Tag: Food and Agriculture

At Half-time, the European Green Deal is Still Grounded — Global Issues

NGOs call for Europe to opt for citizen-controlled renewable energy in Brussels.
Credit: FoE Europe/Lode Saidane
  • Opinion by Jagoda Munic (brussels)
  • Inter Press Service

BRUSSELS, Jun 10 (IPS) – Jagoda Munic is Director, Friends of the Earth EuropeThis month marks the mid-point of the much-heralded European Green Deal. Taking office at the end of 2019, the European Commission went into rhetoric overdrive. This was Europe’s ‘man on the moon’ moment, we were told. The Green Deal would herald an economic paradigm shift, and “reconcile the economy with our planet…to make it work for our people” the new President, Ursula von der Leyen, said.

Now, two and a half years later, and with two and a half years of the mandate left to go, this vision of the Green Deal is barely alive. The pandemic has taken its toll – slowing down legislative processes and their implementation. Now the horrific invasion of Ukraine, and its global repercussions, are consuming politicians’ attention.

With so much hype, perhaps it was inevitable that the substance of the assorted legislation lumped under the Green Deal would be a let-down. Indeed, Friends of the Earth Europe was critical of the package from the outset. The policy proposals remain moderate and far short of what’s needed to tackle the climate and ecological emergency.

Fundamentally, the Green Deal does not recognise Europe’s historical responsibilities and it locks-in the exploitation of countries outside Europe which are already disproportionately affected with its and colossal demand for natural resources.

To be fair, in the face of unpredicted and unprecedented crises, Brussels did not drop its sustainability drive altogether – the EU has shown some resolve in keeping the green transition on its to-do list.

At this halfway point, we can say that some positive proposals have kept the potential of the Green Deal alive. A new 10-year-plan to tackle nature loss is welcome. The intention to boost renewables is also good, including the pledge to set up at least one renewable energy community in every municipality, in recognition of the need to democratise energy.

Other proposals are promising in principle but lack the necessary funding. A ‘just transition fund’ to help alleviate the social and economic costs of transition should be increased ten-fold. The ‘social climate fund’ designed to support subsidised renovations, renewables and green transport across Europe has been slashed before it even exists.

Overall, the components making up the Green Deal lack scale, urgency and justice. They are based on flawed ‘green growth’ thinking. They certainly do not constitute the step-change that was promised – and that is desperately needed to bring our socio-economic system within planetary boundaries.

Major barriers to truly progressive, transformational EU decision-making have not been tackled. The von der Leyen Commission has spectacularly failed to reign in vested interests’ influence on the agenda. In the last two and a half years this Commission has taken part in 500 meetings with representatives of oil, gas and coal companies. That’s close to one meeting every working day. The European Green Deal proposals have the fingerprints of corporate lobbying all over.

The plans are polluted by techno-fixes and failed market-based solutions. Policy-makers have fallen for the ‘hydrogen hype’ of the gas industry which promotes an overinflated role for green hydrogen in Europe’s energy mix. They are continuing to subsidise supposed ‘hydrogen ready’ infrastructure projects which in reality just lock-in continued fossil fuel use and eye-watering industry profits.

War in Ukraine has shown the fragility of the European energy system and its overreliance on fossil fuels. It must be a turning-point to get us off fossil fuels and accelerate the efficient, clean, democratic energy system of the future. In the next years we need to see massive investment in community renewables and renovations.

Green Deal proposals aimed at reducing the use of pesticides have been postponed after coming under pressure from the agribusiness lobby. This delay comes after the historic failure to reform the Common Agricultural Policy, meaning that 400 billion Euro of EU funds will continue to be spent on warped farming subsidies which mainly benefit a few environmentally-disastrous industrial-scale factory farms.

The agribusiness lobby is now cynically using the invasion of Ukraine to try to derail other sustainable agriculture goals. Their short-term arguments ignore that the decline of insects and pollinators will impact our capacity to produce food in the long-term.

The European Green Deal can still get off the ground. Its promise can be saved, but it will require European governments to revisit the bold vision put forward over two years ago and to double-down on it. The crises of the intervening years – global pandemic, military aggression, the rising cost of living – must be taken as reasons to re-commit to that vision, and press ahead with the policies to realise it, not to water it down.

The social elements which are currently at the margins need to be made central, and the industry interests which are currently dominant need to be removed. For example, the EU must tackle corporate climate impunity by introducing enforceable obligations on companies to reduce their emissions in line with the Paris Agreement.

The European Green Deal can still catalyse a socio-economic system that provides for the needs of all people, but only when every decision from this moment narrows inequality, and respects the Earth’s limits.

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Ukraine Showing the World How to Fight Back — Global Issues

  • by Sania Farooqui (new delhi, india)
  • Inter Press Service

NEW DELHI, India, Jun 08 (IPS) – It has been over 100 days since Russia first invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, turning the country into a slaughterhouse. The United Nations (UN) in this report says that, as of 1 June, 2022, more than 6.9 million refugees have left Ukraine and 2.1 million have returned, while eight million people are displaced inside Ukraine itself. War in Ukraine has caused the fastest growing refugee crisis since World War II.

In a statement, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that the conflict which began in February has since then taken thousands of lives, caused untold destruction, displaced millions of people, resulted in unacceptable violation of human rights and is inflaming a three-dimensional global – food, energy and finance – that is pummeling the most vulnerable people, countries and economies.

Maria Dmytriyeva

Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who are choosing to stay and fight back are demonstrating unity and resilience and say they are ready for the resistance. Maria Dmytriyeva, a long-time women’s rights activist and national gender expert with Democracy Development Center, an NGO based out of Ukraine is one amongst them who chose to stay back, has been working on the ground aiding civilians since the beginning of the war in Ukraine.

In an interview given to IPS News Dmytriyeva says that areas that were affected directly by the hostilities that have been liberated by the Ukrainian army are now rapidly rebuilding. “Local people and visiting builders are cleaning up the street, debris, mines and restoring infrastructure, where there are no Russians, life goes on.”

“We do have major problems with fuel as Russians deliberately destroyed our petroleum hosting areas, so transportation is a problem. We don’t have food scarcity; the problem is how to deliver it into areas controlled by Russians or heavily bombarded by Russians,” Dmytriyeva said.

Human rights organizations have been watching the impact of the war in Ukraine on women and children. The Rapid Gender Analysis, put together by UN Women and CARE International says that 90% of those fleeing Ukraine and 60% of those displaced are women – both which comes with increased safety risks, gender-based violence, poor hygiene, lack of basic supplies and safety concerns in shelters or across borders.

“I have visited three border checkpoints, in Romania, Moldova and Slovakia, we don’t enough information about what to do once anyone crosses the borders – how to manage your passport, how to find the right people, which shelter to go to and how to stay safe,” says Ella Lamakh, a social policy expert and Head of Democracy Development Center in Ukraine who too stayed back in Ukraine to help women and children impacted by the war.

Ella Lamakh

“There are a lot of women and children crossing these borders, and when I asked them where they are going, their reply is – ‘oh we are just going across the border, we will ask some volunteer, or we will figure it out’. While I am thankful for all the help these women are getting, there are a lot of posters on the walls across the border or at these checkpoints, but nobody has the time or mind to stop and read any of them. What would be useful for these women is if they are given information, handed over to them in the form of posters or booklets,” Lamakh says.

