The Zimbabwe government has seized the farm of late former white minority leader Ian Smith, listing it "for compulsory acquisition for resettlement."
Owen Jarman, manager at the cattle ranch Gwenoro in the central Zimbabwean district of Shurugwi said he was winding up affairs at the farm after being told by government officials in late September that it had been "listed for compulsory acquisition for resettlement."
Smith was prime minister of Rhodesia, as it was formerly known, from 1964 until 1978, defying international condemnation over his refusal to relinquish white rule.
A five-year guerilla war led by black nationalists ended in 1979 with a settlement which allowed Robert Mugabe to win elections. He has remained in power since.
In 2000, Mugabe launched a campaign to seize white-owned land and redistribute it to black farmers. While most white farmers lost almost everything they owned, the main section of Smith's farm had remained untouched.
"We understand that the farm was left alone out of (Mugabe's) respect for Mr Smith," said Jarman. "We have farmed here without interruption since 2000. But there seems to have been a change of heart and they have now decided to take it."
It was being handed to a local technical college, he said. No compensation is to be paid.
Smith bought the farm in 1948, lived on it throughout the pre-independence guerilla war but finally left in 2005 to go to South Africa as he became infirm with age. He died there in 2007 aged 88, the same age as Mugabe is now. His ashes were scattered at Gwenoro.
Jarman has been running the farm for Smith's step children since his death. "It'll take me perhaps the next couple of months to clear out," he said. "They are giving us time. They don't seem to be in a huge hurry to get us off."
The World Bank and other major international financial institutions have accused Mugabe of destroying what was once regarded as "the breadbasket of Africa" with the land seizures.
They say it led to the collapse of the rest of the economy in 2008. The World Food Programme says Zimbabwe is facing one of its worst "hunger periods" this year, with 1.7-million people facing starvation.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Showing posts with label FOOD SECURITY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FOOD SECURITY. Show all posts
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Land redistribution proposals to be implemented
Proposals for the redistribution of land found in the government's land reform green paper would come into effect as early as March next year.
"All these new land reform policies will come into effect during the first quarter of the year next year", Rural Development and Land Reform Minister Gugile Nkwinti said.
He was speaking to the Transformation of Certain Rural Areas Act and the Rural Areas Act (Trancaa) consultative workshop in Cape Town.
The new policies included a four-tier land tenure system, which accounted for leased land to farmers, land redistribution, foreign ownership of land and the implementation of a democratic communal land system.
Nkwinti said cabinet had approved the proposal to establish the office of the valuer-general, which would control land prices involving government land purchases for public interest.
He emphasised that the willing-buyer-willing-seller principle would continue for individual citizens who would be selling land to each other.
A land rights management board along with its district committees would also be set up next year to protect farm workers against unfair evictions.
The land management commission would be responsible for all registration of private and public land. – Sapa.
Source: Mail & Guardian
"All these new land reform policies will come into effect during the first quarter of the year next year", Rural Development and Land Reform Minister Gugile Nkwinti said.
He was speaking to the Transformation of Certain Rural Areas Act and the Rural Areas Act (Trancaa) consultative workshop in Cape Town.
The new policies included a four-tier land tenure system, which accounted for leased land to farmers, land redistribution, foreign ownership of land and the implementation of a democratic communal land system.
Nkwinti said cabinet had approved the proposal to establish the office of the valuer-general, which would control land prices involving government land purchases for public interest.
He emphasised that the willing-buyer-willing-seller principle would continue for individual citizens who would be selling land to each other.
A land rights management board along with its district committees would also be set up next year to protect farm workers against unfair evictions.
The land management commission would be responsible for all registration of private and public land. – Sapa.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Africa: The Landgrabbers - the New Fight Over Who Owns the Earth
In his recent book, Fred Pearce examines the dynamics behind large-scale land acquisitions and their social, environmental and developmental effects.
"Buy land. They are not making it anymore."
This statement uttered more than one hundred years ago by Mark Twain still holds a sad and powerful truth and makes a telling start for Fred Pearce's account in The Landgrabbers: The New Fight Over Who Owns the Earth about the struggle over the Earth's most precious resources: land and water.
In the book, the reader is taken on a whirlwind tour around the globe to witness, through Pearce's eyes, a new kind of colonialism driven not by countries, but by powerful private capitalists.
We encounter figures such as George Soros and Richard Branson; we learn about the effects of the conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Liberia; we find out why President Robert Mugabe's land seizures in Zimbabwe were not so bad after all for small-scale farmers; and we see how the global financial crisis and the intricate mechanisms of stock market speculations in commodities exacerbate the problem.
Pearce's passion and outrage about the selling off of communal resources shines through the book.
Each chapter is dedicated to a certain country, where protagonists change, yet the storyline stays the same: governments around the globe grant large concessions to wily investors in the hope of advancing their economies but displace and disadvantage large parts of their own population in the process.
As Mike Ogg, an agriculture specialist from Swaziland, told Think Africa Press: "I fundamentally believe that agriculture can lead development in Africa. The quandary is: How do you create a win-win situation where investors and the community benefit?"
Pearce's dystopia
Pearce presents a bleak picture of increasingly prevalent 'land grabs' by corporations for agriculture or resource exploitation as well as by well-meaning environmentalists for so-called "green grabs".
This is, Pearce argues, encircling the last remaining habitats of indigenous peoples and the landless poor, destroying their past and forever altering their future.
Pearce mixes this narrative with historical references to imperialism and colonialism giving the impression of a continuous cycle of exploitation. But his greatest achievement in the book is to give those exploited a voice.
He recounts their stories in numerous interviews, as well as talking to those involved in the land acquisitions and a variety of experts.
Pearce concludes that the bulk of the blame rests with foreign buyers though it is crucial to recognise that most deals are also pursued by respective governments which may give out large land concessions, tax breaks and other incentives to draw foreign capital into their country in the first place. And politicians are not only accomplices, but often also carve out deals in return for money or land for themselves.
This is enabled by an environment in which laws are either non-existent or easily circumvented. As Graziano da Silva, director-general of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation, notes: "It appears to be like the Wild West and we need a sheriff and law in place."
Proposing solutions
Although Pearce does not go so far as to propose possible solutions, there is a range of opinion and ideas as to how to begin to tackle the problem.
Olivier De Schutter, UN special rapporteur on the right to food, has suggested that when national governments are unable or unwilling to devise regulations, the international community should step in to monitor whether the rights of land users are being respected. Oxfam's recent report 'Our Land, Our Lives' highlights the pivotal role of the World Bank as an advisor to governments in reforming their laws.
But this is easier said than done. As a representative from USAID in Dar es Salaam admitted to Think Africa Press, "Land tenure, we know, is at the heart of many problems as it is difficult for poor people to feed themselves with limited and insecure access to land, but we are not touching this subject, because it's too contentious and complicated".
Another way the negative impacts of large-scale land acquisitions could be mitigated is through emerging sustainability standards.
The World Bank and its private sector funding arm, the International Finance Corporation, have strict regulations regarding social and environmental sustainability. These include standards on development-induced displacement and there are growing calls for wider implementation of such regulations.
An example of a private sector-driven initiative is Bonsucro, a certification scheme which aims to ensure companies involved in the production of sugar and ethanol from sugarcane meet environmental, social and business standards.
With consumers believed to be increasingly concerned about the impacts of the goods they buy, the Bonsucro certification is meant to reassure buyers that companies are acting in sustainable ways and taking account of human rights and pollution control.
Moving forwards
Pearce acknowledges these developments in his last chapter where he analyses some of the attempts at solutions though he does not put forward his own. Nevertheless, Pearce's book is a worthwhile read. His writing style is highly engaging and reveals the duplicity of investors and interest groups.
