MOTOR CITY A-GO-GO FOR FOOD SOVEREIGNTY!

Published on Wednesday, June 30, 2010 by The Huffington Post
Food Sovereignty Chronicles

by Eric Holt Gimenez

Beyond the din of the World Cup in Johannesburg, and just south of the protests of the ill-fated G-20 Summit in Toronto , the U.S. Social Forum was in full swing. So much so, that I didn't get a chance to blog while at the event! Nevertheless, on the 3-day drive back from Detroit to Oakland, CA, I managed to chronicle some of the path-breaking work activists at the forum did on food sovereignty. Here is the first installment:

We are making the road trek back from Detroit to Oakland, pushing steadily through that great green sea called the Midwest. It is staggering to think that Monsanto--who owns the patent on over 90% of the U.S.'s genetically engineered corn seed--has its profit-producing patent locked tightly in to pretty much every single corn plant we will see for the next three days...

I'm coming back from the USSF, the 2nd US Social Forum. Held in Detroit (Atlanta hosted the first), it was quite an experience, not just because it brought 15,000 activists together--but because of Detroit. I'd never spent time here and had only the bombed-out images from Michael Moore's documentaries to rely on for first impressions. The bad news is that Moore's images are real; during the USSF's opening ceremonies, we marched through the city's center, a surreal patchwork of attractive squares and bustling high-rises, checkered with empty buildings, open lots, for-lease signs and homeless people everywhere.

The good news is that Detroit still rocks--because of the people. Coming from the cooler-than-thou state of California, Detroiters are disarmingly warm and friendly, even when under siege from thousands of activists from across the U.S. They are also turning many of their empty lots into community gardens to provide fresh, healthy food (and a bit of income) to its beleaguered citizens. Behind Detroit's green islands lay not Monsanto's patents, but a growing people's movement for food justice and economic democracy.

Another Detroit is Happening! On my first morning at the forum, I went to a reception held by D2D--Detroit to Dakar, a coalition looking to link social movements in the US with their African counterparts. Malik Yakini, chairman of the Detroit Black Food Security Network welcomed activists to Detroit by pointing out the historical connections between the city's African-American community and African struggles for national independence and anti-apartheid. Linking the Detroit Black Food Security Network's efforts to build local community food systems in African-American communities to the Social Forum's international struggle to for a better world, he claimed: Another World is Possible; Another U.S. is Necessary; and Another Detroit is Happening!

Actor-activist Danny Glover stopped in between takes to provide encouragement to the gathering. Glover, the head of TransAfrica Forum, reminded participants that social movements in the countries of the Global South are struggling hard against the devastating impacts of U.S. corporations and U.S. foreign policy. There were plenty of international activists at the Forum who'd come to share information about the abuses of U.S. power and to see if their U.S. counterparts could help do something about it.
The U.S. groups have their hands full as well. Our country now has nearly 50 million hungry people. The parallels--and differences--between the work of food justice groups in the U.S. and the demands of Food Sovereignty groups of the Global South are striking, and Detroit is an emblematic venue for their meeting. The recent moves by big developers to develop industrial agriculture in Detroit not only threatens to displace the grassroots efforts of African-American communities, they also reflect the global industrial trends seeking to bring the world's food systems under a single corporate roof. The massive land grabs taking place in Africa, the displacement of local seeds with GMOs, and the violent dislocation of peasant communities to make way for industrial plantations in the Global South are not far removed from the urban realities of Detroit.
Copyright © 2010 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

Eric Holt Gimenez, Ph.D. is a food system researcher and agroecologist. He is the Executive Director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy. He is the main author of a new book on the world food crisis: "Food Rebellions: Crisis and the Hunger for Justice" from Food First (www.foodfirst.org)

AGROECOLOGY!!! To End Deadly GMO's and Protect FARMERS AND SOILS!

The contribution of agroecological approaches to meet 2050 global food needs
Groundswell International | June 30, 2010 at 9:56 am | Categories: Cooling the Planet (Climate Change), People-Centered Food Systems (Food Security), Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pG1dM-6G

The article below was posted on Food First's website. It covers the recent international seminar “The contribution of agroecological approaches to meet 2050 global food needs”, which brought together agroecology experts, decision makers at national and international levels, and representatives of farmer organizations. The event was held in Brussels on June 21 and 22 under the auspices of the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Professor Olivier De Schutter. Mr. De Schutter makes an airtight case for a global policy shift toward agroecological production.