As of 3 June, the Human Rights Monitoring Team of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights had received reports of 124 alleged acts of conflict-related sexual violence across Ukraine.

“Allegations of sexual violence by Russian troops in Ukraine are mounting. A national hotline on domestic violence, human trafficking and gender-based discrimination has been set up, and has received multiple shocking reports ranging from gang rape, to coercion, where loved ones are forced to watch an act of sexual violence committed against a partner of a child” stated this report.

The United Nations has warned that the war in Ukraine has also helped stoke a global food crisis, and “what could follow would be malnutrition, mass hunger and famine, in a crisis that could last for years, urging Russia to release Ukrainian grain exports.”

Before the war began in February, Ukraine exported 4.5m tonnes of agricultural produce per month through its ports – 12% of the planet’s wheat, 15% of its corn and half of its sunflower oil. As Russian warships cut off the ports of Odesa, Chornomorsk and others, the supply has been gravely impacted.

More than a month into Russia’s invasion, the Ukrainian military fared better than expected, where Russia has numerical superiority with 900,000 active personnel in its armed forces, and 2 million in reserve, Ukraine has 196,000 and 900,000 reservists, stated this report. Ukraine managed to bring the asymmetric power of pervasive inexpensive commercial technology, especially citizen-empowering social networks and crowdsourcing. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy through his various appeals managed to tap into its western allies demanding weapons and sanctions to fight back.

Several countries have reached out to help Ukraine by sending military aid to Kyiv. The United States will be sending Ukraine advanced rocket systems and munitions as part of a new $700 million package of military equipment, “promised only after direct assurance by Ukraine’s leader that they would not use it against targets within Russian territory.”

Britain is to supply long-range rocket artillery to Ukraine, UK will be sending a handful of tracked M270 multiple launch rocket systems. Spain is to supply Ukraine with anti-aircraft missiles and Leopard battle tanks in a step up of its military support.

In its latest attempt to punish Russia, the European Union, along with countries such as the UK and the US have introduced a series of measures to weaken key areas of the Russian economy, such as its energy and financial sectors. The EU has imposed a ban on all imports of oil from Russia that are brought in by sea. The US is banning all Russian oil and gas imports, and the UK will phase out Russian oil imports by the end of 2022. Germany has put on hold the final approval of Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia. These western sanctions on Russia are like none the world has seen.

Only time will tell what Russia’s overestimation of its own capabilities and underestimation of the capacity of Ukraine to fight back will result in, but history is a proof that ‘wars of aggression’ have not always ended well for aggressor states, and as seen in Ukraine, it’s already united western allies, rallied Ukrainians against common enemy and united them with a sense of purpose and collective sacrifice, keeping them going stronger for the last 100 days. Ukraine is showing the world how to fight back.

YouTube video player

Sania Farooqui is a New Delhi based journalist, filmmaker and host of The Sania Farooqui Show where she regularly speaks to women who have made significant contributions to bring about socio economic changes globally. She writes and reports regularly for IPS news wire.

IPS UN Bureau Report


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

US Leads Sanctions Killing Millions to No End — Global Issues

  • Opinion by Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Anis Chowdhury (kuala lumpur and sydney)
  • Inter Press Service

KUALA LUMPUR and SYDNEY, Jun 07 (IPS) – Food crises, economic stagnation and price increases are worsening unevenly, almost everywhere, following the Ukraine war. Sanctions against Russia have especially hurt those relying on wheat and fertilizer imports.

Unilateral sanctions illegal
Unilateral sanctions – not approved by the UN Security Council – are illegal under international law. Besides contravening the UN Charter, unilateral sanctions inflict much human loss. Countless civilians – many far from target countries – are at risk, depriving them of much, even life itself.

Jomo Kwame SundaramSanctions, embargos and blockades – ‘sold’ as non-violent alternatives to waging war by military means – economically isolate and punish targeted countries, supposedly to force them to acquiesce. But most sanctions hurt the innocent majority, much more than ruling elites.

Like laying siege on enemy settlements, sanctions are ‘weapons of mass starvation’. They “are silent killers. People die in their homes, nobody is counting”. The human costs are considerable and varied, but largely overlooked. Knowing they are mere collateral damage will not endear any victim to the sanctions’ ‘true purpose’.

US sanctions’ victims
The US has imposed more sanctions, for longer periods, than any other nation. During 1990-2005, the US imposed a third of sanctions regimes worldwide. These were inflicted on more than 1,000 entities or individuals yearly in 2016-20 – nearly 80% more than in 2008-15. Thus, the Trump administration raised the US share of all sanctions to almost half!

Tens of millions of Afghans now face food insecurity, even starvation, as the US has seized its US$9.5 billion central bank reserves. President Biden’s 11 February 2022 executive order gives half of this to 9/11 victims’ families, although no Afghan was ever found responsible for the atrocity.

Biden claims the rest will be for ‘humanitarian crises’, presumably as decided by the White House. But he remains silent about the countless victims of the US’s two-decade long war in Afghanistan, where airstrikes alone killed at least 48,308 civilians.

Anis ChowdhuryNow, the US-controlled World Bank and IMF both block access to financial resources for Afghanistan. The long US war’s massive population displacement and physical destruction have made it much more vulnerable and foreign aid dependent.

The six decade-long US trade embargo has cost Cuba at least US$130 billion. It causes shortages of food, medicine and other essential items to this day. Meanwhile, Washington continues to ignore the UN General Assembly’s call to lift its blockade.

The US-backed Israeli blockade of the densely populated Gaza Strip has inflicted at least US$17 billion in losses. Besides denying Gaza’s population access to many imported supplies – including medicines – bombing and repression make life miserable for its besieged people.

Meanwhile, the US supports the Saudi-led coalition’s war on Yemen with its continuing blockade of the poorest Arab nation. US arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have ensured the worst for Yemenis under siege.

Blocking essential goods – including food, fuel and medical supplies – has intensified the “world’s worst ongoing humanitarian crisis”. Meanwhile, “years of famine” – including “starving to death a Yemeni child every 75 seconds” – have been aggravated by the “largest cholera outbreak anywhere in history”.

Humanitarian disasters and destroying lives and livelihoods are excused as inevitable “collateral damage”. Acknowledging hundreds of thousands of Iraqi child deaths, due to US sanctions after the 1991 invasion, an ex-US Secretary of State deemed the price “worth it”.

Poverty levels in countries under US sanctions are 3.8 percentage points higher, on average, than in other comparable countries. Such negative impacts rose with their duration, while unilateral and US sanctions stood out as most effective!

Clearly, the US government has not hesitated to wage war by other means. Its recent sanctions threaten living costs worldwide, reversing progress everywhere, especially for the most vulnerable.

Yet, US-led unilateral sanctions against Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and other countries have failed to achieve their purported objectives, namely, to change regimes, or at least, regime behaviour.

Changing US policy?
Although unilateral sanctions are not valid under the UN Charter, many US reformers want Washington to “lead by example, overhaul US sanctions, and ensure that sanctions are targeted, proportional, connected to discrete policy goals and reversible”.

Last year, the Biden administration began a comprehensive review of US sanctions policies. It has promised to minimize their adverse humanitarian impacts, and even to consider allowing trade – on humanitarian grounds – with heavily sanctioned nations. But actual policy change has been wanting so far.

