Friday, June 04, 2021

Ahead of Global Actions, Farmers Release 'Anti-Imperialist Manifesto in Defense of the Environment'

"Putting a stop to capitalist barbarism is the central task of our time."


by Jessica Corbett, staff writer
Published on Wednesday, June 02, 2021 by Common Dreams

A youth environmental activist holds a placard reading "Capitalism kills the planet" during a protest outside the Spanish Parliament in Madrid on September 25, 2020. (Photo: Pablo Blazquez Dominguez/Getty Images)

As experts and research continue to make the case for overhauling humanity's destructive relationship with nature, La Via Campesina—a global movement of peasants, farmers, landless people, rural women and youth, Indigenous individuals, migrants, and agricultural workers—echoed that message on Wednesday.

"The solution is in the rebuilding of the relationship between human beings and nature, where life, collective well-being, and ecological rhythms—not greed and profit—guide the actions of nations and peoples."
—Manifesto

The movement, which was founded nearly three decades ago and is made up of scores of groups in over 80 countries across Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas that collectively represent millions of people, released an "Anti-Imperialist Manifesto in Defense of the Environment" ahead of global actions planned for Saturday.

"Putting a stop to capitalist barbarism is the central task of our time," the manifesto declares. "We need to put an end to the domination of capital over life in order to create a world that is just, egalitarian, and vibrant, so that we all can live well and in peace."

Backed by scientific findings on the climate and biodiversity crises, the movement takes aim at "the destructive power of the current stage of capitalism," highlighting how "the unrestrained extraction and exploitation of natural resources for profit by the large corporations, and the logic of the capitalist system, have depleted our planet."

As the manifesto explains, "we are experiencing the worst environmental crisis in the history of humanity," and that it will only get worse absent global intervention:


Climate change is already affecting people's lives all across the world, and this is not the only consequence of the environmental crisis. The world's water is contaminated by plastics and pesticides and the springs are drying up. We are also seeing dramatic rates of extinction of the planet's biodiversity as well as large scale biopiracy—where commercial interests patent naturally occurring biochemical or genetic material imposing limits on how they can be used even in their naturally occurring environments. The soil is being degraded by deforestation and monocropping, and large regions are being completely destroyed by large-scale mining.

"The Covid-19 pandemic is the latest manifestation of this environmental and systemic crisis," the manifesto notes.

Since the ongoing coronavirus outbreak started, public health experts and world leaders have repeatedly called for developing, in the words of famed conservationist Jane Goodall, "a new mindset for our survival" to prevent future pandemics.

“I hope we emerge from this pandemic… with a new respect for nature, the natural world and animals.”

—Jane Goodall @JaneGoodallInst in the newly released #WeAreNature film, calling for a paradigm shift in how we view nature & the rest of life on #ForNature pic.twitter.com/SUbz859e9g

— ipbes (@IPBES) May 31, 2021

However, human exploitation of nature continues, despite the pandemic's significant death toll and economic fallout, and the clear threats of business as usual.


The manifesto—published in English, Spanish, and French—slams imperialists of the Global North, including and especially the United States, for continuing to "attack peripheral countries looking to privatize common goods that the people, the real owners of natural resources, used to take care of in each country."

"It is important also to highlight the nefarious role that military activities play in the destruction of the planet," the manifesto says. "In addition to carrying our constant attacks on the lives of the people themselves, the USA military, with its allies, is one of the biggest contaminators in the world, though its toxic legacy of depleted uranium, and its use of oil, fuel for airplanes, pesticides, and defoliants like Agent Orange and lead."

The movement also blasts transnational companies for advancing a planet-wrecking agricultural model based on monocrops and pesticide use and, more broadly, for increasing "their capacity to exploit common goods, pushing forward in mining projects, deforestation, and the private appropriation of water among other things."



“. . .as principles of regenerative agriculture and soil health gain popularity around the world, pesticide companies have jumped on the bandwagon to greenwash their products.” https://t.co/qXhuqMMHD5

— Emily Knobbe (@EmilyKnobbe) June 1, 2021

"Some corporations, instead of combating the causes of planetary destruction, focus on green capitalism, converting natural resources into commodities and new areas for market speculation, like carbon credits, environmental preservation credits, and other false solutions that will not resolve the social and ecological needs of the people," the movement points out.

"This path will inevitably lead to the destruction of humanity and of nature as we know it," the manifesto says. "It is a project of death, domination, and destruction."

"The solution is in the rebuilding of the relationship between human beings and nature, where life, collective well-being, and ecological rhythms—not greed and profit—guide the actions of nations and peoples," it asserts.

According to La Via Campesina, "It is a solution focused on agroecological production of food; the democratization of the access to land through agrarian reform; the protection and care of common goods such as water, biodiversity and land; and the transition to an energy model that responds to the real needs of the working class with social and environmental justice, overcoming patriarchy and racism."



#LVC calls for solidarity actions on June 5th, World Environment Day, #InDefenseOfThePlanet and against forthcoming corporate-led UN Food System Summit which promotes false solutions that will worsen current climate and environmental crisis. https://t.co/FwogGBeLxW pic.twitter.com/p75XEnYxu5

— La Via Campesina (@via_campesina) June 2, 2021

People across the globe are planning actions for June 5, World Environment Day, to demand the protection of Mother Earth and the "full implementation" of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP), La Via Campesina said Wednesday in a statement about the upcoming #InDefenseOfThePlanet actions.

"We must also urgently unite against the forthcoming corporate-led U.N. Food System Summit," the statement noted, "as it promotes false solutions which will not only worsen the current climate and environmental crisis but will also constitute a serious attack to our rights as peasants, Indigenous communities, women, migrants, and rural communities."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.



