Latest updates

Future unwanted, but hope lives on

Sameer.dossani — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:58:03 +0000

At Rio’s Earth Summit, another chance to take action to address hunger and climate change passes us by.

Friday marked the end of the Rio +20 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Given the low expectations, many governments are doing their best to portray the summit as a success. We at ActionAid, like nearly all of our colleagues in civil society, are unimpressed.

So what’s there to be cheerful about? The answer is “almost nothing”, but let’s take a look at the positive, which included the following:

There was an outcome document. At one point it seemed possible that there would be no document at all, given the rigid positions taken by the U.S. and the unwillingness of rich countries to talk about monetary commitments.
The outcome document did not backslide on previous commitments. Indeed it mentioned the need to move forward on previous commitments, including those of Agenda 21, the ambitious plan of action agreed 20 years ago at the first Rio Earth Summit.
At some side events, including at the launch of the UN’s Zero Hunger Challenge, governments did agree to put some money towards sustainable development. At that event, the UK announced that they were putting £150 million towards ending hunger.
Most importantly, representatives of civil society from Brazil and across the globe came together in the People’s Summit, to discuss the problems with and alternatives to the current economic system and put forward concrete suggestions that, if implemented, would move us towards a more sustainable future.

OK, that’s about it for the good bits. While these are not trivial, they are hugely disappointing given the amount of resources that have been put into the summit and more importantly the magnitude of the crises facing the world’s poor and marginalized communities. How did we get to this sorry state of affairs?

In side discussions with officials from Africa, Asia and Latin America, we often heard a similar refrain. The US and Europe talk very nicely about sustainable development, they said, but are silent when asked to put forward money to carry out the needed transformation of developing economies. Without some actual money on the table, these lofty ambitions can never become a reality. While some governments, including Denmark, which was speaking for the European Union, seemed willing to discuss possibilities around new ways of raising money including a tax on financial transactions, powerful countries still block these initiatives at the global level.

A second reason for the impasse is a fundamental disagreement about what is needed. A lot of the talk about a transition to a “green economy” promotes false solutions. The trading of carbon credits, whether linked to forests, soil, or pollution, is seen as some kind of magic bullet that will ensure that companies begin to pay their fair share. But on examination, carbon markets seem like efficient ways to raise money for all kinds of institutions (including the World Bank), but extremely inefficient ways to punish polluters. A straightforward carbon tax might be a much more efficient way.

Biofuels– which studies show may well emit more carbon than fossil fuels – is another false solution that remains on the table, despite an emerging consensus [pdf] that the promotion of biofuels is exacerbating the food crisis by causing competition between food and fuel.

While proponents of these false solutions – some of whom stand to make a lot of money should they be accepted and promoted by governments – cannot claim that they had a victory at Rio +20, it seems clear that these and other bad ideas are still on the table.

And here we arrive at the fundamental question: what is the “green economy”?

At Rio and at the G20 summit in Mexico which preceded it, the term “green economy” was everywhere - in the welcome packets, on advertising hoardings, and in the title of nearly every workshop. While I’ve got nothing against the color green, it must be said that this term is not very descriptive and therefore can be used to mean whatever is convenient at the moment. Big businesses have clearly understood that there is a change coming, and that this change is called “the green economy” and are struggling to control its definition, in part through claiming that false solutions like carbon markets and biofuel promotion should be part of it.

But the need of the moment is for policies based on science and fact, rather than on what will make the most money for those who already have a lot of it. ActionAid and our allies must come together to help define what an alternative economic system would really look like, perhaps through multiple “green economies”. Whatever alternative we put forward must certainly have human rights and environmental sustainability at its core.

Fortunately, there were people in Rio who were discussing what alternative green economies should look like. Unfortunately, they were not discussing it at the Earth Summit, but rather at the alternative People’s Summit, where women’s movements, farmer’s organizations, activists for the rights of indigenous peoples and hundreds of other groups came together to put forward an alternative vision and came out in the streets to demand that leaders begin to chart a new course [in Portuguese, English version will soon be available here].

The Future We Want – the rather ambitious name the UN gave to the official summit’s outcome document -- depends on how we all can engage with and empower these movements to demand that leaders take real action. Until then, our leaders seem determined to continue with business as usual.

Rio+20 - heading the wrong way?

uzma.tahir — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 06:20:08 +0000

1992 was a time when it seemed fairly futuristic to talk about environment degradation, climate change, green economy but twenty years later with ever more alarming statistics on poverty and hunger exacerbated by food and financial crisis and the reality of climate change revealing itself in form of various disasters has made it extremely urgent to take a step forward in addressing these issues.