US sanctions continue to ruin Iran’s economy and millions of livelihoods. Despite COVID-19 – which hit the nation early and hard – sanctions have continued, limiting access to imported goods and resources, including medicines.

A US embargo has also blocked urgently needed humanitarian aid for North Korea. Similarly, US actions have repeatedly blocked meeting the urgent needs of the many millions of vulnerable people in the country.

The Trump administration’s sanctions against Venezuela have deepened its massive income collapse, intensifying its food, health and economic crises. US sanctions have targeted its oil industry, providing most of its export earnings.

Besides preventing Venezuela from accessing its funds in foreign banks and multilateral financial institutions, the US has also blocked access to international financial markets. And instead of targeting individuals, US sanctions punish the entire Venezuelan nation.

Russia’s Sputnik-V was the first COVID-19 vaccine developed, and is among the world’s most widely used. Meanwhile, rich countries’ “vaccine apartheid” and strict enforcement of intellectual property rights – augmenting corporate profits – have limited access to ‘Western’ vaccines.

The US has not spared Sputnik-V from sanctions, disrupting not only shipments from Russia, but also production elsewhere, e.g., in India and South Korea, which planned to produce 100 million doses monthly. Denying Russia use of the SWIFT international payments system makes it hard for others to buy them.

Rethinking sanctions
Economic sanctions – originally conceived a century ago to wage war by non-military means – are increasingly being used to force governments to conform. Sanctions are still portrayed as non-violent means to induce ‘rogue’ states to ‘behave’.

But this ignores its cruel paradox – supposedly avoiding war, sanctions lay siege, an ancient technique of war. Yet, despite all the harm caused, they typically fail to achieve their intended political objectives – as Nicholas Mulder documents in The Economic Weapon: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War.

As Cuba, Iran, Afghanistan and Venezuela were not major food or fertilizer exporters, their own populations have suffered most from the sanctions against them. But Russia, Ukraine and even Belarus are significant producers and exporters.

Hence, sanctions against Russia and Belarus have much wider international implications, especially for European fuel supplies. More ominously, they threaten food security not only now, but also in the future as fertilizer supplies are cut off.

With tepid growth since the 2008 global financial crisis, the West now blocks economic recovery. Vaccine apartheid, deliberate supply disruptions and deflationary policies now disrupt international economic integration, once pushed by the West.

As war increasingly crowds out international diplomacy, commitments to the UN Charter, multilateralism, peace and sustainable development are being drowned by their enemies, often invoking misleadingly similar rhetoric.

IPS UN Bureau


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

The Great Fish Robbery — Global Issues

Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing takes advantage of corrupt administrations and exploits weak management regimes, in particular those of developing countries lacking the capacity and resources for effective monitoring, control, and surveillance. Credit: Desmond Brown/IPS
  • by Baher Kamal (madrid)
  • Inter Press Service

MADRID, Jun 06 (IPS) – Now it comes to another ‘crime’ being stealthy committed as a consequence of the unrelenting business obsession for making more and more money.

It is about the illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, a practice that threatens marine biodiversity, livelihoods, exacerbates poverty, and augments food insecurity.

Not only: products derived from IUU fishing can find their way into overseas trade markets thus throttling local food supply.

Let alone the other ‘crime’ of the greed-motivated overfishing.

Illegal, unreported and unregulated

The International Day for the Fight against Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IUU) coincides on 5 June with the World Environment Day.

It also marked only three days ahead of the World Oceans Day on 8 June.

These three Days further reveal the dire impacts of the ongoing human suicidal war on the Planet Earth’s natural resources, precisely those that are vital to life and livelihood.

But before going into these consequences, see what IUU fishing is all about as defined by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO):

IUU fishing is found in all types and dimensions of fisheries; it occurs both on the high seas and in areas within national jurisdiction. It concerns all aspects and stages of the capture and utilisation of fish, and it may sometimes be associated with organised crime.

Illegal fishing is conducted by national or foreign vessels in waters under the jurisdiction of a State, without the permission of that State, or in contravention of its laws and regulations.

Otherwise, it is conducted by vessels flying the flag of States that are parties to a relevant regional fisheries management organisation but operate in contravention of the conservation and management measures by which the States are bound,

Unreported fishing is about captures that have not been reported, or have been misreported, to the relevant national authority, in contravention of national laws and regulations.And unregulated fishing is conducted by vessels without nationality, or by those flying the flag of a State not party to that organisation or by a fishing entity, in a manner that is not consistent with or contravenes the conservation and management measures of that organisation.

Criminals, corruption…

Such illegal activities take advantage of corruption and exploit weak management regimes, in particular those of countries lacking the capacity and resources for effective monitoring, control, and surveillance.

In all these cases, IUU fishing takes advantage of corrupt administrations and exploits weak management regimes, in particular those of developing countries lacking the capacity and resources for effective monitoring, control, and surveillance.

“Such illegal activities are responsible for the loss of 11–26 million tons of fish each year, which is estimated to have an economic value of 10–23 billion US dollars.”

Marine debris, litter

Moreover, there are issues of marine debris and marine litter involved in IUU fishing, which are not only related to marine environment but also the safe navigation of ships, explains the International Maritime Organisation (IMO).

In addition, types of fishing gear and fishing methods are employed by IUU fishers in areas where their use is prohibited, to the detriment of those areas’ resources (fish extracted) and the marine environment (destruction of corals, habitats, etc), where often these gears may get caught in bottom structures and thus be abandoned.

Overfishing

Parallelly, such ‘crime’ of depleting the oceans just adds to another major devastating human activity: overfishing.

The number of overfished stocks globally has tripled in half a century and today fully one-third of the world’s assessed fisheries are currently pushed beyond their biological limits, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

Overfishing is closely tied to bycatch—the capture of unwanted sea life while fishing for a different species, reports the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

This, too, is a serious marine threat that causes the needless loss of billions of fish, along with hundreds of thousands of sea turtles and cetaceans, adds this Fund, which for over six decades has been working to help local communities conserve the natural resources they depend upon; transform markets and policies toward sustainability; and protect and restore species and their habitats.

“The damage done by overfishing goes beyond the marine environment, it warns. Billions of people rely on fish for protein, and fishing is the principal livelihood for millions of people around the world.”

It also reports that more than one-third of all sharks, rays, and chimaeras are now at risk of extinction because of overfishing, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species extinction risk status.

Harmful subsidies

The World Wildlife Fund additionally warns that subsidies, or support provided to the fishing industry to offset the costs of doing business, are another key driver of overfishing.

Subsidies can lead to overcapacity of fishing vessels and skewing of production costs so that fishing operations continue when they would otherwise not make economic sense.

“Today’s worldwide fishing fleet is estimated to be up to two-and-a-half times the capacity needed to catch what we actually need. The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has called for an end to harmful subsidies.”

More demand, more business

Meanwhile, the demand for fish continues to increase around the world, and that means more businesses and jobs are dependent on dwindling stocks, reports WWF, while adding the following:

Fish ranks as one of the most highly traded food commodities and fuels a 362 billion US dollars global industry. Millions of people in largely developing, coastal communities depend on the fishing industry for their livelihood and half the world’s population relies on fish as a major source of protein.

“When fish disappear, so do jobs and coastal economies. High demand for seafood continues to drive over-exploitation and environmental degradation, exacerbating this circular problem.”

