Land Grabbing; something's gotta give

A recent study published in Environmental Research Letters; Food Appropriation Through Large Scale Land Acquisitions, discusses the issue of "land grabbing" and its contribution to food scarcity. The study calculates the amount of acquired land, the crops that the land could produce, the calorific content of those crops and the number of people that could be fed.

As the global human population continues to grow there is a need for increased agricultural production and therefore productive agricultural land is in increasingly greater demand. The planet already produces enough food to feed everyone, so the real issue should be our ability (or inability) to distribute this food and alleviate the food scarcity, malnourishment and starvation that are common in many parts of the world. However, as will become clear, this is not at the heart of agribusiness.

The growth of the biofuel industry is further increasing demand for productive agricultural land to grow biofuel crops. While the diversification of the energy industry and a move away from fossil fuel dependence represents an environmentally positive step forward it should be obvious that as demand grows for a finite amount of land, somebody has to lose out, and, as is so often the case, those losing out are among the most vulnerable people in the world.

Land grabbing refers to the purchase of agricultural land, and its transformation from subsistence farmland to large scale commercial agricultural land, without consideration of the impact of this change on the local community, who invariably lose out. It is perhaps all the more sinister because large scale international investors are targeting areas that are already susceptible to food scarcity.

It is argued that the acquired land has usually been under utilized and that the commercial farming companies have access to the resources and technology needed to boost production, 

furthermore the local community will benefit from job creation and investment in the area. However, this does not represent the reality of the situation. These crops are grown and sold for profit which means that they are exported out of the area of production to more profitable markets.

"between 2007 and 2012 large scale land acquisitions in the Pujehun district in Sierra Leone had a negative impact on local food and livelihood security (IFPRI 2012). The crops harvested in the acquired land were exported, while the local population was affected by loss of farmland, inadequate compensation for their land, and reduced access to food due to the increasing food prices."

"In Cambodia foreign direct investments in agricultural land are leading to the conversion of rice fields to sugar cane plantations and the relocation of peasants to less fertile land."

Agribusiness is not about feeding starving people and it is not about reducing fossil fuel dependence. It is about profits and economic growth. As demand for agricultural land grows this short-sighted and unsustainable growth pattern will continue and it will push increasing numbers of vulnerable people towards food scarcity. It is a deplorable irony that successful commercial agriculture is increasing food scarcity. It also demonstrates that our current consumption and growth patterns are mismatched with our resources. 

Small Victories

With the news that Soco International will cease its exploration for oil in Africa's oldest national park conservationists breathed a collective sigh of relief.

Read the joint statement from Soco and the WWF

It seems somewhat absurd that such a hard fought battle is necessary to protect an already protected UNESCO world heritage site...but here we are. The increasingly desperate search for new oil, combined with the poverty, violence and political unrest in DR Congo counteracts the extraordinary biodiversity of the Virunga National Park and its practical and symbolic significance for the Congolese people.

The fight to protect Virunga has been high profile and international. Actress Anna Friel has been campaigning on behalf of the WWF. Desmond Tutu, Richard Branson and Howard Buffett voiced their concerns in a joint editorial. The Tribeca Film Festival 2014 featured the documentary film Virunga directed and produced by Orlando Von Einsiedel.

 

Virunga is also under threat from poachers and militia; the future of the park and the endangered species living within it are far from secure but the withdrawal of Soco is encouraging. The future of the park might be further secured with the development of eco-tourism and renewable energy initiatives which will create greater economic prosperity in the park without damaging its environmental integrity. This will make it easier to resist promises of wealth from oil, for which the environmental price is far too high.

It's Only a Game...

The 2014 World Cup is now in full swing in Brazil, and as a result the country has been placed under a microscope. In the run up to the start of the tournament there have been concerns over the completion and safety of stadiums, and there have been reports on the anticipated increase in sex tourism; the revelations about child prostitution are particularly distressing:

Child Prostitutes Forced to Cash-in on Fans at Brazil World Cup 

The spotlight has also be turned to environmental issues in Brazil. The mascot for the World Cup, 'Fuleco', is an endangered three-banded armadillo and has received much attention from world media. The name is a combination of the words futebol (football) and ecologia (ecology) and appears to demonstrate environmental awareness on the part of FIFA. While the choice of mascot may help raise awareness of the plight of this creature, FIFA has been criticised for not doing more to help secure the future of the animal that is being used to market the World Cup.

Huffington Post: Armadillo, Mascot of the 2014 World Cup, Threatened with Extinction

BBC News: Row Over Protection for World Cup Mascot Armadillo

Paddy Power has used the World Cup as an opportunity to raise awareness of deforestation in the Amazon Rainforest...or did they use deforestation in the Amazon Rainforest to raise awareness of Paddy Power and the World Cup?

The entire story and the way in which it unfolded is documented on the Paddy Power website (below).

The Truth about Paddy Power's Stunt in the Amazon Rainforest

The online backlash that Paddy Power received when people thought they had contributed to deforestation demonstrates the general public's awareness of the issue and their concern for the "lungs of the world". However, once the truth had been revealed the conversation quickly changed from concern for the Amazon to praise for the creativity and originality of the publicity stunt.

The 2014 World Cup could be a great opportunity to highlight and tackle important environmental issues, but what we have seen so far has been little more than lip service; the true goal is self promotion and publicity. While it is unrealistic to expect FIFA to tackle environmental issues in any meaningful way, the very least we can do is recognise that insincere marketing strategies exploit environmental issues and exploit the public.  

Geomorphology

One way to make the physical environment meet the increasing demands and growth of the human population is to physically change the shape of the landscape. However this approach may prove to be as short-sighted as it is drastic.

The flattening of mountains in China caught the attention of the world media this week and the reports centred on the warnings issued by the scientific community. 

Risk Posed by China Mountain Removal 

Efforts to flatten the landscape aim to create more space for construction and allow for the expansion of cities that are currently restricted in valleys. This is one of the least subtle ways in which humans are exercising domination over nature; by literally bulldozing over the natural landscape. 

The concerns are that this mountain flattening is happening on an unprecedented scale and so it is somewhat experimental. It has also been linked to water and air pollution, soil erosion and flooding. Furthermore there are concerns as to the suitability of the newly flattened land for building, and so it may not even meet its primary objective.

Previous posts in this blog have discussed the dangers of heavy handed approaches to nature, and the ways in which poorly considered approaches that do not acknowledge or understand the natural processes in the environment, often end up creating more problems than they can solve. It seems that mountain flattening will become yet another example.

Mountain flattening represents a feat of human engineering and ingenuity. If the city is getting too big for the valley and if it is not financially or structurally viable to expand into the mountains, then change those mountains and valleys. If the planet is getting too warm due to an increased concentration of greenhouse gases and it is not socially, economically or politically viable to reduce emissions, then cool the planet by restricting incoming solar radiation. Though mountain flattening is not in the same league as some solar radiation management proposals in terms of the level of tinkering with the earth system, both represent a similar way of thinking. Both present a solution that changes the wider environment but not human behaviour. Both make an allowance for continued unsustainable growth. Both solve a problem in very narrow sense with seemingly no regard for the consequences. If we would rather move mountains (literally) than address unsustainable population and economic growth it does not bode well for a timely and effective response to climate change.