Right to Food: “Agroecology outperforms large-scale industrial farming for global food security,” says UN expert

Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food


BRUSSELS (22 June 2010) – “Governments and international agencies urgently need to boost ecological farming techniques to increase food production and save the climate,” said UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, while presenting the findings at an international meeting on agroecology held in Brussels on 21 and 22 June.

Along with 25 of the world’s most renowned experts on agroecology, the UN expert urged the international community to re-think current agricultural policies and build on the potential of agroecology.

“One year ago, Heads of States at the G20 gathering in Italy committed to mobilizing $22 billion over a period of three years to improve global food security. This was welcome news, but the most pressing issue regarding reinvestment in agriculture is not how much, but how,” Olivier De Schutter said.

“Today, most efforts are made towards large-scale investments in land – including many instances of land grabbing – and towards a ‘Green Revolution’ model to boost food production: improved seeds, chemical fertilisers and machines,” the Special Rapporteur remarked. “But scant attention has been paid to agroecological methods that have been shown to improve food production and farmers’ incomes, while at the same time protecting the soil, water, and climate.”

The widest study ever conducted on agroecological approaches (Jules Pretty, Essex University, UK) covered 286 projects in 57 developing countries, representing a total surface of 37 million hectares: the average crop yield gain was 79%. Concrete examples of ‘agroecological success stories’ abound in Africa.

In Tanzania, the Western provinces of Shinyanga and Tabora used to be known as the ‘Desert of Tanzania’. However, the use of agroforestry techniques and participatory processes allowed some 350,000 hectares of land to be rehabilitated in two decades. Profits per household rose by as much as USD 500 a year. Similar techniques are used in Malawi, where some 100,000 smallholders in 2005 benefited to some degree from the use of fertilizer trees.

“With more than a billion hungry people on the planet, and the climate disruptions ahead of us, we must rapidly scale up these sustainable techniques,” De Schutter said. “Even if it makes the task more complex, we have to find a way of addressing global hunger, climate change, and the depletion of natural resources, all at the same time. Anything short of this would be an exercise in futility.”

The experts gathering in Brussels identified the policies that could develop agroecological approaches to the scale needed to feed the world in 2050. They based their work on the experiences of countries that have pro-agroecology policies – such as Cuba or Brazil – as well as on the successful experiences from international research centres such as the World Agroforestry Center in Nairobi, and on the programmes of La Via Campesina, the transnational peasant movement, which runs agroecology training programmes.

“We can scale up these sustainable models of agriculture, and ensure that they work for the benefit of the poorest farmers. What is needed now is political will to move from successful pilot projects to nation-wide policies,” the UN Special Rapporteur said. In conclusion, he announced that he would ask the Committee on World Food Security – what should become in time the ‘Security Council’ for food security – to work during its October session on the policy levers to scale up agroecology. “This is the best option we have today. We can’t afford not to use it.”

G8: Reform Food Aid System And Generate Resources to Reduce Malnutrition

TORONTO/GENEVA - June 22 - World leaders meeting at the G8 and G20 summits will not succeed in improving mother and child health in the developing world unless they fundamentally change how they address malnutrition and establish new sustainable funding sources to combat this treatable and preventable condition, the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) said today.

Malnutrition affects 195 million children worldwide and is the underlying cause of at least one-third of the eight million annual deaths of children under five years of age. It can cause stunting, cognitive impairment, and lead to greater susceptibility to disease. The problem is inextricably linked with mother and child health, as malnourished mothers give birth to underweight children, perpetuating a vicious cycle. Many mothers living in areas of high food insecurity do not have access to foods like milk and eggs that contain the high-quality protein and other essential nutrients that their children need. Currently, most international food aid consists of nutritionally inadequate fortified corn-soy flours, which do not provide the nutrients young children need most.

"Foods we would never give our own children to eat are being sent overseas as food aid to the most vulnerable children in malnutrition hotspots in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia," said MSF International President Dr. Christophe Fournier. "This double standard must stop. As the world's leading food aid donors, G8 countries are uniquely positioned to have a major impact on reducing malnutrition. If world leaders in Muskoka and Toronto want to truly roll back mother and child mortality, it is imperative they commit to reforming key parts of the global food aid system. We know what works and what children need - let's simply get it to them."