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Animal Farm, Ukrainian Resistance and Russian Propaganda — Global Issues

  • Opinion by Jan Lundius (stockholm)
  • Inter Press Service

STOCKHOLM, Jun 03 (IPS) – What I have most wanted to do… is to make political writing into an art.

                                                                                        George OrwellWarfare and misinformation are intimately connected. The 29th of May was globally observed as The Day of Communication and due to the ongoing war in Ukraine it was difficult to avoid thinking of affiliated propaganda campaigns, carried out by warring factions and far from indifferent bystanders.

Not only news reporting, but fabrications like movies, novels, fables and legends are part of a web of global communication and just as the broadcasting of news they might provide insights and alternative perspectives to reality, as well as being used as means of deception. One example is George Orwell’s novella Animal Farm.

I was reminded of this when I some weeks ago watched the Polish director Agnieszka Holland’s 2019 film Mr Jones, a co-production between Polish and Ukrainian media companies. In Ukrainian the film was named ???? ??????, The Price of Truth. It tells the story of Gareth Jones, an ambitious young Welsh journalist who in 1933, after gaining some fame for an exclusive interview with Adolf Hitler, was able to obtain permission to enter the Soviet Union. A privilege mostly due to the fact that Jones had served as secretary to former British prime minister Lloyd George. Jones’s intention to interview Joseph Stalin could not be realized, though he was offered an exclusive guided tour to pre-selected industries in Donbas. On his way there, Jones double-crossed his “handler”, jumped off the train in the Ukrainian countryside and became a shocked witness to the Ukrainian Holodomor, the catastrophic famine that resulted in at least 3 million deaths.

Gareth Jones documented empty villages, starving people, cannibalism and the enforced collection of grain. On his return to Britain, he struggled to get his story taken seriously and finally succeeded in having his articles published by The Manchester Guardian and New York Evening Post, thus revealing the conceit of the Soviet propaganda machine, which had hidden and covered up the enormous scope of the catastrophe and the Soviet Government’s guilt for its origin and development. The film ends by recording how Jones two years after his revelations was murdered while reporting in Inner Mongolia, betrayed by a guide clandestinely connected to the Soviet secret service.

The film Mr Jones emphasised the relevance of a misguided, or even corrupted, journalist corps, foremost among them The New York Times’ Walter Duranty, who from his privileged and pampered existence in Moscow served as a mouthpiece for Stalin’s terror regime. For his “unbiased and well-written” articles, Duranty was in 1932 awarded the U.S. prestigious Pulitzer Prize.

While watching the movie, I became somewhat bewildered by several cameos presenting George Orwell writing his Animal Farm. The film seems to indicate that Orwell met with Gareth Jones and that his Animal Farm was inspired by Jones’s work. To my knowledge Jones and Orwell never met, though this fact does not hinder the possibility of Orwell having read his articles and that the Animal Farm has had a crucial role in Ukrainian politics.

Famines and governments’ occasional efforts to cover them up is an essential feature in Orwell’s fable. It is hunger that triggers the farm-animals’ revolt. However, when their work and freedom are used to benefit the dictatorial pig Napoleon’s selfish well-being, hunger and suffering return to harass the animals. The megalomaniac Napoleon and his acolytes hide embarrassing facts from a global environment, which the mighty pig manipulates and makes business with:

    Starvation seemed to stare them in the face. It was vitally necessary to conceal this fact from the outside world. Napoleon was well aware of the bad results that might follow if the real facts of the food situation were known, and he decided to make use of Mr Whymper to spread a contrary impression.

Orwell wrote Animal Farm between November 1943 and February 1944, when Britain was in alliance with the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany. Since the Allies did not want to offend the Stalinists, the manuscript was rejected by British and American publishers. After much hesitation a small book publisher issued the novel by the end of the war in 1945. After Allied relations with the Soviet Union turned into hostilities Animal Farm became a great commercial success.

The novel’s harsh criticism of the Soviet State is obvious to everyone – it is a fable telling the story of talking and thinking farm animals who rebel against their human farmer, with a hope to end hunger and slavery and create a society where all animals are equal, free, and happy. Wistfully, the revolution is betrayed by infighting and self-interest among its leaders – the intellectual pigs. The still food producing farm is by the hard-working animals proudly declared as The Animal Farm, with its own hymns, insignia, myths and slogans, but it eventually ends up in a state of repression and violence just as bad, or even worse, as it was before. The omnipotent pig Napoleon (whose name in the French translation was changed to “Caesar”), is without doubt a caricature of Stalin, with his scared and lying acolytes, fierce watchdogs brought up by himself, show trials, political persecution, murders, Stakhanovites/Super Workers, and ethnic clensing. A nightmarish world Orwell developed further in his next novel – 1984. With its Big Brother watching your every move and where citizens are brainwashed through torture, doublethink, thought-crimes, and newspeak:

    The Ministry of Truth — Minitrue, in Newspeak… was startlingly different from any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

It was as a volunteer during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) Orwell obtained his dislike for Stalinism, loathing of Fascism, and anger over “Western indifference”:

    The most baffling thing in the Spanish war was the behaviour of the great powers. The war was actually won for Franco by the Germans and Italians, whose motives were obvious enough. The motives of France and Britain are less easy to understand. In 1936 it was clear to everyone that if Britain would only help the Spanish Government, even to the extent of a few million pounds’ worth of arms, Franco would collapse and German strategy would be severely dislocated.

In his preface to the Ukrainian edition of Animal Farm Orwell wrote that after the Stalinists had gained partial control of the Spanish Government they had begun hunting down and execute socialists with different opinions. Man-hunts which went on at the same time as the great purges in the USSR:

    It taught me how easily totalitarian propaganda can control the opinion of enlightened people in democratic countries ”the mutability of the past”. Falsification, airbrushing, rewriting history: in short, the memory hole. And so for the last ten years, I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the socialist movement.

The English edition of Animal Farm reached refugee camps, where soldiers that had been drafted by the Soviet Army and several civilians occasionally killed themselves, rather than returning to the Soviet Union. 24-year-old Ihor Šev?enko, a refugee of Ukrainian origin was part of a movement for Ukraine’s independence. After having learned English from listening to the BBC he translated Animal Farm into Ukrainian and it was spread in handwritten copies, or read aloud, in refugee camps. In April 11, 1946, Šev?enko wrote to Orwell asking if he could publish his novel in Ukrainian. Orwell agreed to write a preface and refused any royalties.

The translation was published in Munich and shipments of the book were quietly delivered to the refugee camps. Its Ukrainian title was Kolhosp Tvaryn, A Collective Farm of Animals, an obvious reference to Stalin’s forced collectivization implemented by the terror famine. However, only 2,000 copies were distributed; a truck from Munich was stopped and searched by American soldiers, and a shipment of an estimated 1,500 to 5,000 copies was seized and handed over to Soviet repatriation authorities and destroyed.

It was first some years later the Ukrainian translation of Animal Farm became appreciated by Western covert operation organizations and was secretley distributed into Ukraine as anti-Soviet propaganda. It is still generally read and in high regard within an Ukraine liberated from Soviet/Russian repression.

If the novel is read today it is easy to discern affinities between the dictatorial pig Napoleon and the current Russian warlord Vladimir Putin. Like Napoleon, Putin appears to want to turn the clock back to an imagined Russian imperial heyday, or as in the title of Masha Gessen’s study of Putin’s Russia, The Future is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia. In Animal Farm Napoleon starts to walk upright on his hind-legs, dresses in human festive clothes and declares that the name Animal Farm has been abolished:

    Henceforward the farm was to be known as the Manor Farm – which he believed, was its correct and original name.

