These opening words, and the complete poem written in 1942 by Carlos Drummond de Andrade, could well have been written after the recent election of José Graziano da Silva as FAO’s Director-General. Drummond’s hero José felt weak and powerless in a particularly hostile situation. Sixty years later, an even more difficult context makes us also think of another Brazilian, who held the same position at FAO between 1952 and 1956: Josué de Castro. The author of “The geography of hunger” artfully described, back in 1946, the direct relationship between large-scale industries, an economic model designed for exporting raw materials, and the hunger and hopelessness shown by Drummond de Andrade.

A new version of Josué de Castro’s work would surely come in handy to FAO’s new José. More than ever, food is the object of greed of a few. While millions face hunger, food has become a market good (seen as a set of commodities), and “citizens” have become “consumers”. Profits determine the production and distribution of food and ethical concerns are left behind. The world’s hunger crisis is exacerbated by persistent increases in food prices, something that FAO itself expects to continue. And as if this is not enough, different forces stimulate the production of non-food crops, driving farming ever-further into an industrial process maintained artificially, and in an unsustainable way, by agrochemicals and public subsidies.

Since FAO’s mandate is “to achieve food security for all and ensure that people have regular access to good quality food”, we hope that José Graziano’s leadership will lead to a change in the dominant agricultural models. This is surely the greatest challenge facing our José. We therefore hope he has read the reports of his future colleague at the UN, Olivier De Schutter, who recommends a profound shift in agricultural policies in order to ensure food security worldwide, and of the IAASTD (the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development), in which hundreds of scientists recommend major changes in order to stop the degradation of the environment and to produce more (and more healthy) food.

José Graziano da Silva’s job will not be easy. Still, we have hope. Graziano da Silva inspired a whole generation with his sharp criticism of the “painful modernisation” process, so we hope his work will support the structural changes needed to acknowledge the current and potential role of smallscale farmers and to reduce hunger in the world. We only recommend him to invite all civil society organisations to join him, especially those representing and working with family farmers, and jointly build a robust transition programme. This will ensure a democratic path towards social and environment sustainability, and towards a reduction in hunger.

Text: Francisco Roberto Caporal

Francisco Roberto Caporal, lectures at the Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Brazil. He is also President of the Brazilian Association of Agroecology.

The post Opinion: And now, José? appeared first on Ileia.

International year of the forest 2011Because of its growing demand for inputs and energy, it is increasingly evident that the Green Revolution approach is environmentally unsustainable. But also, and most of all, it is unsustainable because it has an inherent tendency to reduce biodiversity. It is not just a coincidence that the degradation of different Brazilian ecosystems is directly related to the advance of monocultures and the use of chemical inputs, along an ever-expanding “agricultural frontier”. While the destruction of our ecosystems began 500 years ago, there is no doubt that the greatest damage has occurred seen since the “modernisation process” started in the 1960s.

Figures recently released by the Brazilian Ministry of the Environment are alarming, and contradict reports published by many other organisations. The Pampa Gaucho, in the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul (which borders Argentina and Uruguay) has already lost 54% of its original forests, mostly as a result of the new soybean farms, livestock, and, more recently, the large-scale plantation of trees for pulp. The Brazilian Cerrado, with a total area of more than 2 million km2, has already lost 48% of its original cover. The changes seen in the states of Maranhão, Tocantins and Bahia show the enormous impact of the soy industry, with 85,000 km2 lost between 2002 and 2007. The same has been seen in the Mata Atlántica, where the production of ethanol has led to a loss of 75 percent of the forested area. The government has frequently mentioned positive trends in the Amazon region, yet the figures released show that the loss rate of forested areas in the state of Amazonas actually grew by 91 percent. Upward trends are also reported for the states of Rondônia and Maranhão.

Notwithstanding this bleak picture, the Brazilian Minister of Agriculture had the affront to say, in an interview last March, that the intensification of agriculture in areas like the Cerrado “does not have any environmental impact”. The Brazilian authorities feel able to continue supporting the current policies of producing and exporting commodities without any worries. Yet, considering how much we are losing in terms of forests and biodiversity, there is a lot to worry about and, during this International Year of Forests, very little to celebrate. Only those behind these policies are celebrating. We should ask them if they’ll continue celebrating in a few years when even more has been lost. I am starting to worry for my grandchildren.

Text: Francisco Roberto Caporal

Francisco Roberto Caporal, lectures at the Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Brazil. He is also President of the Brazilian Association of Agroecology.
Email: caporalfr@gmail.com

The post An incompatible approach appeared first on Ileia.