Rio+20 is taking place at a time when social, environmental and economic justice has become the demand of millions living across the globe. The promises made twenty years ago are not so much broken rather they are still empty as the outcome document has yet again reiterated and reinforced what was already pledged and recognized twenty years ago. So we can all be happy that we have reaffirmed to address the issues but the question remains that when we will start actually addressing the issues?

When can the actions be taken? When we will start delivering on the promises we made to the poor?

The text produced in the outcome document on which the debate was initiated and will continue for the coming three days has not been able to address the grave and daunting concerns of women, youth and children, farmers, indigenous people and workers. The document is extremely weak in addressing the reproductive and sexual rights of women which gives them an opportunity to have control on their own bodies, it does not commit on the extractive industries which are forcing the indigenous people out of their homes and endangering their livelihoods thus denying their right to dignity, the conditional transfer of technology which will exclude millions of youth from accessing opportunities of decent work and also failing to address the issue of armed conflict.

Lack of political commitment to listen, adopt, create and commit to alternatives was one the major blockades during the course of the negotiations whether it is EU, US or G77. While listening to the negotiations I was burdened by the fact that ordinary people's perspectives, concerns, issues, and views are simply outweighed by the politics of aid/finances, conditionalities and subsidies.

On the other hand while attending the Opening session of the Rio +20 I got the loud and clear demand from all the groups mentioned earlier was to have CHANGE and ACTION!! But the question remains do we have to wait for another twenty years to start taking concrete actions?

The great G20 bioflop (but at least progress was made on helping the banks. Again)

Sameer.dossani — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:40:40 +0000

World leaders agreed today to support European efforts to integrate European banking sectors in a bid to support governments affected by the ongoing Eurozone crisis. Heads of state had earlier gathered in Los Cabos, Mexico for the annual summit of the world’s nineteen largest economies as well as the European Union, known as the G20 summit. While the move is expected to assuage fears regarding a renewed recession in Europe, governments progressed slowly on other G20 issues, including taking measures to strengthen global food security.

Recent elections in Greece figured strongly as governments debated whether to stick with austerity measures that have largely been a failure in Europe or to allow indebted governments increased access to funds to increase demand, a move necessary to boost growth and employment in countries stricken by the financial crisis. The outcome document allows for the possibility of such stimulus measures supported by stronger economies, though all indications are that the pace of such reforms will be slow. While conceding that the measures may be slow-moving, IMF head Christine Lagarde insisted that “the seeds of a pan-European recovery have been sown” at Los Cabos.

On other issues, progress seems much slower. The G20 outcome document makes reference to food security, for example, but does not specify new initiatives or policies, instead referring to previous initiatives taken at recent G20 meetings in Korea and France. While leaders claim that the time for new initiatives is not opportune given the ongoing financial crisis, some initiatives to address food insecurity might even save money. According to a group of business leaders who met on Sunday under the auspices of the “B20”, the phasing out of subsidies for the production of biofuels would be one such measure. Biofuel subsidies have been a driver of food price volatility according to a report commissioned by the G20 in 2011 and undertaken by 10 international agencies, including the IMF, WTO and World Bank.

The G20 put their heads in the sand and failed to address the key drivers of food price volatility

said Neil Watkins of ActionAid USA. “Despite the important role played by biofuels production in contributing to food price swings, the word ‘biofuels’ doesn’t even appear in the final communiqué. The G20 ignored the growing consensus – including from the Business 20 – urging them to stop converting food for fuel.”

The host government of Mexico has sought to raise concerns regarding biofuel promotion in the G20, but so far with little success. “The G20 works as a consensus-based organization,” said Francisco Mayorga Casteñeda the Mexican Secretary of Agriculture at a meeting of civil society organizations held in Mexico city last week to discuss issues relating to global agriculture. “Though Mexico has concerns around biofuel promotion, the G20 cannot move forward as long as governments such as Brazil and the United States are promoting biofuels.”

The question of biofuel policy is part of a larger debate on the green economy, one of the buzzwords at the G20 conference. Debates over the nature of the green economy will continue this week in Rio de Janeiro, where many of the same leaders will meet at the Rio +20 Earth Summit. As climate change is on the agenda in both summits, the question of who will pay for much needed technology to assist communities to adapt to climate change will be a topic of debate. Though commitments have been made through the UN climate change negotiations, it is unclear whether rich countries will contribute much needed money to assist poorer countries – who have only recently developed polluting industries and are therefore responsible for only a small amount of carbon emissions – to adapt to the realities of climate change.