Sources: George Orwell – Animal Farm: A Fairy Story, Also Including in Two Appendices Orwell´s Proposed Preface and the Preface to the Ukrainian Edition. London: Penguin Classics 2004, Nineteen Eighty-Four, 1984. London: Penguin Classics 2015.

IPS UN Bureau


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

What Developing Countries Need to Do — Global Issues

  • Opinion by Daud Khan (rome)
  • Inter Press Service

ROME, Jun 03 (IPS) – Developing countries are facing a combination of crises that are unprecedented in recent times. Over the last three years they have had to face the COVID-19 crisis, the food crisis, the energy crisis, the climate change crisis, the debt crisis and, on top of all this, a global recession. The crises have overlapped, and each has added to the problems created by the previous ones.

Daud KhanMuch of the “fault” for these crises lies with the big countries – their desire for geo-political domination, the continued emission of GHGs, the tight money policy of recent months.

There are strong calls for increased aid flows and debt relief, as well as special funds for the countries most affected by high prices, debt burdens or climate change. These actions, much of which will be funded by the developed countries, are needed and necessary to avoid widespread suffering, political turbulence and increased migratory flows.

But these short term actions will not solve underlying problems. There is a need for new thinking; for paradigm shifts; and for new directions by developing countries. So what needs to be done?

Most importantly and most urgently, there needs to be a reform of food systems. Food systems have already shown incredible resilience by coping with COVID related lockdowns, and with the large reverse migrations that took place from urban to rural areas as people lost jobs and incomes. But new directions are needed for food systems to take on the current challenges. Actions are needed in four areas.

    • First – developing countries need to reduce their dependence on rice, maize and wheat, three crops which account for half of all calories consumed. For many counties agro-climatic conditions are not suitable for these crops and there is a high reliance on imports. This import reliance has been exacerbated by rapid urbanization that has raised the demand for easily-prepared, convenience food. But there are hundreds, if not thousands of indigenous products – cereals, oilseeds and crops and livestock products that have been ignored by policy makers, researchers and Government extension services. This needs to change.
    • Second – food production systems must make increased use of Green Technologies, technologies that are much less reliant on purchased inputs in particular pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Such improved techniques, many of which have been already tried and tested, include integrated pest management, improved crop rotation and multi-cropping, greater use of nitrogen-fixing crops, zero-tillage and mulching. These techniques that make much more intelligent use of the complex interaction between soil, plants, plant residues and livestock waste.
    • Third – value chains need to be shortened with monopolies and restrictive practices by traders and middlemen reduced. Progress was made in this regard during the COVID crisis, mainly through greater use of ICT, but this needs to be followed through much more strongly.
    • Finally, social safety nets need to be strengthened. Governments cannot cushion the entire population from price increases but does have a responsibility to ensure that children and vulnerable groups are cushioned.

Next in terms of urgency is the energy crisis. A large part of the import bill of many developing countries comprises oil and gas. Reducing this dependence is now more urgent than ever. There are two complementary actions needed:

    • First – there has to be a major drive towards increasing production of renewable energy – particularly solar energy. With falling prices of panels, solar energy is now the cheapest form of energy and most developing countries have plenty of space and sunshine.
    • Second – solar or wind energy needs to be complemented with other forms of energy that can meet base needs. The most suitable for doing this is through greater use of nuclear energy which, with today’s fourth generation technology, is much safer and less polluting than it used to be. Given high investments costs, as well as the difficulties in setting up suitable regulatory, oversight and contingency systems, smaller countries may need to work jointly to create such nuclear power facilities.

The debt crisis has created a large and growing risk of defaults with the poorest being the most vulnerable. Already in 2019, almost half of low-income and least developed countries (LDCs) were assessed as being at high risk of external debt distress or already in debt distress. Since then, the external debts of developing country have continued to rise and are eating up a growing proportion of export earnings. And this was before the present interest rate hike. Most debt was taken when real interest rate (corrected for perceived risk) were close to zero.

    • In addition to ongoing discussions on debt forgiveness, there has to be a discussion between creditors and debtors on repayments especially on interest payments. The burden of the unexpected rise in interest rate needs to be a shared burden.

Finally, developing countries need to find ways to cushion themselves against the recessionary effects of slowing growth world trade. In the current system, global trade flows are dominated by USA, China and Europe.

    • In order to break their dependence on these large economies, developing countries need to work to create regional and bilateral trade agreements. Such trade agreements may not be easy. However, the crisis has created conditions where out-of-the-box thinking is essential and cultural and political barriers to regional trade – such as those which limit trade between India and Pakistan – need to be overcome.

Daud Khan works as consultant and advisor for various Governments and international agencies. He has degrees in Economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. He lives partly in Italy and partly in Pakistan.

IPS UN Bureau


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

What Should Developed Countries Do? — Global Issues

  • Opinion by Daud Khan (rome)
  • Inter Press Service

ROME, Jun 01 (IPS) – Developing countries – in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America and in the Middle East – are facing a combination of crises that are unprecedented in recent times. Over the last three years they have had to face the COVID-19 crisis, the food crisis, the energy crisis, the climate change crisis, the debt crisis and, on top of all this, a global recession. The crises have overlapped, and each has added to the problems created by the previous ones.

Daud KhanFirst among the crises relates to food – the most basic of human needs. Even before the events in Ukraine there were shortages and uncertainties. International food prices rose by 40% over their level of 2020 – with increases of almost 90% in the price of vegetable oil – pushing up domestic food prices in both importing and exporting countries, and driving millions towards food insecurity. And then came the Ukraine crisis; and price of cereals and cooking oils spiked yet again – up 20% for cereal and 30% for vegetable oils.

And it is not just an issue of prices. Supplies are hard to come by. In April 2022 Ukraine exported only 1 million tons of grain as opposed to a normal export volume of 5 million tons and Indonesia banned exports of palm oil. On top of this came climate change. Low rainfall and drought-like conditions have also affected production in several major wheat exporting countries such as France and the USA. Scorching temperatures across northern India and Pakistan have reduced wheat output by 20% and in response, India has now banned exports of wheat.

The second crisis relates to the price of energy. Energy prices before the Ukraine crisis has risen 75% in twelve months and another 25% since then. This has raised costs of transport, manufacturing and services. Prices of natural gas, which drives the prices of urea fertilizer, rose by over 140% and this will impact plantings, yields and output of food crops in coming years. The prices of phosphate fertilizers have also risen – by over 200% the last year – with about a third of the increase coming since January 2022, mainly as a result of disruption of supplies.

The next punch in the belly for developing countries came from interest rates increases. Developing country debt has boomed in over the past decades years, fueled by the easy availability of savings and real interest rates of virtually zero. With rising inflation, the US Federal Reserve Board has hiked up interest rates. This has not only increased interest payments but also the value of the US$ in which much developing country debt is denominated. This is making debt servicing vastly more expensive and balance of payments problems are looming large for many countries. Higher debt servicing is also putting pressure on Government budgets and is resulting in large cuts in development and social spending.

And we are not finished yet. Global GDP and trade are slowing down. This reflects the recessionary cocktail of high energy prices, supply bottlenecks, rising interest rates and political uncertainties around the globe, as well as COVID-related lockdowns in China.