In addition to improving the quality of food aid provided to young children, an effective overall nutrition response will require substantial financial resources. The World Bank estimates it will cost $12 billion per year to address malnutrition in the most-affected countries. In a time of global economic austerity, current funding from donors is insufficient, volatile, and unpredictable. Sustainable sources of funding through innovative financial mechanisms are required, such as the financial transaction tax currently promoted by the European Union. A share of the funds raised by such means must be earmarked to global health issues such as nutrition, HIV/AIDS treatment, and tuberculosis research.

In 2009, MSF treated 208,000 children affected by severe acute malnutrition in its programs. Although this is barely one percent of the 20 million children estimated to be affected, this represents more than 15 percent of the 1,200,000 children who received treatment.

"Nongovernmental agencies should not be expected to carry such a huge burden in fighting malnutrition," said Dr. Fournier. "Donor governments need to step up to fill the gap and help the most-affected countries follow lifesaving nutrition programs that have been successfully implemented in countries like Mexico, Thailand, and Brazil. We need sustainable sources of funding, like the proposed financial transaction levy, that dedicate a share to global health - not the one-shot pledges that G8 summits are prone to deliver."

The G8 gathering coincides with the onset of a particularly harsh "hunger gap" season in Africa's Sahel region, the period when staple food crops are exhausted before the next harvest. Most countries in the region are already experiencing increasing rates of childhood malnutrition. MSF is operating emergency nutrition programs-and reinforcing existing ones-in Burkina Faso, Chad, Niger, Mali, and Sudan.

MSF recently launched "Starved for Attention," a global multimedia campaign to highlight the crisis of childhood malnutrition and how increased childhood sickness and death can be prevented with effective nutrition interventions: www.starvedforattention.org
###
Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is an international medical humanitarian organization created by doctors and journalists in France in 1971. MSF's work is based on the humanitarian principles of medical ethics and impartiality. The organization is committed to bringing quality medical care to people caught in crisis regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation.
MSF operates independently of any political, military, or religious agendas.

CONTACT: Doctors Without Borders
Emily Linendoll
Press Officer
Direct: 212-763-5764 Mobile: 646-206-9387
E-mail: emily.linendoll@msf.org

A LITTLE METHYL IODIDE (ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR) ON YOUR STRAWBERRIES?

Dispute Over Pesticide for California Strawberries Has Implications Beyond State
By MALIA WOLLAN
Published: June 18, 2010

SACRAMENTO — Even as the sweet strawberry harvest reaches its peak here, a bitter disagreement has erupted between the State Department of Pesticide Regulation and a scientific review committee over the approval of a new chemical, the outcome of which could affect farmers across the country.

In a report and in public testimony Thursday before the State Senate Food and Agriculture Committee, members of the review committee said the state’s decision to approve the new pesticide, methyl iodide, was made using inadequate, flawed and improperly conducted scientific research.

“I’m not in blanket opposition to the use of pesticides, but methyl iodide alarms me,” said Theodore A. Slotkin, a professor of pharmacology and cancer biology at Duke University Medical Center and a member of the scientific review committee. “When we come across a compound that is known to be neurotoxic, as well as developmentally toxic and an endocrine disruptor, it would seem prudent to err on the side of caution, demanding that the appropriate scientific testing be done on animals instead of going ahead and putting it into use, in which case the test animals will be the children of the state of California.”

But farmers here — who grow nearly 90 percent of the nation’s strawberries, a $2 billion a year industry — say the state’s proposed regulations would far exceed those set by the federal government for the chemical, which they argue would be deployed safely and only when needed.

“The 500-plus growers of strawberries in the state are largely family farmers who live where they grow,” said Carolyn O’Donnell, spokeswoman for the California Strawberry Commission. “When they make decisions about how and where they farm, they make those decisions with the health and safety of workers and the community in mind.”

For decades, farmers injected another chemical, methyl bromide, into the soil before planting strawberries. Then the Montreal Protocol international climate treaty banned methyl bromide, saying it had been found to deplete ozone. That sent regulators, farmers and the chemical industry scrambling for an alternative.

They found methyl iodide, a chemical less harmful to the ozone, but with more potential hazards to human health. In 2007 the chemical was approved by federal environmental regulators to the chagrin of many scientists. More than 50 chemists and physicians, including members of the National Academy of Sciences and Nobel laureates, had asked the federal Environmental Protection Agency not to approve the chemical.

Despite federal approval, California requires that new pesticides go through a second review, a process that federal regulators have said they are watching closely and that could lead to a re-evaluation by the Obama administration.