He not only presents complicated and contentious issues such as the correlation of Wall Street speculations and rising food prices in an accessible manner, but also masterfully interweaves stories and issues across countries and continents achieving a well-researched, logical and informative account.
Although Pearce's focus lies on the problems at hand rather than solutions, the book certainly contributes to a growing awareness about the issues and will hopefully inspire others to find suitable ways to move forwards.
Katharina Neureiter holds an MSc in History of International Relations from the London School of Economics specialising in African colonial history and war cultures. She is currently working as a consultant in East Africa and blogs at hearabout.wordpress.com.
Source: All Africa
"Buy land. They are not making it anymore."
This statement uttered more than one hundred years ago by Mark Twain still holds a sad and powerful truth and makes a telling start for Fred Pearce's account in The Landgrabbers: The New Fight Over Who Owns the Earth about the struggle over the Earth's most precious resources: land and water.
In the book, the reader is taken on a whirlwind tour around the globe to witness, through Pearce's eyes, a new kind of colonialism driven not by countries, but by powerful private capitalists.
We encounter figures such as George Soros and Richard Branson; we learn about the effects of the conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Liberia; we find out why President Robert Mugabe's land seizures in Zimbabwe were not so bad after all for small-scale farmers; and we see how the global financial crisis and the intricate mechanisms of stock market speculations in commodities exacerbate the problem.
Pearce's passion and outrage about the selling off of communal resources shines through the book.
Each chapter is dedicated to a certain country, where protagonists change, yet the storyline stays the same: governments around the globe grant large concessions to wily investors in the hope of advancing their economies but displace and disadvantage large parts of their own population in the process.
As Mike Ogg, an agriculture specialist from Swaziland, told Think Africa Press: "I fundamentally believe that agriculture can lead development in Africa. The quandary is: How do you create a win-win situation where investors and the community benefit?"
Pearce's dystopia
Pearce presents a bleak picture of increasingly prevalent 'land grabs' by corporations for agriculture or resource exploitation as well as by well-meaning environmentalists for so-called "green grabs".
This is, Pearce argues, encircling the last remaining habitats of indigenous peoples and the landless poor, destroying their past and forever altering their future.
Pearce mixes this narrative with historical references to imperialism and colonialism giving the impression of a continuous cycle of exploitation. But his greatest achievement in the book is to give those exploited a voice.
He recounts their stories in numerous interviews, as well as talking to those involved in the land acquisitions and a variety of experts.
Pearce concludes that the bulk of the blame rests with foreign buyers though it is crucial to recognise that most deals are also pursued by respective governments which may give out large land concessions, tax breaks and other incentives to draw foreign capital into their country in the first place. And politicians are not only accomplices, but often also carve out deals in return for money or land for themselves.
This is enabled by an environment in which laws are either non-existent or easily circumvented. As Graziano da Silva, director-general of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation, notes: "It appears to be like the Wild West and we need a sheriff and law in place."
Proposing solutions
Although Pearce does not go so far as to propose possible solutions, there is a range of opinion and ideas as to how to begin to tackle the problem.
Olivier De Schutter, UN special rapporteur on the right to food, has suggested that when national governments are unable or unwilling to devise regulations, the international community should step in to monitor whether the rights of land users are being respected. Oxfam's recent report 'Our Land, Our Lives' highlights the pivotal role of the World Bank as an advisor to governments in reforming their laws.
But this is easier said than done. As a representative from USAID in Dar es Salaam admitted to Think Africa Press, "Land tenure, we know, is at the heart of many problems as it is difficult for poor people to feed themselves with limited and insecure access to land, but we are not touching this subject, because it's too contentious and complicated".
Another way the negative impacts of large-scale land acquisitions could be mitigated is through emerging sustainability standards.
The World Bank and its private sector funding arm, the International Finance Corporation, have strict regulations regarding social and environmental sustainability. These include standards on development-induced displacement and there are growing calls for wider implementation of such regulations.
An example of a private sector-driven initiative is Bonsucro, a certification scheme which aims to ensure companies involved in the production of sugar and ethanol from sugarcane meet environmental, social and business standards.
With consumers believed to be increasingly concerned about the impacts of the goods they buy, the Bonsucro certification is meant to reassure buyers that companies are acting in sustainable ways and taking account of human rights and pollution control.
Moving forwards
Pearce acknowledges these developments in his last chapter where he analyses some of the attempts at solutions though he does not put forward his own. Nevertheless, Pearce's book is a worthwhile read. His writing style is highly engaging and reveals the duplicity of investors and interest groups.
He not only presents complicated and contentious issues such as the correlation of Wall Street speculations and rising food prices in an accessible manner, but also masterfully interweaves stories and issues across countries and continents achieving a well-researched, logical and informative account.
Although Pearce's focus lies on the problems at hand rather than solutions, the book certainly contributes to a growing awareness about the issues and will hopefully inspire others to find suitable ways to move forwards.
Katharina Neureiter holds an MSc in History of International Relations from the London School of Economics specialising in African colonial history and war cultures. She is currently working as a consultant in East Africa and blogs at hearabout.wordpress.com.
Source: All Africa
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Land Reform in South Africa: An Unfulfilled Obligation
The question of land and agricultural reform in South Africa remains largely unresolved as we head towards the end of our second decade of democracy. It is remarkable that a democratically elected government, enjoying such an overwhelming parliamentary majority and popular support, has failed so spectacularly, in such an important area of governance, for so long.
It is equally remarkable that the government is still, this late in the day, touting concepts as vague as the five-step programme on land reform recently outlined by President Zuma. Something certainly has to be said about this hot button issue. What with leadership under review, even vapid brainstorms may be interpreted as leadership!
The fact is that land reform, tenure and security has not yet been tackled sufficiently robustly by the democratic government. The early iterations of the land reform process bumbled along with good intentions but with little impact.
The new post 1994 political leadership appeared unable or unwilling to grasp obvious solutions like tapping into the vast collection of state owned land as a starting point. A major roadblock was that the dysfunctional Department of Public Works was unable to quantify state land ownership. This problem remains unresolved. A separate national audit of all private land ownership, meant to be completed in 2010 also awaits completion. No wonder land reform remains so fraught.
We are now in the anomalous position of decreasing numbers of white commercial farmers owning increasingly large farms. This has occurred through the government continuing to support an industrial farming model dependent on high input, energy intensive farming using genetically modified seed. This is the antithesis of farming practice required for land and agrarian reform. Land reform and agricultural practices are inextricably connected if transformation is to succeed.
A global consensus has emerged amongst ideologically disparate organisations like the World Bank, the UN Global Environment Facility and various other UN bodies that diversified, smallholder led, sustainable farming practices are required to feed a growing global population in the face of climatic and economic uncertainty.
The failure to achieve land and agricultural reform has negatively impacted food security. National levels of mal- and under nutrition remain a disgrace in a food exporting nation like South Africa. Land reform, food security, market reform and access to a balanced diet are each distinct aspects of the same problem, none of which have been adequately addressed, let alone resolved.
While the government has made the right noises about land reform during the previous 18 years, little more has been achieved than placating investors while alienating the political support base. The land reform programme started by the 1994 Restitution of Land Rights Act has largely failed key constituencies such as women and marginalised communities who voted the ANC into power.
A green paper on land reform took six years to compile. When it was released in 2011, it said nothing new and was arguably counter-productive. Rural Development and Land Reform Minister Gugile Nkwinti has attempted to fix a broken system but clearly lacks an over-arching vision. There is little work being done on the Land Tenure Security Bill. The Communal Land Resources Act of 2004 was declared unconstitutional in 2010, in a judgement, which turned on technical details yet left the substantiative problems related to communal land ownership unaddressed.