This perfect storm is mostly the result of the policies of the big economies – the ongoing US/Russia/China rivalry; rapid globalization followed by the strict COVID-related lockdowns; and easy monetary policies which first pumped in huge sums of money into the economies and are now raising interest rates to rein in inflation. Climate change has much to do with large and continued emission of GHGs, the bulk of which comes from the big economies, including China. And now, speculative capital, mostly originating in the developed world, is further aggravating the situation in food, fuel and other commodity markets.

But the interlinked nature of the globalized world implies that in relative terms the financial and human burden of these actions falls heaviest on developing countries. After all it is one thing for food and energy prices to rise, or for GDP growth to slow in rich countries such as the USA, Europe and Australia, or even in China. In these countries living standards are high, infrastructure and services are well developed, and often well designed social safety nets are in place. It is quite different in developing countries, where large numbers continue to live with poverty and hunger; where basic services such as education, health and clean drinking water are scarce; and those facing old age, illness or loss of earnings can only rely on the goodwill of friends or family.

There is, quite rightly, much concern about the situation. Several high level meetings have been convened, including by the UN, and there are strong calls for increased aid flows and debt relief, as well as for the creation of special funds for the countries most affected by high prices, debt burdens or climate change. These actions are needed and necessary to avoid widespread suffering, political turbulence and increased migratory flows. And the developed countries will likely bear most of the financial burden of these measures.

But many of the measures, even if implemented, are short term palliatives and will not solve underlying problems. Moreover, developing countries cannot continue to rely indefinitely on goodwill and charity. The risk of doing this became very clear during the COVID crisis where little of the vaccines available and none of the vaccine production technology were shared.

However, times of crisis also create opportunities. There is a need for new thinking and for paradigm shifts in developing countries but also for Governments to undertake reforms that they have been postponing for years, if not decades, due to fears that such reforms would hurt vested interests and national elites. It is now time to act bravely.

Part two of this article will discuss some of the concrete measure that developing countries could take to address the various crises.

Daud Khan works as consultant and advisor for various Governments and international agencies. He has degrees in Economics from the LSE and Oxford – where he was a Rhodes Scholar; and a degree in Environmental Management from the Imperial College of Science and Technology. He lives partly in Italy and partly in Pakistan.

IPS UN Bureau


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Sanctions Now Weapons of Mass Starvation — Global Issues

Source: 2022 Global Report on Food Crises; 2022: projected
  • Opinion by Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Anis Chowdhury (sydney and kuala lumpur)
  • Inter Press Service

SYDNEY and KUALA LUMPUR, May 31 (IPS) – US and allied economic sanctions against Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine have not achieved their declared objectives. Instead, they are worsening economic stagnation and inflation worldwide. Worse, they are exacerbating hunger, especially in Africa.

Sanctions cut both ways
Unless approved by the UN Security Council (UNSC), sanctions are not authorized by international law. With Russia’s veto in the UNSC, unilateral sanctions by the US and its allies have surged following the Ukraine invasion.

During 1950-2016, ‘comprehensive’ trade sanctions have cut bilateral trade between sanctioning countries and their victims by 77% on average. The US has imposed more sanctions regimes, and for longer periods, than any other country.

Unilateral imposition of sanctions has accelerated over the past 15 years. During 1990-2005, the US imposed about a third of sanctions regimes around the world, with the European Union (EU) also significant.

The US has increased using sanctions since 2016, imposing them on more than 1,000 entities or individuals yearly, on average, from 2016 to 2020 – nearly 80% more than in 2008-2015. The one-term Trump administration raised the US share of all new sanctions to almost half from a third before.

During January-May 2022, 75 countries implemented 19,268 restrictive trade measures. Such measures on food and fertilizers (85%) greatly exceed those on raw materials and fuels (15%). Unsurprisingly, the world now faces less supplies and higher prices for fuel and food.

Monetary authorities have been raising interest rates to curb inflation, but such efforts do not address the main causes of higher prices now. Worse, they are likely to deepen and prolong stagnation, increasing the likelihood of ‘stagflation’.

Sanctions were supposed to bring Russia to its knees. But less than three months after the rouble plunged, its exchange rate is back to pre-war levels, rising from the ‘rouble rubble’ promised by Western economic warmongers. With enough public support, the Russian regime is in no hurry to submit to sanctions.

Sanctions pushing up food prices
War and sanctions are now the main drivers of increased food insecurity. Russia and Ukraine produce almost a third of world wheat exports, nearly 20% of corn (maize) exports and close to 80% of sunflower seed products, including oil. Related Black Sea shipping blockades have helped keep Russian exports down.

All these have driven up world prices for grain and oilseeds, raising food costs for all. As of 19 May, the Agricultural Price Index was up 42% from January 2021, with wheat prices 91% higher and corn up 55%.

The World Bank’s April 2022 Commodity Markets Outlook notes the war has changed world production, trade and consumption. It expects prices to be historically high, at least through 2024, worsening food insecurity and inflation.

Western bans on Russian oil have sharply increased energy prices. Both Russia and its ally, Belarus – also hit by economic sanctions – are major suppliers of agricultural fertilizers – including 38% of potassic fertilizers, 17% of compound fertilizers, and 15% of nitrogenous fertilizers.

Fertilizer prices surged in March, up nearly 20% from two months before, and almost three times higher than in March 2021! Less supplies at higher prices will set back agricultural production for years.

With food agriculture less sustainable, e.g., due to global warming, sanctions are further reducing output and incomes, besides raising food prices in the short and longer term.

Sanctions hurt poor most
Even when supposedly targeted, sanctions are blunt instruments, often generating unintended consequences, sometimes contrary to those intended. Hence, sanctions typically fail to achieve their stated objectives.

Many poor and food insecure countries are major wheat importers from Russia and Ukraine. The duo provided 90% of Somalia’s imports, 80% of the Democratic Republic of Congo’s, and about 40% of both Yemen’s and Ethiopia’s.

It appears the financial blockade on Russia has hurt its smaller and more vulnerable Central Asian neighbours more: 4.5 million from Uzbekistan, 2.4 million from Tajikistan, and almost a million from Kyrgyzstan work in Russia. Difficulties sending remittances cause much hardship to their families at home.

Although not their declared intent, US measures during 1982–2011 hurt the poor more. Poverty levels in sanctioned countries have been 3.8 percentage points higher than in similar countries.

Sanctions also hurt children and other disadvantaged groups much more. Research in 69 countries found sanctions lowered infant weight and increased the likelihood of death before age three. Unsurprisingly, economic sanctions violate the UN Convention on the Rights of Children.

A study of 98 less developed and newly industrialized countries found life expectancy in affected countries reduced by about 3.5 months for every additional year under UNSC sanctions. Thus, an average five-year episode of UNSC approved sanctions reduced life expectancy by 1.2–1.4 years.

World hunger rising
As polemical recriminations between Russia and the US-led coalition intensify over rising food and fuel prices, the world is racing to an “apocalyptic” human “catastrophe”. Higher prices, prolonged shortages and recessions may trigger political upheavals, or worse.

The UN Secretary-General has emphasized, “We need to ensure a steady flow in food and energies through open markets by lifting all unnecessary export restrictions, directing surpluses and reserves to those in need and keeping a lead on food prices to curb market volatility”.

