2008년 10월 25일 UN 밀레니엄 개발목표(the Millennium Development Goals)에 참석한 세계 각국의 정상들에게 제63회 유엔총회 의장 미구엘 데스코토 부로크만(H. E. M. Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann)이 한 연설

“사람들에게 영양분을 공급한다는 식량의 본원적인 목적은 종자(씨앗)에서부터 대규모 유통망까지 식량 생산의 모든 과정을 독점하고 있는 한줌의 다국적 기업의 경제적 이익에 종식되는 처지에 놓이게 되었습니다. 이들 다국적 기업들은 세계적 위기의 최고의 수혜자들입니다. 전 세계적으로 식량위기가 시작된 2007년 통게를 보면, 곡물시장을 통제하고 있는 몬산토나 카길 같은 기업들은  이윤이 각각 45%와 60%나 증가했습니다. 카길의 자회사인 화학비료업계의 선두기업 모자이크(Mosaic Corporation)의 경우 한 해의 수익이 2배로 증가했습니다.

“14. The essential purpose of food, which is to nourish people , has been subordinated to the economic aims of a handful of multinational corporations that monopolize all aspects of food production, from seeds to major distribution chains, and they have been the prime beneficiaries of the world crisis. A look at the figures for 2007, when the world food crisis began, shows that corporations such as Monsanto and Cargill, which control the cereals market, saw their profits increase by 45 and 60 per cent, respectively; the leading chemical fertilizer companies such as Mosaic Corporation, a subsidiary of Cargill, doubled their profits in a single year.”


미구엘 데스코토 부로크만의 유엔총회 개막 연설문 전문은 다음과 같습니다.

============================

Opening remarks by H. E. M. Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann President of the General Assembly
at the High-level Event on the Millennium Development Goals 25 September 2008, United Nations, New York

SOURCE : UNITED NATIONS

NEW YORK, USA, September 26, 2008/African Press Organization (APO)/ — Opening remarks by H. E. M. Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann
President of the General Assembly

1. I would like to extend a warm welcome to this high-level event which the Secretary-General and I have convened. This event represents a very important opportunity for us to focus our collective efforts, in a spirit of unity and fraternal solidarity, on addressing one of the biggest and most crucial challenges of our time:theeradication of poverty and hunger.

2. In 1995, meeting in Copenhage n at the World Summit for Social Development, Heads of State and Government from all over the world solemnly undertook to end poverty and hunger in the world. They stated very clearly that for the first time in human history this goal had become possible, thanks to the resources, knowledge and technology available in the modern age. The Copenhage n commitments also viewed poverty eradication as a political necessity as well as an ethical and moral imperative, since a global system based upon enormous inequalities was unsustainable.

3. In September 2000, the the n 189 States Members of the United Nations , meeting in the United Nations General Assembly, adopted the Millennium Declaration, in which they pledged to “free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty ” by 2015. To that end, the eight Millennium Development Goals were subsequently formulated.

4. The Millennium Declaration calls for a coordinated, time bound strategy that tackles many problems simultaneously on various fronts. Among other commitments, we agreed to halve, by 2015, the proportion of people living in extreme poverty; but also to solve the problems of hunger, malnutrition and disease, promote gender equality and empower women, and guarantee basic education for all. The Declaration also proposes that wealthier countries should provide direct support to developing countries in the form of aid, trade, debt relief and investment.

5. A significant increase in international assistance for the world’s poorest countries is essential for global development. While all donor countries undertook in Monterrey to allocate 0.7 per cent of their gross domestic product to development cooperation, very few have lived up to this commitment. For every dollar that the developed countries spend on international assistance, they invest $10 in military budgets.

6. It is calculated that the amount spent so far on the Iraq war could have pa id for a full course of primary schooling for all of the world’s children and youth who are not in school. The price of a single missile is enough to build about 100 schools in any country in Africa, Asia or Latin America.

7. Furthermore, unfair trade practicesalso delay development, as poor countries are shut out of markets and deprived of trade opportunities. The high tariffs that rich countries impose on poor countries’ products amount to a “perverse tax” that deprives developing countries of funds for health care and education.

8. Thus far, the progress made towards the Millennium Development Goals has, with few exceptions, been limited. Many countries have fallen behind and are unlikely to achieve the Goals by the target date. It is therefore worthwhile for us to learn from those that have made significant progress and to help each other so that all of us can move forward.