The Extension of Security of Tenure Act, meant to protect vulnerable farm workers and dwellers, has not been adequately enforced. So land tenure and security, both within traditional structures and on conventional farms, remain unresolved.
Agricultural extension and support programmes such as the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP), Micro Agricultural Financial Institutions of South Africa (MAFISA) and the Land Care Foundation have been criticised by both parliamentary committees and by farmers. The present Minister of Agriculture is clearly out of her depth and would not be there except for her obsequious support for the President. Previous Ministers have fared little better.
Neither have supposedly neutral arbiters been much help. Recent proclamations by the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) assumed a particularly tactless stance by claiming “populist” calls for land reform, particularly for agricultural land, were misplaced. The IRR opined that these calls were unrealistic, suggesting that people rather aspired toward middle class, urban lifestyles than toward a return to unglamorous, agrarian roots. While increased urbanisation and the middle class dream may be relevant, this is only one facet of a complex land debate.
Despite a promise to transfer 30% of agricultural land by 2014, only 8% has been transferred to date. Even this is problematic as extension services to newly settled farmers are inadequate and failure rates of new land claimants are high. State extension services can cost more than R40 000 per visit. Smallholder farmers are seldom assisted and extension quality is rated below par.
On the other hand NGO’s and private entities are providing extension services at a fraction of this cost. In KwaZulu Natal a full time extension officer provides support at less than R40 000, to extended communities, per month. There are clearly ways to fix the problems of agrarian reform, more efficiently, flexibly and productively than is presently being done.
Land reform is an undeniably political process. Yet the piecemeal, fragmented and un-coordinated solutions of land and agricultural reform have signally failed to achieve the desired results. The recently released New Growth Plan recognises the importance of the agricultural economy, yet its proposals echo the ASGISA programme, which failed to achieve any significant progress. It is fine and well for the New Growth Plan to propose creation of a million farming jobs by 2030 but how realistic is this given prior delivery experience?
The string of examples cited highlight an overriding reality: That we have attempted to fix a broken system of land and agricultural reform without a suitable overarching vision or template. We have never achieved anything approaching a national consensus on how we should achieve what is clearly urgently required.
It seems obvious that a national summit on land reform should be held. Practical and academic studies and models must be presented, discussed, and a focussed, overarching policy hammered out. The CODESA template would provide a suitable way forward. It may be an expensive exercise but the alternative is to continue to waste billions of Rands, attempting to fix a broken system with broken tools. Some degree of constitutional and legal reform may be required to solve land and agrarian issues, but broad consensus must be gained and then acted upon.
The reality is that the world is rapidly changing. South African agricultural policy has failed to reflect this. Industrial agriculture remains the dominant voice, echoing the past but devoid of a suitable vision for the future. While the old agricultural extension model may have worked in the past, it is increasingly irrelevant.
Extension to large commercial farmers is provided by seed and chemical companies while small and emerging farmers are left in the cold by extension officers incapable of helping them because of poor foundations - agricultural colleges perpetuate outdated practices. Small and emerging farmers need constant, innovative and hands on assistance, not a visit every year or two by extension officers trained in irrelevant methodology.
There are numerous experts with excellent proposals to achieve the required changes. The Programme for Land and Agrarian Reform (PLAAS) at the University of the Western Cape has studied many of these and proposed numerous solutions to various aspects of these systemic problems. The Sustainability Institute at the University of Stellenbosch has implemented several courses examining food production systems at Masters and higher levels.
There are numerous small scale NGO-run schemes, which can be scaled up, just as there are indeed some successful programmes initiated by the government, which can be replicated. Equally, we can learn as much from our failures as from our successes. We should also take some lessons from land reform programmes in South America and elsewhere in Africa.
A broad body of relevant international experience exists, including agricultural programmes devised to withstand the impacts of climate change and water constraints. These are particularly suited to smallholder and emerging farmers. The UN FAO runs regular international dialogues on food security from which our policy makers are notably absent. Most of our systemic shortcomings can be addressed.
We also need to reduce staff turnover with every change of political administration, especially in portfolios like agriculture where institutional memory is so important.
The solutions for land reform are certainly more complex than those related to agricultural solutions, because of the political baggage. However land reform can never succeed if there is not an over-arching model to enable the productive use and resettlement of the land.
It is fruitless to hand over huge parcels of land to new, emerging farmers with inadequate capital resources and no means to leverage land for capital collateral. Most of the land presently being transferred to new owners is not even transferred, but leased, almost setting the system up for failure.
We urgently need to move away from the failed dialogue of the deaf between government and commercial farmers. We need wider expertise, broader buy-in and the involvement of grass roots farmers if this system is to succeed. All of the interests and experts in this field must co-operate to solve this problem for once and for all.
Or we can just muddle along, floating woolly concepts until the fuse for the powder keg is lit by circumstance or a Malema clone, placing expediency above the collective interest.
Source: by Glenn Ashton: SACSIS
It is equally remarkable that the government is still, this late in the day, touting concepts as vague as the five-step programme on land reform recently outlined by President Zuma. Something certainly has to be said about this hot button issue. What with leadership under review, even vapid brainstorms may be interpreted as leadership!
The fact is that land reform, tenure and security has not yet been tackled sufficiently robustly by the democratic government. The early iterations of the land reform process bumbled along with good intentions but with little impact.
The new post 1994 political leadership appeared unable or unwilling to grasp obvious solutions like tapping into the vast collection of state owned land as a starting point. A major roadblock was that the dysfunctional Department of Public Works was unable to quantify state land ownership. This problem remains unresolved. A separate national audit of all private land ownership, meant to be completed in 2010 also awaits completion. No wonder land reform remains so fraught.
We are now in the anomalous position of decreasing numbers of white commercial farmers owning increasingly large farms. This has occurred through the government continuing to support an industrial farming model dependent on high input, energy intensive farming using genetically modified seed. This is the antithesis of farming practice required for land and agrarian reform. Land reform and agricultural practices are inextricably connected if transformation is to succeed.
A global consensus has emerged amongst ideologically disparate organisations like the World Bank, the UN Global Environment Facility and various other UN bodies that diversified, smallholder led, sustainable farming practices are required to feed a growing global population in the face of climatic and economic uncertainty.
The failure to achieve land and agricultural reform has negatively impacted food security. National levels of mal- and under nutrition remain a disgrace in a food exporting nation like South Africa. Land reform, food security, market reform and access to a balanced diet are each distinct aspects of the same problem, none of which have been adequately addressed, let alone resolved.
While the government has made the right noises about land reform during the previous 18 years, little more has been achieved than placating investors while alienating the political support base. The land reform programme started by the 1994 Restitution of Land Rights Act has largely failed key constituencies such as women and marginalised communities who voted the ANC into power.
A green paper on land reform took six years to compile. When it was released in 2011, it said nothing new and was arguably counter-productive. Rural Development and Land Reform Minister Gugile Nkwinti has attempted to fix a broken system but clearly lacks an over-arching vision. There is little work being done on the Land Tenure Security Bill. The Communal Land Resources Act of 2004 was declared unconstitutional in 2010, in a judgement, which turned on technical details yet left the substantiative problems related to communal land ownership unaddressed.
The Extension of Security of Tenure Act, meant to protect vulnerable farm workers and dwellers, has not been adequately enforced. So land tenure and security, both within traditional structures and on conventional farms, remain unresolved.
Agricultural extension and support programmes such as the Comprehensive Agricultural Support Programme (CASP), Micro Agricultural Financial Institutions of South Africa (MAFISA) and the Land Care Foundation have been criticised by both parliamentary committees and by farmers. The present Minister of Agriculture is clearly out of her depth and would not be there except for her obsequious support for the President. Previous Ministers have fared little better.