Despite declining World Bank poverty numbers, the number of undernourished has risen from 643 million in 2013 to 768 million in 2020. Up to 811 million people are chronically hungry, while those facing ‘acute food insecurity’ have more than doubled since 2019 from 135 million to 276 million.

With the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, OXFAM warned, the “hunger virus” could prove even more deadly. The pandemic has since pushed tens of millions into food insecurity.

In 2021, before the Ukraine war, 193 million people in 53 countries were deemed to be facing ‘food crisis or worse’. With the war and sanctions, 83 million – or 43% – more are expected to be victims by the end of 2022.

Source: 2022 Global Report on Food Crises; 2022: projected

Economic sanctions are the modern equivalent of ancient sieges, trying to starve populations into submission. The devastating impacts of sieges on access to food, health and other basic services are well-known.

Sieges are illegal under international humanitarian law. The UNSC has unanimously adopted resolutions demanding the immediate lifting of sieges, e.g., its 2014 Resolution 2139 against civilian populations in Syria.

But veto-wielding permanent Council members are responsible for invading Ukraine and unilaterally imposing sanctions. Hence, the UNSC will typically not act on the impact of sanctions on billions of innocent civilians. No one seems likely to protect them against sanctions, today’s weapons of mass starvation.

IPS UN Bureau


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

How the Russia-Ukraine Conflict Impacts Africa — Global Issues

Josefa Sacko is the AUC Commissioner for Agriculture, Rural Development, Blue Economy and Sustainable Environment (ARBE)
  • Opinion by Josefa Sacko, Ibrahim Mayaki (luanda, angola)
  • Inter Press Service

LUANDA, Angola, May 31 (IPS) – While Africa is yet to fully recover from the socio-economic repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russia-Ukraine conflict poses another major threat to the global economy with many African countries being directly affected.

Just within a few weeks, global wheat, sunflower, and oil crude prices have soared to unprecedented levels. Africa is heavily reliant on food imports from both countries, and the Continent is already experiencing price shocks and disruptions in the supply chain of these commodities.

The conflict will likely impact food security in Africa. Both through availability and pricing in some food crops, particularly wheat and sunflower, as well as socio-economic recovery and growth, triggered by rising uncertainties in global financial markets and supply chain systems.

Over the past decade, the Continent has seen growing demand for cereal crops, including wheat and sunflower, which has been mainly supported by imports than local production. Africa’s wheat imports increased by 68 per cent between 2007 to 2019, surging to 47 million tonnes.

Josefa Sacko is the AUC Commissioner for Agriculture, Rural Development, Blue Economy and Sustainable Environment (ARBE)

Russia and Ukraine, both often referred to as the world’s breadbasket, are major players in the export of wheat and sunflower to Africa. North Africa (Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia), Nigeria in West Africa, Ethiopia and Sudan in East Africa, and South Africa account for 80 per cent of wheat imports.

Wheat consumption in Africa is projected to reach 76.5 million tonnes by 2025, of which 48.3 million tonnes or 63.4 per cent is projected to be imported outside of the Continent.

The sanctions imposed on Russia by Western countries will further exacerbate commercial flows between Russia and Africa due to the closure of vital port operations in the Black Sea. Russia is one of the world’s biggest exporters of fertilizers.

Concerns are growing that a worldwide shortage of fertilizer will lead to rising food prices, with knock-on effects for agricultural production and food security.

Russia is also the world’s third-largest oil producer behind the United States and Saudi Arabia. The disruption of oil prices on the world market is expected to lead to an increase in fuel prices and higher costs of food production.

Some regions, including the Horn of Africa and Sahel region, are at greater risk of food insecurity due to country-specific shocks, climate change, export restrictions, and stockpiling, especially if rising fertilizer and other energy-intensive input costs will negatively impact the next agricultural season as a result of the ongoing conflict.

Dr Ibrahim Mayaki is the Chief Executive Officer of AUDA-NEPAD

A silver lining to reduce reliance on food imports

While the socio-economic ramifications are already substantial and the situation remains highly unpredictable, Africa must also see the current geopolitical crisis as an opportunity to reduce its reliance on food imports from outside the Continent.

African countries need to take advantage of their 60 per cent global share of arable land to grow more food for domestic consumption and export to the global market. This would lower the number of people facing food and nutrition insecurity caused by external shocks.

Africa’s Common Position on Food Systems

In 2021, the African Union Commission (AUC) and African Union Development Agency-NEPAD (AUDA-NEPAD) worked with African countries to create a common African position ahead of the Food Systems Summit in line with the African Union’s Agenda 2063 and the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The African Common Position is a synthesis and unified view on how to transform Africa’s food systems over the next decade, primarily on resilience in the face of growing vulnerability and shocks. It is anchored in the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth.

Rapid expansion in agricultural and food productivity and production has been identified as one of the game-changing solutions. To prevent future disruptions in the supply chain for wheat and sunflower across Africa, countries that produce these cereals need to increase their capacity to produce and supply to other countries through intra-African trade.

And those that do not should consider incorporating specific food crops into their agriculture value chain. This will reduce the reliance on wheat and grain imports from Russia and Ukraine and, most importantly, promote intra-African trade and grow Africa’s agribusiness sectors.

African Continental Free Trade Area a lever and driver for intra-regional agri-food markets

Another lever in transforming Africa’s food systems is the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) which came into effect on 1 January 2021. African countries must take advantage of the world’s largest free trade area.

The trade treaty is expected to offer US$2.5 trillion in combined GDP and agribusiness will significantly contribute to this growth. The AfCFTA will increase production and value addition as well as ensure adequate quality infrastructure and food safety standards to supply and grow local and regional agri-food markets.

The oil and gas factor

To avoid future food price shocks caused by rising oil and gas prices on the global market, African countries must improve their oil and gas production and exploration capability to fill any gaps that may occur as a result of supply chain disruption among the major global producers.

African countries that produce fuel and gas such as Algeria, Angola, Cameroon, Republic of Congo, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Libya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Sudan, and Tanzania should explore boosting production and filling the gas and oil gap within the continent and beyond to alleviate fuel price shocks, which could contribute to lower food costs.

In addition, African governments should invest in or attract greater international investment in oil and gas exploration, particularly in countries where subterranean oil reserves are believed to exist but have yet to be explored.

2022 African Union Year of Nutrition

The AU declared 2022 the Year of Nutrition with the main objective to strengthen resilience in food and nutrition security. The AU CAADP biennial review report of 2019 revealed that Africa is not on track to meet its goal of ending hunger by 2025, noting a deterioration in food and nutrition security on the continent since the inaugural report in 2017.

Increasing food production and expanding Africa’s food basket will serve both nutrition and resilience objectives. In this regard, there must be intentional investments toward increased productivity and production of traditional and indigenous crops. This also requires a systems approach by integrating nutrition into resilient and strong health systems and social protection systems.

Climate resilience in Africa’s food systems

African food systems continue to face several challenges, including extreme weather events and climate change; limited adoption of yield-increasing technologies; dependency on rain-fed agriculture and low levels of irrigation; and most recently, the spread of fall armyworm in parts of the continent.

More than 38 million more people are at risk of hunger and poverty in Africa due to climate change. Climate-resilient technologies present major opportunities for the Continent to increase African food production and productivity while building resilience and reducing poverty and hunger.