California has provisionally approved methyl iodide and will issue a final decision after the public comment period ends June 29.

During Thursday’s hearing, pesticide regulators voiced confidence in the scientific basis for their decision.

“The review associated with this material is the most robust and extensive in the history of the department,” said Mary-Ann Warmerdam, director of the state regulatory agency.

Ms. Warmerdam said that based on the available data, the chemical could be used safely with precautions like respirators, impermeable tarps and extra restrictions on use around schools, businesses and homes.

The scientific review committee, which was commissioned by the regulatory agency, vehemently disagreed.

“This is without question one of the most toxic chemicals on earth,” said John Froines, professor of environmental health sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles. “You don’t register a chemical when you don’t have the necessary information you need.”

Once out in the environment, neurotoxic chemicals like methyl iodide contribute to neurodevelopment disorders including learning disabilities, conduct disorders, autism spectrum disorders and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, said Dr. Slotkin, who called such health disorders a “silent pandemic.”

State Senator Dean Florez, a Democrat who leads the Food and Agriculture Committee, said, “If we’re going to have to make the decision about using a toxic chemical like this, I’d like elected officials in the state of California to make this decision, not a non-elected agency and an outgoing Republican administration.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/us/20strawberries.html?emc=eta1

FOOD PRICES READY TO GO SKY-HIGH

Published on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 by The Guardian/UK
Food Prices to Rise by Up to 40% Over Next Decade, UN Report Warns
Growing demand from emerging markets and for biofuel production will send prices soaring, according to the OECD and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisatio
by Katie Allen

Food prices are set to rise as much as 40% over the coming decade amid growing demand from emerging markets and for biofuel production, according to a United Nations report today which warns of rising hunger and food insecurity.

Somalis protest over high food prices during the spike of 2008. (Photograph: Abdurashid Abikar/Getty Images)Farm commodity prices have fallen from their record peaks of two years ago but are set to pick up again and are unlikely to drop back to their average levels of the past decade, according to the annual joint report from Paris-based thinktank the OECD and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).

The forecasts are for wheat and coarse grain prices over the next 10 years to be between 15% and 40% higher in real terms, once adjusted for inflation, than their average levels during the 1997-2006 period, the decade before the price spike of 2007-08. Real prices for vegetable oils are expected to be more than 40% higher and dairy prices are projected to be between 16-45% higher. But rises in livestock prices are expected to be less marked, although world demand for meat is climbing faster than for other farm commodities on the back of rising wealth for some sections of the population in emerging economies.

Although the report sees production increasing to meet demand, it warns that recent price spikes and the economic crisis have contributed to a rise in hunger and food insecurity. About 1 billion people are now estimated to be undernourished, it said.

Fairtrade campaigners said the predictions of sharply rising prices provided a "stark warning" to international policymakers.

"Investment to encourage the 1 billion people whose livelihoods rely on smallholder agriculture is vital. Not only will this increase yields but will go a long way to increase prosperity in poverty stricken regions," said Barbara Crowther, director of communications at the Fairtrade Foundation.

"At the same time, the promise of increased agriculture commodity prices could spark a new surge in land grabbing by sovereign wealth funds and other powerful investors which risks marginalising further rural communities who must be included in solutions to secure and maintain food supplies."

The report says that agricultural production and productivity must be stepped up and it argues for a well-functioning trading system to ensure fair competition and that surplus food is getting to where it is needed.

It also painted a growing role for developing countries in both boosting demand and production. Brazil is by far the fastest growing agricultural producer, with output expected to rise by more than 40% in the next decade and production growth is also expected to be well above 20% in China, India, Russia and Ukraine.

"The role of developing countries in international markets is growing quickly, and as their impact grows, their policies also have an increasing bearing on conditions in global markets," said FAO director-general Jacques Diouf.

"This makes their role and contribution to global policy issues critical. Policy discussions must be global in scope and we need to improve the framework for such exchange of views."

Another factor driving up food prices is the controversial biofuels industry. The report predicts that continued expansion of biofuel output – often to meet government targets – will create additional demand for wheat, coarse grains, vegetable oils and sugar.

© 2010 Guardian News and Media Limited
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/16-1

PRIVATE LIVESTOCK PROFITEERING SUBSIDIZED BY...YOU AND ME ??? ON PUBLIC U.S. LANDS - NO!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 10, 2010 3:56 PM
Lawsuit Targets Harmful Public-lands Livestock Subsidy

WASHINGTON - June 10 - Today the Center for Biological Diversity, Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth Guardians, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, and Oregon Natural Desert Association sued the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to compel them to respond to a 2005 rulemaking petition that seeks to increase the fee for livestock grazing across 258 million acres of federal public land.