9. It is clear that the world food crisis is increasing social tensions and bringing about a significant rise in extreme poverty. World hunger has its roots in the inequitable distribution of purchasing power both between and within countries. Thus, our efforts should focus primarily on reducing inequities in our global system of food production. My brothers and sisters,

10. We have the technical and productive capacity to do this. It is incumbent on this Assembly to garner the strong sense of solidarity that will awaken the necessary political will to turn this crisis into an opportunity to transform a world system that denies the poor a right as basic as the right to food.

11. The World Bank has concluded that 75 per cent of the increase in food prices stems from the production of biofuels and factors rela ted to rapidly growing demand for biofuels.

12. The developed countries’ lavish agricultural subsidies have weakened agriculture in developing countries. At the same time, only a fraction of international aid is earmarked for improving agricultural productivity. Aid for agriculture has shrunk from 17 per cent of total development assistance, the high point reached in 1996, to 3 per cent today. Now some international donors are demanding an end to fertilizer subsidies. Faced with today’s world food crisis we must speak out on behalf of our brothers and sisters and say “This is not right”. It is not just to keep in place agricultural and energy policies that give rise to these kinds of distortions. Now is the time to help the poorest countries to boost their food prod agricultural products at the prices imposed on them and have undermined the ir ability to compete by heavily subsidizing the production and export of these products. Together these factors have shaped a food production system that puts private economic interests ahead of people’s basic dietary needs.

13. Food shortages are a consequence of these misguided policies, which have forced poor countries to import

14. The essential purpose of food, which is to nourish people , has been subordinated to the economic aims of a handful of multinational corporations that monopolize all aspects of food production, from seeds to major distribution chains, and they have been the prime beneficiaries of the world crisis. A look at the figures for 2007, when the world food crisis began, shows that corporations such as Monsanto and Cargill, which control the cereals market, saw their profits increase by 45 and 60 per cent, respectively; the leading chemical fertilizer companies such as Mosaic Corporation, a subsidiary of Cargill, doubled their profits in a single year.

15. At the same time , in response to the financial crisis, major hedge funds have shifted millions of dollars into agricultural products. These funds control 60 per cent of the supply of wheat and other basic grains. Most of these crops are purchased as “futures”. In other words, speculators have been increasingly active in food-related financial markets.

Friends,

16. Eight years after we adopted the Millennium Declaration, global inequality remains exactly the same or has even deteriorated since 2000, and the planet is at serious risk of not meeting the basic needs of the poorest of the poor. If current trends continue, it will be difficult even to prevent a further widening of the gap between the MDG targets and the results achieved; between the have’s and the have not’s of our world.

17. Today, 3 billion 140 million people live on less than $2.50 a day. Of these, about 44 per cent survive on less than $1.25 a day, according to a new World Bank report issued on 2 September 2008. Every day, more than 30,000 people die of malnutrition, avoidable diseases and hunger. Some 85 per cent of them are children under the age of 5.

18. The top 10 per cent of the world’s people possess 84 per cent of the world’s wealth, while the rest are left with the remaining 16 per cent. Yet we have the technical and productive capacity to adequately feed the whole planet. It is a matter of reorienting our priorities. We must now muster the resolve to feed the world’s hungry.

19. Neoliberal economic restructuring worldwide has affected the supply and access to three of life’s basic necessities: food, water and fuel. In recent years, the prices of these three variables have risen at the global level, with devastating economic and social consequenc es. Today these three basic necessities are controlled by a small group of global corporations and financial institutions.

20. All of these processes put at risk are ability to reach our development targets related to health. The poor performance in reducing maternal mortality is a telling sign of the magnitude of the problem. The current rate of more than 500,000 pregnancy- and childbirth-related maternal deaths each year constitutes a disgrace for humanity. The Secretary-General and I will therefore join forces to strengthen global health through increased support for initiatives in this area.

21. Today the developed countries are feeling the effects of an acute credit crisis. However, the failures or, more accurately, the lack of a viable international economic system has plunged the developed countries of the West, and the world economy as a whole, into a severe crisis.

22. We must all ensure that the current crisis, which was caused in large part by a preference for protectionist policies or special interests at the expense of the common good, is not used as a pretext for failing to honour the commitments undertaken.

23. If we are to achieve the Millennium Goals, which remain modest, we must demonstrate the resolve and take the necessary steps to incorporate fully into this international endeavor our indigenous brothers and sisters as a yardstick for monitoring progress on the Millennium Goals. Their effective inclusion will require a redefinition of development goals to reflect the particular worldview s, perspectives and concepts of development of indigenous peoples. Each and all of us together have much to learn from our indigenous brothers and sisters about respect for and the care of our Mother Earth, water and nature, which are the source and the sustenance of life for all species.

