestation.

The result has been that more than 1,000 people living near the town of Eldoret have been classed as squatters and forced to flee what they say has been government harassment, intimidation and arrest.

UN condemnation – but no change in policy

The evictions were condemned in February by the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples and the UN committee on the elimination of racial discrimination.

They also drew in the president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, who expressed alarm at what was described by 360 national and international civil society organisations and individuals as “cultural genocide”.

An Avaaz petition collected 950,000 names calling for the bank to urgently halt the “illegal” evictions.

Following a request by the Sengwer to assess the impact of the bank’s funding of the project, the bank’s inspection panel decided in May that it had violated safeguards in several areas. At the same time, the bank’s management decided to ignore most of the independent panel’s recommendations.

“Unfortunately, the World Bank’s own leaked management response to the report denies many of the findings, evidently sees little importance in the fact that violation of safeguard policies has occurred, and presents an inadequate action plan to be considered by the bank’s board. It simply proposes more training for forest service staff, and a meeting to examine what can be learnt”, said a spokesman for the UK-based Forest Peoples Programme.

“President Kim said the bank would not be bystanders, but only by taking seriously the many breaches of its own safeguards and approving the action plan requested by the Sengwer people themselves to overcome the human rights violations that these breaches have contributed to will the bank be able to demonstrate that the president has been true to his word”, said Peter Kitelo, a representative of Kenya’s Forest Indigenous Peoples Network.

World Bank directors to decide the Sengwer’s fate today

A final decision on the project is due today when the World Bank board meets in Washington under the chairmanship of Kim to decide on the bank’s response to the inspection panel report.

If the board decides to endorse the action plan, the evictions are certain to be completed. More than half the people evicted are thought to have returned to their lands.

“The eviction of such ancestral communities leaves the indigenous forests open to exploitation and destruction; whereas securing such communities rights to their lands and responsibility to continue traditional conservation practices, protects their forests”, said the Forest Peoples Programme.

 


 

John Vidal is Environment Editor for The Guardian.

This article was originally published by The Guardian and is reproduced with thanks via The Guardian Environment Network.

 

 




384721

World Bank ‘failing to protect Kenya forest dwellers’ Updated for 2026





A leaked copy of a World Bank investigation seen by The Guardian has accused the bank of failing to protect the rights of one of Kenya’s last groups of forest people, who are being evicted from their ancestral lands in the name of climate change and conservation.

Thousands of homes belonging to hunter-gatherer Sengwer people living in the Embobut forest in the Cherangani hills were burned down earlier this year by Kenya forest service guards who had been ordered to clear the forest as part of a carbon offset project that aimed to reduce emissions from deforestation.

The result has been that more than 1,000 people living near the town of Eldoret have been classed as squatters and forced to flee what they say has been government harassment, intimidation and arrest.

UN condemnation – but no change in policy

The evictions were condemned in February by the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples and the UN committee on the elimination of racial discrimination.

They also drew in the president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, who expressed alarm at what was described by 360 national and international civil society organisations and individuals as “cultural genocide”.

An Avaaz petition collected 950,000 names calling for the bank to urgently halt the “illegal” evictions.

Following a request by the Sengwer to assess the impact of the bank’s funding of the project, the bank’s inspection panel decided in May that it had violated safeguards in several areas. At the same time, the bank’s management decided to ignore most of the independent panel’s recommendations.

“Unfortunately, the World Bank’s own leaked management response to the report denies many of the findings, evidently sees little importance in the fact that violation of safeguard policies has occurred, and presents an inadequate action plan to be considered by the bank’s board. It simply proposes more training for forest service staff, and a meeting to examine what can be learnt”, said a spokesman for the UK-based Forest Peoples Programme.

“President Kim said the bank would not be bystanders, but only by taking seriously the many breaches of its own safeguards and approving the action plan requested by the Sengwer people themselves to overcome the human rights violations that these breaches have contributed to will the bank be able to demonstrate that the president has been true to his word”, said Peter Kitelo, a representative of Kenya’s Forest Indigenous Peoples Network.

World Bank directors to decide the Sengwer’s fate today

A final decision on the project is due today when the World Bank board meets in Washington under the chairmanship of Kim to decide on the bank’s response to the inspection panel report.

If the board decides to endorse the action plan, the evictions are certain to be completed. More than half the people evicted are thought to have returned to their lands.

“The eviction of such ancestral communities leaves the indigenous forests open to exploitation and destruction; whereas securing such communities rights to their lands and responsibility to continue traditional conservation practices, protects their forests”, said the Forest Peoples Programme.

 


 

John Vidal is Environment Editor for The Guardian.

This article was originally published by The Guardian and is reproduced with thanks via The Guardian Environment Network.

 

 




384721