"The federal grazing program is as fiscally irresponsible as it is ecologically harmful," said Taylor McKinnon, public lands campaigns director for the Center for Biological Diversity. "In responding to our petition, the government must now choose between correcting and continuing the subsidized destruction of America's public land."

The current grazing fee does not recover even the administrative costs of operating the program, leaving U.S. taxpayers to pay the difference. The fee also falls short of paying for the environmental problems this land use causes, and instead enables high levels of livestock grazing that harm ecosystems, degrade watersheds, and cause species decline. In 2010, the government charges just $1.35 per month to graze one cow and calf on public lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, which is the lowest possible rate under the current fee formula.

"Given the massive budget shortfall our country is facing, we can no longer afford to subsidize a small group of ranchers to graze public lands at public expense," said Mark Salvo, director of the Sagebrush Sea Campaign for WildEarth Guardians.

Although the Administrative Procedures Act requires the government to respond to rulemaking petitions, the Departments of Interior and Agriculture have not responded to plaintiff's 2005 petition. Today's lawsuit seeks that response.

"Our public lands are worth far more than cheap forage for private livestock operations," said Great Anderson, Arizona director of the Western Watersheds Project. "The agencies should take this opportunity to set an appropriate value for livestock use of these lands, which provide habitat for plants and animals, clean our air and water, and provide recreational opportunities for millions of Americans."

The conservation organizations are represented by attorney Marc Fink of the Center for Biological Diversity and attorney Matt Kenna of Durango, Colorado.

To see a copy of today's complaint, click here. To see a copy of the Center's report on assessing the full cost of public-lands livestock grazing click here.

Background

Livestock grazing is one of the most ubiquitous and destructive uses of public land. It is also a contributing factor to the imperilment of numerous threatened and endangered species. Those species include the desert tortoise, Mexican spotted owl, southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell's vireo, Mexican gray wolf, Oregon spotted frog, Chiricahua leopard frog, and dozens of other species of imperiled mammals, fish, amphibians, and spring snails that occur on western public land. Public lands livestock grazing is also a primary factor contributing to unnaturally severe western wildfires, watershed degradation, soil loss, and the spread of invasive plants - as well as annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to that of 705,342 passenger vehicles.

Grazing fees apply to livestock grazing across 258 million acres of western public land administered by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management - 81 percent of the land administered by the two agencies in the 11 western states. There are approximately 23,600 public-lands ranchers, representing about 6 percent of all livestock producers west of the Mississippi River.

The low federal grazing fee contributes to the adverse impacts caused by livestock grazing on public lands for two primary reasons: (1) the below-fair-market-value fee encourages annual grazing on even the most marginal lands and allows for increased grazing on other areas; and (2) since a percentage of the funds collected is required to be used on range mitigation and restoration, the low fee equates to less funds for environmental mitigation and restoration of the impacted lands.

A 2005 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service grazing receipts fail to recover even 15 percent of administrative costs and are much lower than fees charged by the other federal agencies, states, and private ranchers. The U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the Bureau and Forest Service grazing fee decreased by 40 percent from 1980 to 2004, while grazing fees charged by private ranchers increased by 78 percent for the same period. To recover expenditures, the Bureau and Forest Service would have had to charge $7.64 and $12.26 per animal unit month, respectively.
###

CONTACT: Environmental Justice Groups
Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (928) 310-6713
Greta Anderson, Western Watersheds Project, (520) 623-1878
Mark Salvo, WildEarth Guardians, (503) 757-4221

PEASANT FARMERS IN HAITI GET IT...WHY WON'T THE RICHEST NATIONS STAND UP FOR FOOD SOVEREIGNTY??

Published on Thursday, June 10, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
'So That Everyone Can Eat, Produce It Here': Food Sovereignty and Land Reform in Haiti

by Beverly Bell

Doudou Pierre is on the coordinating committee of the National Haitian Network for Food Sovereignty and Food Security (RENHASSA). He is also a member of the International Coordinating Committee for Food Sovereignty, organized by Vía Campesina, the worldwide coalition of small farmer organizations. In addition, he is a member of the National Peasant Movement of the Papay Congress and the Peasant Movement for Acul du Nord. This week he will be heading North to the U.S. Social Forum in Detroit.