Dear brothers and sisters,

24. This snapshot of the world that I have presented today has a direct impact on the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Only through deep reflection and clear, courageous political decisions will we be able to address the structural causes and achieve the Goals that we agreed upon in 2000. I invite you in the dialogues at each of the round tables today to share successful experiences so that all of us will be able to generate effective, sustainable changes that benefit the poorest of the poor.

25. There can be no denying of the fact that these global upheavals have increased the burden of the most vulnerable among us , those brothers and sisters who already bear the yoke of extreme poverty, the uncertainty and uprootedness caused by climate change, and who are the victims of the direct and collateral damage inflicted by wars of aggression or greed.

26. May it be most of all for the benefit of these brothers and sisters that we dedicate our best efforts today.

Thank you.

====================

[참고] Monsanto and the World Food Crisis

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_the_World_Food_Crisis

Monsanto, ever on the lookout for a new financial opportunity, especially one which, on the surface at least, appears to be benevolent found one in biofuels. The growing of corn, in Monsanto’s case, genetically engineered corn, for the production of ethanol purportedly to reduce the use of fossil fuels [1][2][3][4]. Unfortunately though, as is often the case with Monsanto, this silver lining has a rather large and ominous cloud, and in the massive diversion of land once used to grow food to growing crops for the fueling of automobiles yet another crisis has ensued.

The crisis was not unforseen. It was in fact, some would say, rather obvious. As far back as 2001 David Pimentel, Cornell professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, stated “Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning” [5]. In 2004 George Monbiot warned (and has been warning all along [6]) that “The adoption of biofuels would be a humanitarian and environmental disaster“. “Surely,” Monbiot continued, “if there was unmet demand for food, the market would ensure that crops were used to feed people rather than vehicles? There is no basis for this assumption. The market responds to money, not need. People who own cars have more money than people at risk of starvation. In a contest between their demand for fuel and poor people’s demand for food, the car-owners win every time” [7]. It’s no surprise, therefore, that is precisely what happened. And while the world pays more to eat due to the engineered shortage of land for food crops thus driving up prices, or not eat, Monsanto et al. have been making out like bandits.

“The World Bank says that 100 million more people are facing severe hunger. Yet some of the world’s richest food companies are making record profits. Monsanto last month reported that its net income for the three months up to the end of February this year had more than doubled over the same period in 2007, from $543m (£275m) to $1.12bn. Its profits increased from $1.44bn to $2.22bn…. The Food and Agriculture Organisation reports that 37 developing countries are in urgent need of food. And food riots are breaking out across the globe from Bangladesh to Burkina Faso, from China to Cameroon, and from Uzbekistan to the United Arab Emirates. Benedict Southworth, director of the World Development Movement, called the escalating earnings and profits “immoral” late last week. He said that the benefits of the food price increases were being kept by the big companies, and were not finding their way down to farmers in the developing world.” Multinationals make billions in profit out of growing global food crisis” In fact, “Monsanto … has gotten farmers to accept seed prices twice the level of a decade ago” [8].

H. E. M. Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, President of the United Nations General Assembly stated, “The essential purpose of food, which is to nourish people, has been subordinated to the economic aims of a handful of multinational corporations that monopolize all aspects of food production, from seeds to major distribution chains, and they have been the prime beneficiaries of the world crisis. A look at the figures for 2007, when the world food crisis began, shows that corporations such as Monsanto and Cargill, which control the cereals market, saw their profits increase by 45 and 60 per cent, respectively; the leading chemical fertilizer companies such as Mosaic Corporation, a subsidiary of Cargill, doubled their profits in a single year” [9].

In fact, “Hugh Grant, Monsanto Chairman, CEO, and President probably won’t notice the increased price of a loaf of bread. And if he does it will be with a smile. Grant is $13,000,000 and some change wealthier today than he was on Monday, as he chose to exercise stock options – 116,000 shares worth – that netted him a profit of over $114 PER SHARE. Like many of us, I wouldn’t mind paying the extra dollar per loaf of bread if I knew the majority of that dollar was going back into the hands of farmers. Instead, the higher prices at the checkout line are funneled to the agri-giants like Monsanto and Cargill, companies making record profits. Remind you of gas prices and oil companies? Reminds me that these agri-giants spent $100 million on getting their way in the Farm Bill, an investment with huge dividends – for Monsanto’s Hugh Grant anyway” [10].