Neither have supposedly neutral arbiters been much help. Recent proclamations by the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) assumed a particularly tactless stance by claiming “populist” calls for land reform, particularly for agricultural land, were misplaced. The IRR opined that these calls were unrealistic, suggesting that people rather aspired toward middle class, urban lifestyles than toward a return to unglamorous, agrarian roots. While increased urbanisation and the middle class dream may be relevant, this is only one facet of a complex land debate.
Despite a promise to transfer 30% of agricultural land by 2014, only 8% has been transferred to date. Even this is problematic as extension services to newly settled farmers are inadequate and failure rates of new land claimants are high. State extension services can cost more than R40 000 per visit. Smallholder farmers are seldom assisted and extension quality is rated below par.
On the other hand NGO’s and private entities are providing extension services at a fraction of this cost. In KwaZulu Natal a full time extension officer provides support at less than R40 000, to extended communities, per month. There are clearly ways to fix the problems of agrarian reform, more efficiently, flexibly and productively than is presently being done.
Land reform is an undeniably political process. Yet the piecemeal, fragmented and un-coordinated solutions of land and agricultural reform have signally failed to achieve the desired results. The recently released New Growth Plan recognises the importance of the agricultural economy, yet its proposals echo the ASGISA programme, which failed to achieve any significant progress. It is fine and well for the New Growth Plan to propose creation of a million farming jobs by 2030 but how realistic is this given prior delivery experience?
The string of examples cited highlight an overriding reality: That we have attempted to fix a broken system of land and agricultural reform without a suitable overarching vision or template. We have never achieved anything approaching a national consensus on how we should achieve what is clearly urgently required.
It seems obvious that a national summit on land reform should be held. Practical and academic studies and models must be presented, discussed, and a focussed, overarching policy hammered out. The CODESA template would provide a suitable way forward. It may be an expensive exercise but the alternative is to continue to waste billions of Rands, attempting to fix a broken system with broken tools. Some degree of constitutional and legal reform may be required to solve land and agrarian issues, but broad consensus must be gained and then acted upon.
The reality is that the world is rapidly changing. South African agricultural policy has failed to reflect this. Industrial agriculture remains the dominant voice, echoing the past but devoid of a suitable vision for the future. While the old agricultural extension model may have worked in the past, it is increasingly irrelevant.
Extension to large commercial farmers is provided by seed and chemical companies while small and emerging farmers are left in the cold by extension officers incapable of helping them because of poor foundations - agricultural colleges perpetuate outdated practices. Small and emerging farmers need constant, innovative and hands on assistance, not a visit every year or two by extension officers trained in irrelevant methodology.
There are numerous experts with excellent proposals to achieve the required changes. The Programme for Land and Agrarian Reform (PLAAS) at the University of the Western Cape has studied many of these and proposed numerous solutions to various aspects of these systemic problems. The Sustainability Institute at the University of Stellenbosch has implemented several courses examining food production systems at Masters and higher levels.
There are numerous small scale NGO-run schemes, which can be scaled up, just as there are indeed some successful programmes initiated by the government, which can be replicated. Equally, we can learn as much from our failures as from our successes. We should also take some lessons from land reform programmes in South America and elsewhere in Africa.
A broad body of relevant international experience exists, including agricultural programmes devised to withstand the impacts of climate change and water constraints. These are particularly suited to smallholder and emerging farmers. The UN FAO runs regular international dialogues on food security from which our policy makers are notably absent. Most of our systemic shortcomings can be addressed.
We also need to reduce staff turnover with every change of political administration, especially in portfolios like agriculture where institutional memory is so important.
The solutions for land reform are certainly more complex than those related to agricultural solutions, because of the political baggage. However land reform can never succeed if there is not an over-arching model to enable the productive use and resettlement of the land.
It is fruitless to hand over huge parcels of land to new, emerging farmers with inadequate capital resources and no means to leverage land for capital collateral. Most of the land presently being transferred to new owners is not even transferred, but leased, almost setting the system up for failure.
We urgently need to move away from the failed dialogue of the deaf between government and commercial farmers. We need wider expertise, broader buy-in and the involvement of grass roots farmers if this system is to succeed. All of the interests and experts in this field must co-operate to solve this problem for once and for all.
Or we can just muddle along, floating woolly concepts until the fuse for the powder keg is lit by circumstance or a Malema clone, placing expediency above the collective interest.
Source: by Glenn Ashton: SACSIS
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Barclays makes £500m betting on food crisis
Barclays has made as much as half a billion pounds in two years from speculating on food staples such as wheat and soya, prompting allegations that banks are profiting handsomely from the global food crisis. Barclays is the UK bank with the greatest involvement in food commodity trading and is one of the three biggest global players, along with the US banking giants Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, research from the World Development Movement points out. Last week the trading giant Glencore was attacked for describing the global food crisis and price rises as a "good" business opportunity.
The extent of Barclays' involvement in food speculation comes to light as new figures from the World Bank show that global food prices hit an all-time high in July, with poor harvests in the US and Russia pushing up the average worldwide cost of staples by an unprecedented 10 per cent in a month. The extent of just one bank's involvement in agricultural markets will add to concerns that food speculation could help push basic prices so high that they trigger a wave of riots in the world's poorest countries, as staples drift out of their populations' reach.
Nor has the UK escaped rising food costs. Shop food prices have risen, on average, by 37.9 per cent in the past seven years, according to the Office for National Statistics, as the demands of an increasingly affluent and growing world population strain supply. Oils and fats have soared by 63 per cent in the UK during that period, fish prices by 50.9 per cent, bread and cereals by 36.7 per cent, meat 34.5 per cent and vegetables 41.3 per cent. In April, average UK food prices were 4.2 per cent higher than a year earlier.
Oxfam's private sector adviser, Rob Nash, said: "The food market is becoming a playground for investors rather than a market place for farmers. The trend of big investors betting on food prices is transforming food into a financial asset while exacerbating the risk of price spikes that hit the poor hardest."
The World Development Movement report estimates that Barclays made as much as £529m from its "food speculative activities" in 2010 and 2011. Barclays made up to £340m from food speculation in 2010, as the prices of agricultural commodities such as corn, wheat and soya were rising. The following year, the bank made a smaller sum – of up to £189m – as prices fell, WDM said.
The revenues that Barclays and other banks make from trading in everything from wheat and corn to coffee and cocoa, are expected to increase this year, with prices once again on the rise. Corn prices have risen by 45 per cent since the start of June, with wheat jumping by 30 per cent.
Barclays makes most of its "food-speculation" revenues by setting up and managing commodity funds that invest money from pension funds, insurance companies and wealthy individuals in a variety of agricultural products in return for fees and commissions. The bank claims not to invest its own money in such commodities.
Since deregulation allowed the creation of such funds in 2000, institutions such as Barclays have collectively channelled an astonishing $200bn (£126bn) of investment cash into agricultural commodities, according to the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Barclays' dominance in commodities trading is thanks to its former chief executive Bob Diamond, who was Britain's best-paid banking boss until he was forced to resign last month following a £290m fine for attempting to manipulate the Libor interest rate. As boss of Barclays Capital he boosted trading in agricultural products.
Dealing with the reputational headache associated with high levels of food speculation will be yet another item in the already-bulging in-tray of Antony Jenkins, who was promoted to become Mr Diamond's replacement on Thursday.
Christine Haigh, policy and campaigns officer at the World Development Movement and one of the analysts behind the research, said: "No doubt the UK's biggest player in the commodities markets is hoping it will do better this year by cashing in on rising food prices. "Its behaviour risks fuelling a speculative bubble and contributing to hunger and poverty for millions of the world's poorest people."
Banks and hedge funds typically argue that speculation makes little or no difference to food prices and volatility and argue, correctly, that no definitive link has been proved. Barclays declined to comment on the amount of money it makes from trading in agricultural commodities yesterday.