In the June 4, 2010, article, "Groups Around the U.S. Join Haitian Farmers In Protesting ‘Donation' of Monsanto Seeds," Doudou commented on the damage that Monsanto and other agricultural corporations could wreak on Haitian agriculture. Here, he speaks about how government investment in small farmers and in food sovereignty could impact Haiti's future.

We're putting together a national network, RENHASSA, to show what our alternatives are today. The whole peasant sector is coming together to tell everyone about the policies we want. Our mission is to advocate for Haiti to be sovereign with its food and to promote national production.

We're mobilizing politically for the policies we want. We publish articles and do community radio programs about our positions. We're also doing media campaigns and having meetings to educate people about growing for local and family consumption as much as possible, instead of buying food from other countries. People are starting to recognize and change their habits to just buy local goods.

Now, what must be done: the state must exercise its responsibility toward its people. When we talk about reconstructing Haiti, we can't just talk about houses. It's got to be a whole plan. We have to talk about reconstructing land, about total reforestation.

First, we have to decentralize the Republic of Port-au-Prince, which got created during the U.S. occupation of 1915 to 1934. Services now exist only in the capital. People died during the earthquake for an identity card or a copy of a transcript, because they had to come to Port-au-Prince to get them. Services must be in all departments [akin to states]. All the people who are in the countryside have to have the resources to stay there.

Second, and this is the essential element, is the relaunching of agriculture in this country. We were almost self-sufficient until the 1980s. We have to fight and pressure the state, so it prioritizes agriculture. Otherwise, we'll always have to depend on multinationals and non-governmental organizations for our food. The government has to take responsibility for that.

We're not in favor just of food security, which is a neoliberal idea. With food security, as long as you eat, it's good. But, we only produce 43% of our food; 57% is imported. We need food sovereignty, which means that so that everyone can eat, we produce it here at home. We could produce here at least 80% of what we eat.

You can't speak of food sovereignty without speaking of ecological, family agriculture. We need that and indigenous seeds. We need for peasants to have their own land.

We have threats from multinationals, mainly to grow jatropha [whose seeds produce oil which can be used for biofuel]. The Jatropha Foundation is lobbying hard to start growing. Jatropha puts us at risk, because we don't have enough land to be able to divert some toward biofuel. Haiti is only 27,760 square kilometers. Their plan would have us produce even less food and would force peasants to be expropriated. Plus, they'd be using a lot of water, which could create an ecological disaster. It's a death plan against the peasants.

We're mobilizing people against growing biofuel. Last October, when the government was considering giving contracts to grow jatropha, we held a big march and sit-in; we gave a petition to parliament. We said, "No, Haiti's land is for growing food." We met with the minister of agriculture and the World Food Program.

We're also mobilizing against GMO seeds, and we've just declared war against Monsanto. This battle has just begun.

Besides food sovereignty, our other main priority is integrated land reform. We can't talk about food sovereignty, if people don't have land. They have to have land to be able to market; that's the only way we can get away from food aid. Our plan is to take the land from the big landowners and give it to the peasants to work. And the food has to be organic, without any chemical fertilizers which destroy the land. We don't use anything [unnatural in our cultivation process].

Now, even if people have a little handkerchief of land, they don't have the technical support to let them plant. The state has to give us credit and technical support and help us store and manage water. Préval said he was doing agrarian reform in his first term. We called it agrarian demagoguery. He just gave out a few parcels, divided into very small plots, to his political clientele and political party, even to people who weren't in Haiti. And, his government didn't offer any technical support.

That's not what we need. The agrarian reform we want is for those who work the land to have the right to that land, with all its infrastructure.

The cultural reality of Haiti is that peasants each want their own little piece of land to produce their own food. But, there has to be cooperative land. Peasant organizations can create collectives to produce food for export and make money, but for that there has to be integrated land reform with technical support, credit, water, everything. We must have government support.

Right now, the government doesn't even exist for us. It's saying to the international community, "Here's our country. Come take it." They've given away the whole country, and now we have [U.N. Special Envoy Bill] Clinton, who is a tool of the big multinationals. So, on top of all our other fights, we have to fight to change the state.

Beverly Bell has worked with Haitian social movements for over 30 years. She is also author of the book Walking on Fire: Haitian Women's Stories of Survival and Resistance. She coordinates Other Worlds, www.otherworldsarepossible.org, which promotes social and economic alternatives. She is also associate fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/10-8