Leaving Los Cabos – Reflections on the G20 Summit

neil.watkins — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 04:24:23 +0000

ActionAid urges the G20 to agree to scrap biofuels mandates that do not safeguard the right to food

The G20 summit’s now wrapped up. In a summit otherwise dominated by the Eurozone crisis, our small team – together with our partners from ANEC, a Mexican farmer’s network – have been pushing our messages to press and policymakers on the need for real solutions to tackle food price volatility and climate change.

Today, we had a bit of a dramatic moment. Late last night NGOs here got our hands on a leaked copy of the communiqué. So we decided to hold a press conference today at noon to give the press our reaction to the leaked draft we had gotten hold of. The room was packed – as the media center was full of journalists just waiting to get any kind of news.

Then it got a bit strange. Colleagues from Oxfam Mexico, CAFOD, World Vision Mexico, and ONE finished their statements, and reporters starting asking questions. Next thing you know, a representative of the Mexican government came on stage and asked the moderator to end the event – apparently, the Mexican government wanted no press conference about communiqués until the final one comes out.

It ended up creating more of a news event than if they had let us be – drama makes for good news – so not the best PR move. And it was a bit out of character, as the Mexican governments has actually been very helpful to NGOs in the media center – giving us full access, providing regular briefings (a rarity in these summits for us NGOs), and letting use official press conference spaces. They later formally apologized.

Other than that occasional moment of mild intrigue, we’ve been focused on highlighting the findings of our report that US biofuels production is fueling the rise in the price of corn tortillas in Mexico. It’s been great to see how our report and advocacy on biofuels has been picked up by other NGO colleagues from World Vision, Oxfam, and the Hunger Project – all of whom have been asking officials and journalists about this issue along with us. Just a few years ago ActionAid was a lonely voice on the linkage between biofuels and hunger but it’s become a key talking point for the community, which is great.

Special props to Patricia Brooks our phenomenal US communications coordinator and to Zoe Van Gelder from ANEC who’ve been working the press room here. That’s paid in off the form of a number of great stories and interviews. It also paid off when a reporter we spoke with earlier today about how US biofuels production is driving up corn prices in Mexico was called on by Mexican President Calderon in the closing G20 news conference. In response to the reporter’s question, President Calderon indicated that he supported the recommendations made by the Business 20 on food security. The B20 called clearly for removal of subsidies for biofuels and a re-evaluation of mandates.

While we made some progress in highlighting the issues, the summit’s outcome was pretty disappointing on the issues we’ve been tracking. For our reaction, we’ve said that rather than taking the bold new steps needed to address food price volatility and biofuels and climate change, leaders turned in last year’s homework, reiterating old pledges and commissioning studies rather than taking bold steps.

Our reactions

On biofuels and food price volatility:

The G20 put their heads in the sand and failed to address the key drivers of food price volatility. Despite the important role played by biofuels production in contributing to food price swings, the word ‘biofuels’ doesn’t even appear in the final communiqué. The G20 ignored the growing consensus – including from the Business 20 – urging them to stop converting food for fuel.

On climate:

“G20 leaders opted for more studies on how to finance the Green Climate Fund. These will be cold comfort to farmers living in poverty who are already facing the ravaging impacts of increased floods, droughts, and heat waves due to climate change.

“Viable options for financing the GCF already exist, including international shipping and aviation levies and financial transaction taxes. The longer we ‘study’ global action on climate change rather than acting decisively on one or more of these proposals, the more deadly and expensive it will become in the future.”

In short, much work left to do. This won’t be a summit for the history books on development, food security or climate change. In fact, it raises more questions about the role of the G20 in development. It seems like the G20 either needs to get much more engaged on key development challenges at a political level – or reduce its focus and allow other institutions like the UN to pick up the primary responsibility. The current role – a middle ground where the G20 commissions studies and reiterates past pledges with little accountability – is not delivering results for people living in poverty.

We, the Women from the People's Summit

emilia.jomalinis — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 01:42:42 +0000

We, the Women at the People's Summit

Monday morning was reserved for the Women’s March at the People’s Summit.