The bank defended its actions, pointing out that trading in so-called futures contracts – an agreement to buy or sell a certain quantity of a product, at a given price on an agreed date – helped parties such as farmers and bakers to hedge against the risk of rising or falling prices. "Our clients include investment companies, food producers and consumers who, among other things, seek our help to manage risks."
Barclays also declined to comment on whether it thought large amounts of speculation pushed up prices and volatility. A spokesman said: "We recognise there is a perception held by some stakeholders that participation in agricultural futures markets by some participants can unduly influence the prices of commodities. As a result, we continue to carefully monitor market trends and any research produced on this subject," a spokesman said."
Barclays Capital analysts admitted in a note to clients in February that speculation did push up prices. Barclays said: "The second key driver is that commodity investors have begun allocating to commodities again after beginning 2012 heavily underexposed to the sector." The other drivers were the "health of the global economy" and "weather and geopolitics".
Source: The Independent
The extent of Barclays' involvement in food speculation comes to light as new figures from the World Bank show that global food prices hit an all-time high in July, with poor harvests in the US and Russia pushing up the average worldwide cost of staples by an unprecedented 10 per cent in a month. The extent of just one bank's involvement in agricultural markets will add to concerns that food speculation could help push basic prices so high that they trigger a wave of riots in the world's poorest countries, as staples drift out of their populations' reach.
Nor has the UK escaped rising food costs. Shop food prices have risen, on average, by 37.9 per cent in the past seven years, according to the Office for National Statistics, as the demands of an increasingly affluent and growing world population strain supply. Oils and fats have soared by 63 per cent in the UK during that period, fish prices by 50.9 per cent, bread and cereals by 36.7 per cent, meat 34.5 per cent and vegetables 41.3 per cent. In April, average UK food prices were 4.2 per cent higher than a year earlier.
Oxfam's private sector adviser, Rob Nash, said: "The food market is becoming a playground for investors rather than a market place for farmers. The trend of big investors betting on food prices is transforming food into a financial asset while exacerbating the risk of price spikes that hit the poor hardest."
The World Development Movement report estimates that Barclays made as much as £529m from its "food speculative activities" in 2010 and 2011. Barclays made up to £340m from food speculation in 2010, as the prices of agricultural commodities such as corn, wheat and soya were rising. The following year, the bank made a smaller sum – of up to £189m – as prices fell, WDM said.
The revenues that Barclays and other banks make from trading in everything from wheat and corn to coffee and cocoa, are expected to increase this year, with prices once again on the rise. Corn prices have risen by 45 per cent since the start of June, with wheat jumping by 30 per cent.
Barclays makes most of its "food-speculation" revenues by setting up and managing commodity funds that invest money from pension funds, insurance companies and wealthy individuals in a variety of agricultural products in return for fees and commissions. The bank claims not to invest its own money in such commodities.
Since deregulation allowed the creation of such funds in 2000, institutions such as Barclays have collectively channelled an astonishing $200bn (£126bn) of investment cash into agricultural commodities, according to the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Barclays' dominance in commodities trading is thanks to its former chief executive Bob Diamond, who was Britain's best-paid banking boss until he was forced to resign last month following a £290m fine for attempting to manipulate the Libor interest rate. As boss of Barclays Capital he boosted trading in agricultural products.
Dealing with the reputational headache associated with high levels of food speculation will be yet another item in the already-bulging in-tray of Antony Jenkins, who was promoted to become Mr Diamond's replacement on Thursday.
Christine Haigh, policy and campaigns officer at the World Development Movement and one of the analysts behind the research, said: "No doubt the UK's biggest player in the commodities markets is hoping it will do better this year by cashing in on rising food prices. "Its behaviour risks fuelling a speculative bubble and contributing to hunger and poverty for millions of the world's poorest people."
Banks and hedge funds typically argue that speculation makes little or no difference to food prices and volatility and argue, correctly, that no definitive link has been proved. Barclays declined to comment on the amount of money it makes from trading in agricultural commodities yesterday.
The bank defended its actions, pointing out that trading in so-called futures contracts – an agreement to buy or sell a certain quantity of a product, at a given price on an agreed date – helped parties such as farmers and bakers to hedge against the risk of rising or falling prices. "Our clients include investment companies, food producers and consumers who, among other things, seek our help to manage risks."
Barclays also declined to comment on whether it thought large amounts of speculation pushed up prices and volatility. A spokesman said: "We recognise there is a perception held by some stakeholders that participation in agricultural futures markets by some participants can unduly influence the prices of commodities. As a result, we continue to carefully monitor market trends and any research produced on this subject," a spokesman said."
Barclays Capital analysts admitted in a note to clients in February that speculation did push up prices. Barclays said: "The second key driver is that commodity investors have begun allocating to commodities again after beginning 2012 heavily underexposed to the sector." The other drivers were the "health of the global economy" and "weather and geopolitics".
Source: The Independent
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Spiking grain prices raise specter of global food crisis
Global food prices rose 6.2 percent in July, the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization reported Thursday. The FAO said it released its Food Price Index ahead of its regular publication schedule as a warning against the impact of such price rises.
The index, which calculates the cost of a basket of food commodities, overall averaged 213 points in July, up 12 points from June. In February 2011, the height of the Arab Spring, the overall index peaked at 238. The index has remained above the average 2008 level for more than a year and is now trending toward an all-time high.
Grain prices have driven the overall rise. The US corn crop is in a state of disaster, with more than half of all US acreage listed in poor or very poor condition due to a record-breaking drought. Under a parallel drought, Russia downgraded its wheat crop by several million tons on Wednesday.
The FAO cereal index averaged 260 points in July, up 17 percent over the month. Most of the increase is attributable to a 23 percent rise in corn prices over the month and a similar, 19 percent surge in wheat prices. The cereal index is only 14 points below the all-time high of 274 points in April 2008.
The FAO registered a 12 percent rise in sugar prices in July, triggered by unseasonably wet weather in Brazil, the world’s largest exporter of cane sugar. Oils rose 2 percent, primarily on tighter supply outlooks and record prices for soybeans.
Price indexes for meats and dairy remained relatively unchanged for the month, although the protracted drought in the US rangeland has distressed many ranchers, who will be compelled to liquidate their herds. The US Department of Agriculture projects US consumer price inflation for meat, poultry, and dairy in the next few months as a result. Internationally, the higher cost of animal feed will ripple through livestock producers. This process may sharply affect Asia, where demand for meat is growing, but nations have smaller domestic stockpiles.
International food organization Oxfam warned in response to the FAO report that “millions of the world’s poorest will face devastation” from the increases. “This is not some gentle monthly wake-up call—it’s the same global alarm that’s been screaming at us since 2008,” Oxfam spokesman Colin Roche stated. “These figures prove that the world’s food system cannot cope on crumbling foundations. The combination of rising prices and expected low reserves means the world is facing a double danger.”
One billion people suffer from hunger worldwide. Hundreds of millions more who live in poverty are vulnerable to food inflation because they spend half or more of their incomes on staple goods. Food price shocks in 2008—driven by a confluence of weather disasters, protectionist measures, and speculators jumping ship from the financial market into commodities—produced food protests across more than 30 countries.
“There is a potential for a situation to develop like we had back in 2007-08,” FAO economist and grain analyst Abdolreza Abbassian told Reuters Thursday. “There is an expectation that this time around we will not pursue bad policies and intervene in the market by restrictions, and if that doesn’t happen we will not see such a serious situation as 2007/08. But if those policies get repeated, anything is possible.”
While economists and aid organizations have issued progressively dire warnings over the consequences of another food crisis, the underlying factors—extreme weather, a disjointed food distribution system, the possibility of export bans, and above all, rampant speculation—are more exacerbated than ever.