Although researchers and analysts are showing that deforestation rates have decreased sharply in recent years, we feel that the situation is not as good as the figures that they present would indicate.

First, because they focus on regions like the Amazon rainforest, paying less attention to other areas where the cultivation of soybeans or sugarcane, for example, is on the rise. Industrial agriculture is expanding in order to remain competitive, and this growth does not consider environmental concerns. But the biggest worry today is that many are pushing for changes in the existing legislation – especially those laws and regulations which have proved to be effective.

The Brazilian Forest Code has served as a model for legislation in many countries. Although it has undergone several modifications since it was signed in 1934, it is still seen as the pillar of the country’s environmental legislation, and has helped protect – even if not completely – the country’s tropical and sub-tropical forests. Over the past decade, however, the Brazilian agribusiness sector and their representatives in Congress have increasingly attacked the existing limits on deforestation, complaining about the possibilities of being penalised for “environmental crimes”. Their main argument is that the existing environmental legislation is holding back the development of the country’s agriculture sector.

A proposed new code was approved by a parliamentary commission in 2010, and Congress will debate its approval in the coming weeks. This proposal has already been criticised by researchers, farmers’ and civil society organisations – all of whom question the economic and political interests behind these proposed changes to the Forest Code, and the possible environmental and social impacts that may occur as a result of them. This new legislative proposal “forgives” all deforestation which occurred before 2008, releasing those who have destroyed the forests from any obligation to restore them. It also reduces the total number of Permanent Preservation Areas in the country. This will have serious consequences. On the one hand, it will eliminate any sense of responsibility or accountability. On the other hand, it is an invitation to deforesting new areas, something which will generate a new wave of environmental destruction, with immeasurable impacts.

It is clear that, once again, politicians and policy makers are forgetting that future generations will depend on the natural resources, biodiversity and environmental services provided by our forests. It is worth fighting so that nonsensical proposals such as this one are not approved.

Text: Francisco Roberto Caporal

Francisco Roberto Caporal lectures at the Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Brazil. He is also President of the Brazilian Association of Agroecology.

The post Opinion: Worth fighting for appeared first on Ileia.

On closer examination, this article seems to have been "planted"

A couple of months ago, The Economist published a long article praising Brazilian agriculture, something that led to outbursts of patriotism, and to many colleagues expressing pride on our “success”. But how successful is this model that The Economist so generously praised? On closer examination, this article seems to have been “planted” by those interested in talking up the role of agribusinesses in my country, and in playing down the environmental and social impacts of our agricultural model.

The magazine says that the growth of large-scale farming in Brazil in recent decades shows its greater competitiveness. The truth is that the history of Brazilian agribusinesses is full of renegotiation processes and debt forgiveness. Official data, not mentioned by The Economist, show how taxpayers actually pay the bill. Equally absent are the figures of the latest agriculture census, released in September 2009, which show how family farming, though occupying only 24% of the total area, produces between 60 and 70% of the food that all Brazilians eat, and provides 8 out of 10 jobs in rural areas. And no mention is made of the relation between the praised model and the social and environmental problems we regularly hear of.

It is equally striking to read that other countries are recommended to follow Brazil’s example. But the type of agriculture praised by the magazine does not produce foodstuffs. Rather, it produces commodities for export (soybeans, orange juice, sugar, coffee), mostly to meet the demands coming from livestock-producing countries. Is this a good recommendation for countries hoping to reduce hunger? These countries should also be told that Brazil imports two thirds of the fertilizers that it uses, or that Brazil has become the world’s largest consumer of pesticides – despite the promise that GM crops would bring a reduction in the use of agricultural chemicals.

The magazine also refers to those who prefer small-scale farming systems and organic practices as “agro-pessimists”. This is another sign that the article was “planted”, as it is hard to believe that The Economist does not know about the increasing production and consumption levels of organic products, or about the strategic role which family farms play in producing foodstuffs all over the world. To label people who advocate for healthy food production systems, without a serious environmental impact, with a better distribution of wealth, or with more job opportunities, as “agro-pessimists”, shows, to say the least, a deeply flawed analysis – something uncommon in The Economist.

Text: Francisco Roberto Caporal

Francisco Roberto Caporal works as General Training Co-ordinator at the Ministry of Agrarian Development in Brasilia. He lectures at the Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, and is president of the Brazilian Agroecology Association, ABA-Agroecologia.
E-mail: caporalfr@gmail.com

The post Opinion: The Economist is wrong appeared first on Ileia.