As a former student of international relations, I've always wondered about the real meaning of the UN Charter beginning “We, the people of the United Nations”. Far from questioning the strategic importance of International Law to political changes in national scenarios, it always sounded to me a bit pretentious a couple of Head of States reclaiming themselves as the people of all nations united.

In times of Rio +20, this question returned to my mind when my city and the major media focused all its attention to a conference of Head of States, that probably have never gone to a vulnerable area in terms of sustainability in their home countries. Maybe that’s why, even before the Conference which will approve a statement started, there were already low expectations and engagement from the civil society on it.

We need to reflect on how far the Rio +20 represents (or not) the demands and goals of the set of people that cohabit our planet: people from the rainforests, the arid regions, the fisher women and men, African-descendent communities, among many others.

Yesterday, nearly five thousand women and men gathered at the Women’s March in the People's Summit. Our goal was to get the attention of our leaders, who pretentiously try to speak for all people, that, in all the different communities and territories, women unarguably are the key actors in the transition to a sustainable system - socially and environmentally. With placards, songs and banners we denounced how current policies violate our women’s human rights and how a meanless final document can intensify these violations. On the video above, women speak for themselves*.

*Special thanks to Ana Paula, Jéssica, Ana Beatriz and Pedro Mundim

It's the People's Summit not Rio+20 that shows the way forward

Elisa.Hugueney — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 06:34:48 +0000

The true transformation to sustainable development is not in the Rio+20, but in the People's Summit.

After an exausting three days of negotiations to try and reach consensus on the final document for Rio+20, it is becoming very clear that there will not be a true and strong commitment from the countries to the need and urgency to achieve change.

Delegations waste precious time in discussing if they should reaffirm commitments previously made, instead of negotiating and agreeing on new and important terms on how to achieve sustainable development. This stalemate is evident in the crucial negotiations on food security and sustainable agriculture. While a billion people go hungry every day around the world, countries waste 3 hours in trying to agree if they should reaffirm the right to food and the importance of promoting or supporting or enhancing (they cannot even decide which term to use) sustainable agricultural practices.

The right to food has already been agreed and affirmed in many previous conferences! It is time to commit and take action towards ending hunger and transforming the current agricultural system, to support and strengthen the ones who are already working on real and effective solutions.

Meanwhile, people from all over the world, national and international social movements and civil society organizations are at the People's Summit showing the world that it can be done! That the solutions already exist and that these solutions are coming from the people. Solidarity economy, agroecology, urban agriculture, clean energy systems, alternative means of transportation, are amongst some of the possible, sustainable, effective solutions that we are able to see here at the People's Summit.

These, however, can show their true potential to bring change, when supported by public policies. It is the case of the cisterns in Brazil, which was an initiative that came from civil society and that became supported by the government. With the construction of the cisterns in the semi arid Northeast of Brasil, where populations often suffered from lack of water and consequently hunger, are now able to go through the dry season with plenty of water to drink and produce food.

It is through social participation, people's alternatives and government support to these alternatives that we will be able to achieve change towards the future we REALLY want!

G20: Leaders still stuck in the policy quicksand

neil.watkins — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 04:53:33 +0000

It’s time for another beach resort G20 summit – this time it’s Live from Los Cabos, Mexico. Only seven months ago, world leaders gathered in the beach resort town of Cannes, France. Now they’re back together again.

But the similarities between the French and Mexican summits don’t stop there. Just like in Cannes, the Los Cabos summit is at risk of being upstaged by political upheaval in Greece and by the ongoing crisis in the Eurozone. And also like last year’s G20 summit, the host government (Mexico) has put some important development – related topics on the agenda including food price volatility and climate change. The problem is, despite Mexico’s best efforts, it doesn’t look the G20 will take the bold action needed to protect the world’s most vulnerable from volatile food prices nor climate change.

A small ActionAid team is here to advocate with G20 leaders and get our messages out to leaders via the thousands of journalists parked in Los Cabos for the next two days. We’re focused on two issues: 1) how biofuels are fueling global food price volatility; and 2) the need for financing for the Green Climate Fund to help impoverished countries to adapt to climate change. We’re also pushing for governments to ensure that efforts to get the global economy moving aren’t enacted in ways (like cutting aid or development support) that hurt people living in poverty.

On Saturday, I represented ActionAid at a dialogue between the Mexican government and NGOs on the eve of the summit. The Mexican Ministers of Finance, Agriculture, and Foreign Affairs all showed up and discussed the Mexican government’s efforts to reach out to civil society around the G20 summit and key issues on the agenda.