Indeed, commodities investors have rallied on the raft of bad news, making price shocks inevitable. Traders on the Chicago Board of Trade, banking on the USDA to issue a dire outlook on Friday, sent corn prices soaring Thursday morning to $8.265 per bushel, two cents below the all-time record set in July.
Major banks and hedge funds in particular have played a role in the rally. As Bloomberg News noted, “crops are the best-performing commodities this year, and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Macquarie Group Ltd. and Credit Suisse Group AG say the trend will continue.”
One Chicago trader commented to Reuters that Goldman Sachs was leading the betting on a USDA corn yield downgrade and predicting $9 corn and $20 soybeans by November. “The Goldman roll started Tuesday, you have that going on and the report is tomorrow. Everyone is expecting the corn number to be pretty friendly.”
Jaime Miralles of investment firm Intl FC Stone Europe said that “a firm $9 corn sentiment remains as rationing is and will be required.” Other speculators anticipate $10 per bushel corn prices in the coming months.
“I think general price firmness is being seen in ahead of the USDA report because the market is increasingly realising how horrible conditions are for U.S. corn,” Rabobank analyst Erin FitzPatrick commented. “There is pre-positioning ahead of the report as people are expecting more cuts in US harvest forecasts. Despite recent rain in the US, a lot of the damage has already been done to corn.”
Farmers and agricultural economists estimate that corn yield in much of the Corn Belt will be far lower than the USDA’s already downgraded estimate of 146 bushels per acre. Some areas may yield 100 bushels per acre or less, knocking the national corn crop back to levels not seen in decades.
The US Drought Monitor reported that for the week ending August 7, fully 80 percent of the contiguous US is experiencing drought. “Every day we go without significant rain is tightening the noose,” said meteorologist Mark Svoboda, who authored the latest Monitor report. In Iowa, the largest corn producing state, the area suffering from extreme drought more than doubled in size. As of August 7, nearly 70 percent of the state was under the most severe category of drought. Over 81 percent of Illinois and fully 94 percent of Missouri is in “at least extreme drought.”
The USDA estimates that inventories of corn, wheat, soybeans, and rice will be reduced to 2008 levels next year. Wheat inventories are projected to contract 7.5 percent.
Wheat production in Russia, the fourth largest exporter, is set to fall by 20 percent this year. The Australian wheat crop, stunted by repeated frosts and poor weather, may yield 40 percent less than initial projections. India’s agricultural region suffered a monsoon season providing 22 percent less rainfall than average, resulting in a 7.8 million ton loss in the global rice crop. The FAO also reduced rice production forecasts for Cambodia, Taiwan, North and South Korea, and Nepal.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
The index, which calculates the cost of a basket of food commodities, overall averaged 213 points in July, up 12 points from June. In February 2011, the height of the Arab Spring, the overall index peaked at 238. The index has remained above the average 2008 level for more than a year and is now trending toward an all-time high.
Grain prices have driven the overall rise. The US corn crop is in a state of disaster, with more than half of all US acreage listed in poor or very poor condition due to a record-breaking drought. Under a parallel drought, Russia downgraded its wheat crop by several million tons on Wednesday.
The FAO cereal index averaged 260 points in July, up 17 percent over the month. Most of the increase is attributable to a 23 percent rise in corn prices over the month and a similar, 19 percent surge in wheat prices. The cereal index is only 14 points below the all-time high of 274 points in April 2008.
The FAO registered a 12 percent rise in sugar prices in July, triggered by unseasonably wet weather in Brazil, the world’s largest exporter of cane sugar. Oils rose 2 percent, primarily on tighter supply outlooks and record prices for soybeans.
Price indexes for meats and dairy remained relatively unchanged for the month, although the protracted drought in the US rangeland has distressed many ranchers, who will be compelled to liquidate their herds. The US Department of Agriculture projects US consumer price inflation for meat, poultry, and dairy in the next few months as a result. Internationally, the higher cost of animal feed will ripple through livestock producers. This process may sharply affect Asia, where demand for meat is growing, but nations have smaller domestic stockpiles.
International food organization Oxfam warned in response to the FAO report that “millions of the world’s poorest will face devastation” from the increases. “This is not some gentle monthly wake-up call—it’s the same global alarm that’s been screaming at us since 2008,” Oxfam spokesman Colin Roche stated. “These figures prove that the world’s food system cannot cope on crumbling foundations. The combination of rising prices and expected low reserves means the world is facing a double danger.”
One billion people suffer from hunger worldwide. Hundreds of millions more who live in poverty are vulnerable to food inflation because they spend half or more of their incomes on staple goods. Food price shocks in 2008—driven by a confluence of weather disasters, protectionist measures, and speculators jumping ship from the financial market into commodities—produced food protests across more than 30 countries.
“There is a potential for a situation to develop like we had back in 2007-08,” FAO economist and grain analyst Abdolreza Abbassian told Reuters Thursday. “There is an expectation that this time around we will not pursue bad policies and intervene in the market by restrictions, and if that doesn’t happen we will not see such a serious situation as 2007/08. But if those policies get repeated, anything is possible.”
While economists and aid organizations have issued progressively dire warnings over the consequences of another food crisis, the underlying factors—extreme weather, a disjointed food distribution system, the possibility of export bans, and above all, rampant speculation—are more exacerbated than ever.
Indeed, commodities investors have rallied on the raft of bad news, making price shocks inevitable. Traders on the Chicago Board of Trade, banking on the USDA to issue a dire outlook on Friday, sent corn prices soaring Thursday morning to $8.265 per bushel, two cents below the all-time record set in July.
Major banks and hedge funds in particular have played a role in the rally. As Bloomberg News noted, “crops are the best-performing commodities this year, and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Macquarie Group Ltd. and Credit Suisse Group AG say the trend will continue.”
One Chicago trader commented to Reuters that Goldman Sachs was leading the betting on a USDA corn yield downgrade and predicting $9 corn and $20 soybeans by November. “The Goldman roll started Tuesday, you have that going on and the report is tomorrow. Everyone is expecting the corn number to be pretty friendly.”
Jaime Miralles of investment firm Intl FC Stone Europe said that “a firm $9 corn sentiment remains as rationing is and will be required.” Other speculators anticipate $10 per bushel corn prices in the coming months.
“I think general price firmness is being seen in ahead of the USDA report because the market is increasingly realising how horrible conditions are for U.S. corn,” Rabobank analyst Erin FitzPatrick commented. “There is pre-positioning ahead of the report as people are expecting more cuts in US harvest forecasts. Despite recent rain in the US, a lot of the damage has already been done to corn.”
Farmers and agricultural economists estimate that corn yield in much of the Corn Belt will be far lower than the USDA’s already downgraded estimate of 146 bushels per acre. Some areas may yield 100 bushels per acre or less, knocking the national corn crop back to levels not seen in decades.
The US Drought Monitor reported that for the week ending August 7, fully 80 percent of the contiguous US is experiencing drought. “Every day we go without significant rain is tightening the noose,” said meteorologist Mark Svoboda, who authored the latest Monitor report. In Iowa, the largest corn producing state, the area suffering from extreme drought more than doubled in size. As of August 7, nearly 70 percent of the state was under the most severe category of drought. Over 81 percent of Illinois and fully 94 percent of Missouri is in “at least extreme drought.”
The USDA estimates that inventories of corn, wheat, soybeans, and rice will be reduced to 2008 levels next year. Wheat inventories are projected to contract 7.5 percent.