The market being what it is, biofuels also became a convenient way to stick it to organics as well. “But farmers and grain buyers say the growth of new organic acreage has slowed, falling short of rising demand and causing organic grain prices to soar. That is partly because prices for conventional corn, soybeans and wheat are at or near records, so there is less incentive for farmers to switch to organic crops; making the switch requires a three-year transition and piles of paperwork. ‘There has been no new surge of land going into organic,’ said Lynn Clarkson, who buys organic grain as president of Clarkson Grain in central Illinois. ‘We are having to compete with this ethanol juggernaut,’ he added, referring to the growing use of field corn for fuel” [11]. Also convenient, the food shortage has become a way to overcome objections to GMOs In Lean Times, Biotech Grains Are Less Taboo.

Ironically however, rather than helping to solve global warming, biofuels will, according to experts, actually contribute to it [12][13][14][15][16]. See also The Unraveling of the Ethanol Scam.

Not enough? According to a report by Friends of the Earth, thanks to federal subsidies (paid for with taxpayer dollars) to the biofuel industry “In total, between 2008 and 2022, taxpayers will have paid out over $400 billion to the biofuels industry. Were Obama proposals for 60 billion gallons per year to be realized, subsidies would top $120 billion per year by the end of the period, for a cumulative subsidy during the 2008-30 period of more than $1 trillion. For this investment, we accelerate land conversion and exacerbate a wide range of environmental problems. Already, the ecological impact of increased biofuels production is evident, both in the U.S. and abroad, including deforestation, water pollution and increased greenhouse gas emissions” [17].

Also see The World Food Crisis, Grain Companies’ Profits Soar As Global Food Crisis Mounts, The EU’s agrofuel folly: policy capture by corporate interests

Monsanto and drought-tolerant maize in Africa

From Matt Brown, “New hope to end scourge of drought,” The National Newspaper, March 1, 2010

In 2010, Monsanto became involved in an ongoing project designed to develop new African drought-tolerant maize varieties. When a particular piece of DNA in bacillus subtilis (cspB) was injected into an ordinary maize seed, the leaves of the fully grown maize plant curled up in dry conditions thus losing less water to evaporation and making the crop virtually resistant to crippling droughts that have plagued Africa for centuries.

Researchers with the Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project are currently testing drought-resistant GM maize seeds in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Mozambique, and South Africa. According to its website, WEMA is a public-private partnership led by the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) to address the devastating effects of drought by developing drought-tolerant maize.

According to AATF, more than half the population of sub-Saharan Africa depends on maize as their main food source. Across much of Africa, subsistence farmers and their maize crops are vulnerable to changing weather patterns. The GM seeds are expected to increase yields by 20 to 35 percent, translating into two million metric tons of maize during drought years, or enough to feed 14-21 million people.

Genetic engineers, biotechnology companies (including Monsanto), philanthropists (including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), and policy makers are working to make the new technology widely available to small-scale African farmers.

The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and the Howard G. Buffett Foundation are financing the project, essentially underwriting the research and development of GM seeds so that they will be as cheap as conventional seeds.

For Monsanto, the project translates into opening markets in Africa: “This technology will be given royalty-free to small scale farmers in sub-Saharan Africa,” stated a spokesman for Monsanto’s Africa division. “We’re not here because of charity. If you help small farmers, today they may not be good customers. But in 10 years, they may be good customers.”

However, Monsanto’s involvement is not without controversy. Miriam Mayet, director of the Johannesburg-based African Center of Biosafety, believes that “Monsanto’s prominent role in the project…is a disingenuous attempt to paint a pretty picture of benevolence when really what it has also set its sights on is a potential market in Africa to peddle its GM seeds.”

As for the project in general, Mayet stated: “WEMA is a strategic way of making the acceptance of GM [seeds] more palatable on a continent that sees little value in the current two-trait GM technology. The field trials pose the most immediate biosafety threats including the risk of gene flow via cross pollination.”

The GM seeds are currently being developed in labs in South Africa. Drought-tolerant seeds, which are created using conventional breeding and are not as efficient as the GM seeds, are now being field-tested. The GM seeds could be tested during the 2010 dry season, once government regulations are in place and could be on the market within five years.