A colleague from Oxfam France managed to ask Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa about the link between biofuels and hunger and whether the G20 would take action to address how biofuels are fueling hunger (check out ActionAid USA’s and ActionAid UK’s recent reports on this topic).

Secretary Espinosa said there is no consensus within the G20 on biofuels and so there will not likely be strong action taken at the summit. But she added,

We have to proceed with caution, we have to be very careful because of the links between biofuels and food price volatility. Use of biofuels which comes from grains and foodstuffs…is quicksand.

It’s a strong statement from a government that knows firsthand the impacts of biofuels on hunger. ActionAid USA’s recent report found that rising corn ethanol production in the United States, fueled by a deadly cocktail of subsidies, mandates, and rising oil prices, has increased Mexico’s food import bill. As a result, Mexican food prices are soaring. Between 2005 and 2011, tortilla prices increased by nearly 70 percent. Since 2005, US ethanol expansion has cost Mexico up to $500 million per year in higher corn prices.

We’ll be monitoring developments closely here in the coming days and reacting as news and the communiqué comes out. Stay tuned! Here’s hoping that this summit is more than just another beach resort talk shop and that leaders can find their way out of the policy quicksand.

Rio+20 and La Via Campesina

hannah.moloney — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 02:07:13 +0000

This week the United National Conference for Sustainable Development (UNCSD), also known as Rio+20 kicks off in Rio. Consisting of world leaders and thousands of participants from all forms and levels of the international community coming together to explore how to “…reduce poverty, advance social equity and ensure environmental protection on an ever more crowded planer to get to the future we want.”

Basically it’s a two-day whirlwind culminating in a “political document”, not a legally-binding one, a political one. This is an important difference as a legally binding document would actually force governments into putting their many, sometimes exciting sounding, conversations into action.

This year the two central themes are “…a green economy in the context of sustainable development poverty eradication and the institutional framework for sustainable development.” Man, I’m lost already; for more info on their seven priority areas you can have a read on their website.

What I’m more interested is another event happening around the same time called The Peoples Summit for Social and Environmental Justice and in Defense of the Commons (PSSEJDC). La Via Campesina, an international movement consisting of around 200 million peasants, small farmers, landless, rural workers and indigenous people from around the world are running the PSSEJDC in direct response to the UNCSD.

Since 1993 La Via Campesina have been calling for sovereignty over their right to land, food and the right to shape their own futures and livelihoods without being under the thumb of multi-nationals or gender inequality.

Surprise surprise ‘green capitalism’ (La Via Campesina's term) is not the answer. Rather than continuing on the trajectory of making our food systems bigger, shinier, faster and bigger again; La Via Campesina advocates for decentralised, ethical, small-medium farming practices that put people before profits and develop healthy communities rather than healthy bank balances for an elite few.

Keep an eye on what happens over the next week with Rio+20, I don’t believe we’ll be seeing groundbreaking ‘real-life’ initiatives from our world leaders. However listen and look a little bit harder and you’ll hear some very clear and groundbreaking proposals come hard and fast from the voices of 200 million peasants belonging to La Via Campesina.

It’s Happening - Activistas took part at the Plenaries of Convergences at the People’s Summit

emilia.jomalinis — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:15:07 +0000

Today was another day that Flamengo Park in Rio de Janeiro was full of people, traditional knowledge, ideas and good intentions for a world socially and environmentally fair.

This Sunday, the People’s Summit (parallel event to the official Rio+20 conference) was reserved for the Pleanaries of Convergences; the people was divided into 5 plenaries: Rights for Social and Environmental Justice, Protection of the commons goods against the mercantilization, food sovereignty, energy and extractive industries and Labor, for another economy and new paradigms of society. These are central themes to be worked during the Summit, towards a final document, as a counterpoint to the document to be approved by the Official Conference, that for now still doest not attend all the advances we still need for the sustainable development.

Our activistas from Brazil participated in the discussions. Sergio Brito and Giulianna Ferricela were taking part at the Plenary about energy. In Sergio’s opinion, the Plenary was filled with many different claims and demands.

There was a certain consensus that there should be more control over the companies producers

he said. For Arthur, Murta the Plenary about common goods was very positive, the whole plenary was invited to speak into the microphone and bring their causes. “The idea was to converge ideas. The expectation is that from the various claims that were made, we can come together to a unified document and build consensus”, says Arthur.