Wheat production in Russia, the fourth largest exporter, is set to fall by 20 percent this year. The Australian wheat crop, stunted by repeated frosts and poor weather, may yield 40 percent less than initial projections. India’s agricultural region suffered a monsoon season providing 22 percent less rainfall than average, resulting in a 7.8 million ton loss in the global rice crop. The FAO also reduced rice production forecasts for Cambodia, Taiwan, North and South Korea, and Nepal.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Monday, July 30, 2012
An African Perspective
The world financial crisis that hit the world in 2007 has now become a systemic global economic crisis that affects socially, economically and politically, all the countries and regions differently depending on their level of development and grade of insertion in the world economy.
Over the last decade Africa has gone through major breakthroughs in terms of economic growth, poverty reduction and access to basic social services, but in spite of that, 36.2% of the its population lives on less than one dollar per day. The current economic crisis has evidenced that this progress to date could be washed away and that much needs to be done to achieve the Millennium Development Goals in the region.
In their response to the economic crisis, African governments, along with international organizations, will have to address the challenges resulting from the current economic crisis in conjunction with finding solutions to other critical issues Africa has been severely hit by, e.g. poverty, food security, global warming, human rights and peace-building, whose management will be crucial in strengthening democratic values, good governance and human development.
In line with this, Members of the Club of Madrid, Members of the Africa Progress Panel and other prominent experts and decision-makers, gathered on November 3, 2009 in Accra, Ghana to discuss the political impact of the crisis from an African perspective and to formulate practical recommendations to the political institutions and policy-makers in charge of responding to the political challenges arising from the crisis, at a global, regional and national level. This report offers a summary of the key points and recommendations that were raised at the meeting as input to the Club of Madrid’s annual conference on the topic in November, 2009 in Madrid.
Source: Club de Madrid
Over the last decade Africa has gone through major breakthroughs in terms of economic growth, poverty reduction and access to basic social services, but in spite of that, 36.2% of the its population lives on less than one dollar per day. The current economic crisis has evidenced that this progress to date could be washed away and that much needs to be done to achieve the Millennium Development Goals in the region.
In their response to the economic crisis, African governments, along with international organizations, will have to address the challenges resulting from the current economic crisis in conjunction with finding solutions to other critical issues Africa has been severely hit by, e.g. poverty, food security, global warming, human rights and peace-building, whose management will be crucial in strengthening democratic values, good governance and human development.
In line with this, Members of the Club of Madrid, Members of the Africa Progress Panel and other prominent experts and decision-makers, gathered on November 3, 2009 in Accra, Ghana to discuss the political impact of the crisis from an African perspective and to formulate practical recommendations to the political institutions and policy-makers in charge of responding to the political challenges arising from the crisis, at a global, regional and national level. This report offers a summary of the key points and recommendations that were raised at the meeting as input to the Club of Madrid’s annual conference on the topic in November, 2009 in Madrid.
Source: Club de Madrid
Friday, April 9, 2010
ZIMBABWE: Food insecurity threatens rural villages
The villagers of Nkalanje, in Zimbabwe's arid Matabeleland South Province, use bells tied around the necks of their livestock to track animals that roam ever greater distances in search of sparse tufts of grass as a dry spell tightens its grip in the already food insecure country. Nicholas Ntepe, 40, told IRIN he often spent days away from home to find his livestock and bring them closer to home. "It is a tough life, because I have to divide my time between looking for my livestock and looking for food to feed my family." An assessment by at the beginning of April indicated that crops had failed in all seven districts of Matabeleland South, and an estimated 9,000 tons of maize would be required each month to mitigate the effects of the expected food shortages.
The governor of the province, Angeline Masuku, told IRIN: "We have not yet had distress calls, possibly because some people are still surviving on produce such as pumpkins, but we expect to stock up maize so that we are found ready when the food shortages become more pronounced." Masuku said although the province had received occasional drizzle, which had improved pastures, most of the crops were a write-off and sparse pastures posed a serious threat to villagers' livestock.
The province plans to introduce a scheme in which villagers undertake community improvement tasks, such as assisting clinics, schools and other public institutions, in return for food. A similar situation is unfolding in Midlands Province, where the harvest is projected to fail in most parts, with the districts of Mberengwa, Zvishavane, Shurugwi, Gweru and Mvuma hardest hit. About 2.4 million people received food assistance in the first quarter of 2010 and a recent UNICEF report noted that "approximately 78 percent of the population of Zimbabwe is absolutely poor, and 55 percent live below the food poverty line".
People living below the food poverty line cannot meet any of their basic needs and suffer chronic hunger. The report said an estimated 6.6 million people, including 3.5 million children, were suffering this extreme form of deprivation. A report by the Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWSNET) said although most households in rural areas had come through the peak hunger season, adverse agricultural conditions were affecting Masvingo, Matabeleland South and Manicaland provinces, among other areas. "It's another bad year for the province, as only three out of eight districts are likely to record meaningful harvests this year," Jason Machaya, governor of Midlands, told IRIN. "The tonnage is far less than what we require to feed all the families that have run out of food, and there is urgent need to source more maize."
Chief Ngungumbane, in Mberengwa district, Midlands, told IRIN: "People here have not harvested anything for the past two years. At the moment only one NGO [which he did not name] is assisting people under the food-for-work programme, but this is not enough because most families ran out of food last year." The people who were most vulnerable would slip through the net if they could not work. "Those living with HIV and AIDS, the aged and the disabled cannot benefit, yet they are the worst affected," Ngungumbane said.
Nyasha Zindove, the administrator of Zaka district in Masvingo Province, said there was urgent need for food relief. "We need food aid as of yesterday - at least 100,000 villagers are vulnerable."
Source: IRIN
The governor of the province, Angeline Masuku, told IRIN: "We have not yet had distress calls, possibly because some people are still surviving on produce such as pumpkins, but we expect to stock up maize so that we are found ready when the food shortages become more pronounced." Masuku said although the province had received occasional drizzle, which had improved pastures, most of the crops were a write-off and sparse pastures posed a serious threat to villagers' livestock.
The province plans to introduce a scheme in which villagers undertake community improvement tasks, such as assisting clinics, schools and other public institutions, in return for food. A similar situation is unfolding in Midlands Province, where the harvest is projected to fail in most parts, with the districts of Mberengwa, Zvishavane, Shurugwi, Gweru and Mvuma hardest hit. About 2.4 million people received food assistance in the first quarter of 2010 and a recent UNICEF report noted that "approximately 78 percent of the population of Zimbabwe is absolutely poor, and 55 percent live below the food poverty line".
People living below the food poverty line cannot meet any of their basic needs and suffer chronic hunger. The report said an estimated 6.6 million people, including 3.5 million children, were suffering this extreme form of deprivation. A report by the Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWSNET) said although most households in rural areas had come through the peak hunger season, adverse agricultural conditions were affecting Masvingo, Matabeleland South and Manicaland provinces, among other areas. "It's another bad year for the province, as only three out of eight districts are likely to record meaningful harvests this year," Jason Machaya, governor of Midlands, told IRIN. "The tonnage is far less than what we require to feed all the families that have run out of food, and there is urgent need to source more maize."
Chief Ngungumbane, in Mberengwa district, Midlands, told IRIN: "People here have not harvested anything for the past two years. At the moment only one NGO [which he did not name] is assisting people under the food-for-work programme, but this is not enough because most families ran out of food last year." The people who were most vulnerable would slip through the net if they could not work. "Those living with HIV and AIDS, the aged and the disabled cannot benefit, yet they are the worst affected," Ngungumbane said.
Nyasha Zindove, the administrator of Zaka district in Masvingo Province, said there was urgent need for food relief. "We need food aid as of yesterday - at least 100,000 villagers are vulnerable."