Digital and biotechnologies and the transformation of food systems

While the Continent has made significant progress in the adoption and use of information and communication technologies for large-scale food producers, the benefits of digital innovations have not been fully leapfrogged by small-scale producers, processors, and retailers to access extension services, markets, and financial services.

Increasing the competitiveness of African agriculture also includes the adoption of biotechnology, including improved seed varieties, and requires robust food production policy frameworks. Biotechnology is expected to accelerate growth, create wealth, and feed an African population expected to reach 2.2 billion people by 2050.

Regional solutions are a prerequisite to addressing structural weaknesses and vulnerabilities, including poverty and inequality

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has once more exposed the urgent need for policy and investment choices to sustain and build viable, resilient, and inclusive food systems on the Continent.

The African Common Position on Food Systems provides pathways for Africa to increase home-grown agri-food production and ensure inclusive access to sustainable and nutritious food sources, while addressing structural weaknesses and vulnerabilities, including poverty and inequality.

The successful transformation of African food systems will largely depend on the willingness of African countries to realise continental and regional solutions to build and sustain greater resilience in the face of external shocks. 2022 is Africa’s Year to action food and nutrition development goals.

Source: Africa Renewal, United Nations

IPS UN Bureau


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Shortage Amidst Plenty — Global Issues

  • Opinion by Frederic Mousseau (san francisco, usa)
  • Inter Press Service
  • The writer is Policy Director at The Oakland Institute, San Francisco

SAN FRANCISCO, USA, May 30 (IPS) – India is being asked by the US government and the IMF to reconsider its decision to suspend wheat exports. Their cited concern is that export restrictions will exacerbate food shortages amidst Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But the argument does not stand ground technically or morally.

Market in New Delhi. Credit: The Oakland Institute

There is no food shortage. According to a May 6, 2022 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the world enjoys “a relatively comfortable supply level” of cereals. This is confirmed by the World Bank, which noted that global stocks of cereals are at historically high levels and that about three-quarters of Russian and Ukrainian wheat exports had already been delivered before the war started.

These numbers are consistent with data from the Ukrainian Ministry of Agriculture that reported on May 19 that the country exported 46.51 million tons of cereals in the 2021/22 season, versus 40.85 million the previous year.

In a repeat of 2007-2008 food crisis, it is speculation which is the key factor behind the current rise in food prices in international markets. As reported by the Lighthouse Reports, “speculators have flooded commodity markets in attempts to make a profit out of escalating prices.” A striking example are two top commodity-linked “exchange traded funds” (ETFs) which have received US$1.2 billion of investments – compared to just US$197 million for the whole of 2021 – a 600 percent increase.

According to the New York Times, “in April, speculators were responsible for 72 percent of the buying activity on the Paris wheat market, up from 25 percent before the pandemic.” Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, has rightly observed that “speculative activity by powerful institutional investors who are generally unconcerned with agricultural market fundamentals are indeed betting on hunger, and exacerbating it.”

Maize harvest, Gambella, Ethiopia. Credit: The Oakland Institute

Instead of food shortage, the reality is that the world produces far more food than we eat. Over 33 percent of the food produced globally is used for animal feed as well as for other non-food uses, mainly agro-fuels.

The US produces roughly 400 million tons of corn, but over 40 percent of this amount – 160 million tons – goes to ethanol production, while another 40 percent goes to animal feed, and only 10 percent is used as food whereas another 10 percent is exported. India was not expected to export more than 10 million tons of wheat in 2022-2023, which is insignificant in comparison to the US numbers.

The increasing amount of food diverted to the production of agro-fuels – again as in the 2007-2008 crisis – is another major factor fueling tension in the global cereal markets. As noted in a 2009 analysis, “although biofuels still account for only 1.5 percent of the global liquid fuels supply, they accounted for almost half the increase in the consumption of major food crops in 2006–07, mostly because of corn-based ethanol produced in the United States.”

In the US, ethanol production increased from 3.6 million barrels in 2001 to over 102 million in 2019. Despite the fact that ethanol is at least 24 percent more carbon-intensive than gasoline, under pressure from the Congress and the industry, the Biden administration has just taken steps to encourage further ethanol production while continuing to heavily subsidize it.

The US call against trade restrictions has been echoed by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Food Programme, and the World Trade Organization, who are urging “all countries to keep trade open and avoid restrictive measures such as export bans on food or fertilizer that further exacerbate the suffering of the most vulnerable people.”

But if governments and international institutions are serious about eliminating human suffering caused by high food prices, they should abstain from pressuring countries who are trying to maintain food supply at a level which will allow national food security. It is essential that they recognize and respect food sovereignty of all nations.

Immediate key measures that countries should be taking to relieve pressure on world markets are to reduce the amount of food used as fuel, curb speculation on food products – specifically restricting the so-called future commodity markets where speculators bet on future prices.

Both the US and the European Union have instruments and mechanisms in place that allow them to act, with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). What is missing is the political will to act.

What is not missing is hypocrisy. The US government-funded ethanol industry uses the equivalent of 35 percent of the global world trade of cereals of 473 million tons. The Indian export ban set to prevent hunger will affect less than 2 percent of this amount.

Meanwhile, previous research on the 2007-2008 food crisis brings evidence that India and other countries were successful in preventing price transmission to domestic markets through trade regulation measures. For example, the price of rice actually decreased in Indonesia in 2008 while it was escalating in neighboring countries.

Public interventions to prevent this transmission were a mix of trade facilitation policies (for instance, cutting import tariffs or negotiating with importers) and trade restrictions or regulations (such as export bans, use of public stocks, price control, and anti-speculation measures).

The success of measures taken to limit domestic inflation depended primarily on governments’ ability to control domestic availability and regulate markets, often based on pre-existing public systems. Export restrictions possibly contributed to increased inflation in global food markets but they constituted a fast and effective way to protect consumers by mitigating the effect of global markets on domestic prices.

But regardless of the trade measures that some countries may adopt, even in the absence of a global food shortage, the food crisis is real. Droughts, conflicts, and now high food prices, are threatening to starve hundreds of millions of people.

Unfortunately, the massive human suffering and hunger that was affecting many countries even prior to the war in Ukraine was barely met with adequate response from rich nations. UN humanitarian appeals for acute crises are chronically underfunded. In 2021, only 45 percent of the UN appeal for Yemen and the Horn of Africa was fulfilled, only 29 percent for Syria.

The US Congress just approved an aid of US$40 billion for Ukraine, including over US$26 billion of military aid. This is US$12 billion more than the US$28 billion that the US will spend globally in 2022 on international assistance through USAID.

Amidst the war on Ukraine, given the chronic shortfalls of funding to international assistance, it is critical that all countries ensure their solidarity and adequate support is provided to all victims. But beyond aid, the only reasonable decision would be for them to act decisively on the broader causes of the high food prices and curb speculation on food commodities and diversion of food for the production of fuel.

Unfortunately, given measures were not taken following the 2007-2008 food crisis, how likely is it to happen now. High income countries and international institutions may rather repeat their motto of “keep trade open” and continue business as usual. It is therefore up to governments in the Global South, in particular food deficit countries, to recognize this harsh reality and act to reduce their dependency on food imports by supporting their own farmers and proactively regulating their food and agricultural markets.

The Oakland Institute is an independent policy think tank that conducts research and advocacy on issues such as international development, environment, land, food, and agriculture.

IPS UN Bureau


Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

© Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Exit mobile version