Other SourceWatch resources

• Monsanto

U.S. Beef Talks May Progress as Japan Gathers Mad-Cow Disease Risk Data

사카린 밀수 사건

Food for Peace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_for_Peace

Public Law 480 also known as Food for Peace (and commonly abbreviated PL 480) is a funding avenue by which US food can be used for overseas aid.

It has four parts, titles 1, 2, 3 and 5. Title 1 is managed by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), while titles 2, 3 and 5 are managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

The full name for Public Law 480 is the Agricultural Trade Development Assistance Act, signed into law on July 10, 1954, by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In signing the legislation, Eisenhower stated that the legislation’s purpose was to “lay the basis for a permanent expansion of our exports of agricultural products with lasting benefits to ourselves and peoples of other lands.”[1]

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy renamed it as “Food for Peace,” stating, “Food is strength, and food is peace, and food is freedom, and food is a helping to people around the world whose good will and friendship we want.”[1]

This was reauthorised through the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIR), commonly known as 1996 Farm Bill.

Contents

[hide]
1 PL 480 / Food for Peace
2 Title 1
3 Title 2
4 Title 3
5 Title 5
6 References
7 External links
 

[edit] PL 480 / Food for Peace
The purpose of PL 480 is to:

Combat world hunger and malnutrition
Promote sustainable development including agriculture development
Expand international trade
Develop and expand export market for US agricultural commodities and products
Foster private enterprise and democratic participation
Profitably supply surplus US commodities to foreign countries
PL 480 can be divided into 4 Titles: Each is administered by different US agencies.

Title 1, Trade and Development Assistance (Managed by USDA)
Title 2, Emergency & Development Assistance Program (Managed by USAID)
Title 3, “Food for Development” (Managed by USAID)
Title 5, “Farmer to Farmer” (Managed by USAID)

[edit] Title 1
The main focus of title 1 is Trade and Development Assistance. It allows concessional sales of agricultural products to friendly developing nations, either by government to government (main means) or government to private entities (rare).

Surplus bulk commodities purchased from the US are monetized in the recipient’s country market. Income generated is to support stated objectives in the predetermined agreement between the US government and the recipient government.

Concessional terms are very favourable: it can be long-term credit up to thirty years, with no minimum repayment for ten years, grace period for payment of principle up to five years at low interest such as 2 – 4%.

Ths program is flexible and facilitates collaboration with international bodies such as the World Bank in support of development programs.

Priority is given to

Countries with little foreign exchange
Countries with food security problems
Programs concentrating on alleviating poverty
Countries with agricultural development needs
Recipients’ countries must also demonstrate potential to become commercial markets for US agricultural products.

[edit] Title 2

The main use of this program is for Emergency and Development Assistance Progams. Title 2 allows donation of US agricultural products to meet humanitarian food needs. Emergency and non emergency (development) food aid activities support broader USAID objectives and can be used for both direct feeding and monetisation programs.

Recipients can be any of the following, operating in conjunction with cooperative sponsors (CS):

PVO – Private voluntary organization
NGO – Non-governmental organization
IO – International organization such as WFP – World Food Programme
For non-emergency aid Title 2 can be often seen to be in support of:

Development Food Aid (Non emergency)
Health and Nutrition program
Agriculture (Food for Work, Food for agriculture…).
Educational program
Humanitarian Relief – Vulnerable Population
Micro-enterprise development
Title 2 has a subsection that gives funding for strengthening of the management ability of the CS especially in the area of management improvement, such as administration and implementation improvement as well as monitoring and reviews.

Section 202 (e) – logistic, information system, research

International Strengthening Assist. (ISA) – Better accountability

[edit] Title 3

Also known as Food for Development. It is a government-to-government grant to the least developed countries, and aims at addressing food and nutrition problems, countries most in need of food to enhance long term food security. Programs with direct links to increased food production and consumption have priority.

It can be used by monetisation of donated commodities in the domestic market, but some may be kept as reserve. To support the program, the US government will pay for all charges involved. Programmes may include:

Privatisation of food market
Attract poor children to school
Address chronic food shortages
Infrastructure development, such as roads
[edit] Title 5
Known as Farmer to Farmer, established in 1986, re-authorised by the 1996 Farm Bill Act. It is not a food aid programme, but a short term technical assistance by linking American volunteer farmers with farmers in developing countries, whereby the US farmer will spend time in the developing country working with the developing country farmers to improve food production, marketing and distribution.

This program was established aimed mainly at the NIS of the former Soviet Union, but also covers Asia, Africa, and Central and South America.

[edit] References
^ a b The History of America’s Food Aid

[edit] External links