Carolina Costa joined Arthur at the Common Goods plenary and emphasized during the debate the impact of the mercantilization of common goods on women’s lives. In the Amazonia region, many women are exploited by companies and suffer a great impact due to major development projects, such as the Growth Acceleration Program. According to Carol, the arrival of these projects and the lack of women empowerment causes increased prostitution networks in the region. Regarding the exploitation of women in extractive regions, Carol pointed out that many companies pay very low wages to women miners in exchange for natural resources.

ActionAid is closely following both the Peoples' Summit and the Official Conference. We want to show alternatives that are built in practice for us and our local partners, exposing the value and potential of small holders farmers and how they should be considered at the final document of the official conference, as drivers of changes and keepers of the traditional “sustainable” knowledge; women and men farmers ensure sustainable reproduction of life on the planet.

Tomorrow, the day begins with a Great Women’s March. ActionAid and Activistas will be there: keep tuned!

Brazil – we are in your hands

Kirsten.Hjørnholmsørensen — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:18:34 +0000

You can’t listen to negotiations for much more than 15 minutes here at the Rio+20 summit before you hear the expression “I am in your hands”. It’s not an expression of love between negotiators, but rather something you say in a deadlock, where you are looking for constructive proposals, or to smoothe the facilitator of negotiations after you have just rejected something and have no compromise in your many instructions.

Well, now, we are actually in Brazil's hands. Friday 15 June is the last day of the UN system trying to come to a conclusion on a deal for Rio. From 16 June onwards Brazil takes over negotiation responsibility.

On one particular issue, there is a golden opportunity for Brazil to really make a difference – eradicating hunger. Brazil has the power, the knowledge and the experience of doing large scale and innovative food security programs, and they know more than any other nation, what a strong agricultural economy can do for a country and its citizens. Not that all is good in Brazil, but former president Lula was, if ever there was one, a hunger-hero.

I have earlier written about how the Rio-negotiations were failing the 1 billion people – every fourth person in Sub-Sahara Africa- that suffers from hunger. In the current sad state of play in the negotiations on food security and agriculture, there are lots of words but very, very little action.

But it is not too late. The world will very soon be in Brazil’s hands and this is what they should do to solve hunger:

Put the right to food at the centre of any discussions on hunger and agriculture

States are really a key player when it comes to ensuring people's right to food. If states don’t care about fulfilling that right, then what interests does a country's agricultural sector serve? Today in the negotiations you could hear the US say that they were hesitant to promise (or ensure is it is called in negotiation language) to anyone that they would fulfill their right to food.

Brazil has, more than anyone, shown that if political will is present, hunger can be combated, and possibly eradicated. Taking the right to food as the point of departure in any discussions, whether It’s discussions about the constitution, budget allocations, national development plans or multi-stakeholder initiatives really does make a difference.

Brazil must use its unique experience and credibility to show countries, that being a hunger hero is cool and clever.

Small holder farmers and women can unlock the food crisis – invest in them

Ever wondered why small holder farmers or women, whose plots of land are no more than 1-2 hectare, are so often not organized? Because if they were, they would challenge power.

It is time for countries to realize that small holder farmers and women are not a threat, but really hold the key to safer, healthier, and richer societies.

Brazil has come some way on this, but not far enough. But Brazil is seen as leader among other developing countries.

From the 16 June onwards, Brazil should impress upon countries that agriculture is not about serving special interests but about providing a sustainable, solid food base for a system and for providing the means to make a living for a very large part of the population. It is time to make small holder and women farmers the key solution in enabling communities to grow their way out of food and hunger.

Transform the food system – it isn’t working

While enough food is being produced for the world now, it is not being produced in a sustainable way. This challenge will only grow as populations grow and the climate changes. A transition towards more ecologically sound and socially just food production systems is a key challenge today, and something that Brazil must work for in the coming days.

We know which way we have to go – agro-ecology – but countries need to be having a process where they share knowledge and begin and manage that transformation together. The right proposals are on the table, but Brazil has to shove them in.

Food, not fuel, should be grown on fields – make sure food will not compete with unsustainable renewable energy production

While a strong commitment to fight climate change and change fossil fuel consumption is vital in order to ensure food production in the future, first generation biofuel production already places strong pressure on land in developing countries.

Brazil’s experience with producing ethanol is unique, but in the coming days Brazil has to resist the temptation to think that anyone must see biofuels as the answer to our energy and climate crisis.

Safeguards must be built in to any Rio-deal on energy, so that land, water is taken from vital food production to grow fuels crops.