Source: IRIN
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Zuma eyes changes to land reform
President Jacob Zuma on Monday declared unequivocally that his government is planning to make "significant changes" to the willing-buyer, willing-seller method of land redistribution. Speaking in Limpopo, he said at the official launch of his government's comprehensive rural development policy: "We have recognised that in order to move forward decisively with the land-redistribution programme, significant changes will have to be made." He said that in order to move ahead with land reform, the government will have to "investigate less costly alternative ways of land acquisition, by engaging with all stakeholders within the sector". He added: "The general view is that the willing-buyer, willing seller-model does not work. We will be seeking a much more pragmatic formula to land redistribution. "It will be a formula that should address the issue as part of our country's ongoing effort at national reconciliation." And he warned: "It should not be seen as a super-profit-making business venture."
The president told his audience that a critical part of the rural development strategy, which was approved by the Cabinet last week, is to stimulate agricultural production with a view to contributing to food security, and he promised that the government will support the provision of agricultural implements and inputs to boost emerging farmers and households nationally. "We must also make agricultural loans accessible and ensure agricultural extension services of a high quality," he said. "Over the medium term, the aim is to bring about a measurable increase in agricultural output." He said that the Ilima/Letsema campaign -- which helps recultivate land that has been lying idle -- will be intensified to enhance household food security. Other farmland will be protected from encroachment by developers. "While we focus on encouraging communities to grow their own food, measures will also be put in place to ensure access by poor households to basic foods at affordable prices; and generally to improve the logistics of food distribution," he said. He also undertook to promote rural transport infrastructure and services.
"This will include non-motorised transport infrastructure, provision of rural transport passenger facilities and rural freight transport logistics," he said. "It pains us to see women carrying groceries walking long distances from the taxi drop-off point to their homes. Many rural school children also walk unimaginable distances to schools due to lack of proper roads and lack of transport."
Source: Mail & Guardian
The president told his audience that a critical part of the rural development strategy, which was approved by the Cabinet last week, is to stimulate agricultural production with a view to contributing to food security, and he promised that the government will support the provision of agricultural implements and inputs to boost emerging farmers and households nationally. "We must also make agricultural loans accessible and ensure agricultural extension services of a high quality," he said. "Over the medium term, the aim is to bring about a measurable increase in agricultural output." He said that the Ilima/Letsema campaign -- which helps recultivate land that has been lying idle -- will be intensified to enhance household food security. Other farmland will be protected from encroachment by developers. "While we focus on encouraging communities to grow their own food, measures will also be put in place to ensure access by poor households to basic foods at affordable prices; and generally to improve the logistics of food distribution," he said. He also undertook to promote rural transport infrastructure and services.
"This will include non-motorised transport infrastructure, provision of rural transport passenger facilities and rural freight transport logistics," he said. "It pains us to see women carrying groceries walking long distances from the taxi drop-off point to their homes. Many rural school children also walk unimaginable distances to schools due to lack of proper roads and lack of transport."
Source: Mail & Guardian
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Biggest US bank failure ever
The collapse of the Seattle-based firm, the sixth largest US bank and the largest savings and loan company in the country, was the biggest bank failure in American history.
With $307 billion in assets, $188 billion in deposits and more than 2,200 branches, Washington Mutual’s failure by far eclipsed the previous record bank collapse, that of Continental Illinois in 1984. The latter had $40 billion in assets at the time of its demise.
Source: World Socialist Web
With $307 billion in assets, $188 billion in deposits and more than 2,200 branches, Washington Mutual’s failure by far eclipsed the previous record bank collapse, that of Continental Illinois in 1984. The latter had $40 billion in assets at the time of its demise.
Source: World Socialist Web
Friday, July 25, 2008
How climate change threatens Africa's food security
Climate change has a profound and unavoidable effect on food security in Africa, as increasing temperatures and shifting rain patterns reduce access to food across the continent.
This transpired at a conference on global warming and climate change that started in Cape Town on July 21 and ended on Thursday. The discussion was organised by South Africa’s Fynbos Foundation, which aims to realise investment in the media, publishing, arts and culture sectors, and the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University in the United States.
The relationship between climate change and food security is complex. Many factors influence food security, which means that often "the link is not even made between failed crops and changing weather patterns", Dr Gina Ziervogel, senior researcher at the Climate Systems Analysis Group at the University of Cape Town, told the conference.
Source: Mail & Guardian
This transpired at a conference on global warming and climate change that started in Cape Town on July 21 and ended on Thursday. The discussion was organised by South Africa’s Fynbos Foundation, which aims to realise investment in the media, publishing, arts and culture sectors, and the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University in the United States.
The relationship between climate change and food security is complex. Many factors influence food security, which means that often "the link is not even made between failed crops and changing weather patterns", Dr Gina Ziervogel, senior researcher at the Climate Systems Analysis Group at the University of Cape Town, told the conference.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Sunday, July 22, 2001
The Genoa Declaration
A new partnership between Africa and the G8 countries got under way with the Genoa Declaration in 2001, with the aim of backing Africa's effort to address crucial issues for the continent's development. The impulse provided by the Italian presidency to building a strong and lasting link with the African continent was picked up and developed at every G8 Summit thereafter.
The 2001 G8 Summit highlighted the will to support a totally African development initiative (NEPAD) that put an end to the old methods of the past and paved the way for a new vision of the future. The Heads of State and Government leaders of the leading industrially advanced democracies meeting in Genoa responded with the Genoa Declaration, which basically subscribed to the priorities defined by the African representatives.
These are the salient points enshrined in the Declaration: a strategic approach to reducing poverty; debt relief, particularly through the Reinforced Initiative in favor of the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC), which is considered a valid contribution to the struggle against poverty, but also as a means of stimulating faster growth in the very poor countries; greater participation in the global trade system for developing countries; a boost to private investment in the continent; initiatives to promote health, education and food security and safety, such as: the establishment of a global fund to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis; the reliability of national health systems; food security and safety; the crucial nature of Official Development Assistance (ODA); the struggle against crime; the opportunities offered by digital technology (Task Force G8).
A decision was also reached at Genoa to formalize the post of Africa Personal Representative (APR) for the G8 countries' Heads of State and Government leaders, with each country appointing a ranking personality to the job.
The Africa personal representative's task is to liaise with the African countries on a permanent basis and, working in conjunction with the African leaders, to put together a G8 Africa Action Plan each year for submission to the following year's G8 Summit.
The representatives also recommend action to be taken in favour of Africa and they track the implementation of the Action Plan, keeping their respective heads of state and government leaders up to date on the progress being made.
Source: G8 Summit, Genoa, July 22 2001
The 2001 G8 Summit highlighted the will to support a totally African development initiative (NEPAD) that put an end to the old methods of the past and paved the way for a new vision of the future. The Heads of State and Government leaders of the leading industrially advanced democracies meeting in Genoa responded with the Genoa Declaration, which basically subscribed to the priorities defined by the African representatives.
These are the salient points enshrined in the Declaration: a strategic approach to reducing poverty; debt relief, particularly through the Reinforced Initiative in favor of the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC), which is considered a valid contribution to the struggle against poverty, but also as a means of stimulating faster growth in the very poor countries; greater participation in the global trade system for developing countries; a boost to private investment in the continent; initiatives to promote health, education and food security and safety, such as: the establishment of a global fund to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis; the reliability of national health systems; food security and safety; the crucial nature of Official Development Assistance (ODA); the struggle against crime; the opportunities offered by digital technology (Task Force G8).
A decision was also reached at Genoa to formalize the post of Africa Personal Representative (APR) for the G8 countries' Heads of State and Government leaders, with each country appointing a ranking personality to the job.
The Africa personal representative's task is to liaise with the African countries on a permanent basis and, working in conjunction with the African leaders, to put together a G8 Africa Action Plan each year for submission to the following year's G8 Summit.
The representatives also recommend action to be taken in favour of Africa and they track the implementation of the Action Plan, keeping their respective heads of state and government leaders up to date on the progress being made.
Source: G8 Summit, Genoa, July 22 2001
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)