UN Agencies Call for a Decade of Restoring Ecosystems to Confront Biodiversity and Climate Emergencies

The new report "charts the losses that result from a poor stewardship of the planet."



by Jessica Corbett, staff writer
Published on Thursday, June 03, 2021
by Common Dreams

Three volunteers plant sea grass in the sand dunes at Fort Walton Beach in Florida. (Photo: Sean Murphy/Getty Images)

Just ahead of World Environment Day and amid demands from scientists and grassroots organizers for global systemic changes, a pair of United Nations agencies on Thursday launched the U.N. Decade on Ecosystem Restoration with a report that serves as a call to action for everyone to join the #GenerationRestoration movement.

"Restoration is essential for keeping global temperature rise below 2°C, ensuring food security for a growing population, and slowing the rate of species extinctions."
—U.N. report

The new U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report highlights that humans are using 1.6 times the resources that the planet can sustainably provide and since the 1990s, 420 million hectares or over a million acres of forest have been lost.

Such statistics underscore the need for countries to deliver on existing pledges to restore at least one billion degraded hectares of land—roughly 2.47 billion acres or an area about the size of China—as well as make similar commitments for the world's oceans.

"We speak of two-thirds of ocean ecosystems being damaged, degraded, and modified, and if you consider that the planet is 70% ocean, that is an enormous amount, including plastic pollution which is so ubiquitous that it is very hard to avoid plastic—even in fish that we catch and eat," said Tim Christophersen, head of UNEP's Nature for Climate Branch, Ecosystems Division, according to U.N. News.

In the report's foreword, UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen and FAO Director-General Qu Dongyu write that "the 2021–2030 timeline underlines the urgency of the task. Without a powerful 10-year drive for restoration, we can neither achieve the climate targets of the Paris agreement, nor the Sustainable Development Goals."

Andersen and Qu point out that "degradation is already affecting the well-being of an estimated 3.2 billion people—that is 40% of the world's population. Every single year we lose ecosystem services worth more than 10% of our global economic output."

"This report presents the case for why we all must throw our weight behind a global restoration effort," they continue. "Drawing on the latest scientific evidence, it explains the crucial role played by ecosystems from forests and farmland to rivers and oceans, and charts the losses that result from our poor stewardship of the planet."



On #WorldEnvironmentDay, join us as we launch the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration and embark on a journey to rapidly restore our ecosystems.

Because people and nature can heal together. #GenerationRestoration https://t.co/4h22lT1fph pic.twitter.com/zy2ndvsSbj

— Inger Andersen (@andersen_inger) June 3, 2021

Entitled Becoming #GenerationRestoration: Ecosystem Restoration for People, Nature, and Climate (pdf), the report says that "restoration is essential for keeping global temperature rise below 2°C, ensuring food security for a growing population, and slowing the rate of species extinctions. Humanity is not outside of nature; it is part of it. We need to recreate a balanced relationship with the ecosystems that sustain us."


The agencies detail what is happening in various ecosystems, from farmlands and forests to grasslands, mountains, peatlands, savannahs, urban areas, and bodies of water. They also outline why restoration is necessary for the economy, food security, clean water, human health and well-being, the climate emergency, peace, and biodiversity.

"Unfortunately, we are still going in the wrong direction," the report warns. "People living in poverty, women, Indigenous peoples, and other marginalized groups bear the brunt of this damage, and the Covid-19 pandemic has only worsened existing inequalities."

UNEP and FAO also emphasize that restoration must happen on a massive scale to achieve the international community's sustainable development agenda, that successful efforts will require "deep changes" but deliver multiple benefits, and that "everyone has a role to play," from governments and donors to youth organizers.

Ecosystem restoration, the report says, "is one of the most important ways of delivering nature-based solutions for societal challenges." Some of the changes it requires include natural capital accounting, eliminating subsidies that incentivize further degradation and fuel the climate emergency, reducing food waste, using agricultural land more efficiently, promoting plant-based diets, and incorporating the importance of healthy ecosystems into educational systems.

We must restore ecosystems to tackle the #ClimateCrisis, save species from extinction & secure our future

Explore our #GenerationRestoration interactive & find out what your country has committed to restore #WorldEnvironmentDay #ForNaturehttps://t.co/saXlRoGtPh

— UN Environment Programme (@UNEP) June 3, 2021

The U.N. agencies estimate that restoring lands in line with the one billion hectare commitment will require an investment of at least $200 billion per year by 2030—and while that may seem steep, the report notes that every $1 invested in restoration creates up to 30 times that amount in economic benefits.

"Restoration needs to be seen as an infrastructure investment in a country's well-being. We need imagination," UNEP's Christophersen told The Guardian. "For many people, I think restoring a billion hectares is a bit abstract. We have decades of experience of how this could work but never on the scale we're talking about. We have space program[s] and nuclear weapons—it is possible."

The report comes as 126 Nobel laureates shared a statement titled "Our Planet, Our Future: An Urgent Call for Action" with leaders of Group of Seven countries and the U.N. secretary-general ahead of a G-7 summit, and a day after La Via Campesina, an international movement of peasants and others, published an "Anti-Imperialist Manifesto in Defense of the Environment." Members of that movement are among those planning global actions for Saturday, which is World Environment Day.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.



Green Groups Sue US Development Bank Financing Climate-Damaging Projects Overseas

The organizations charge that exempting the institution from a key federal transparency law is illegal.

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer
Published on Wednesday, June 02, 2021
by Common Dreams


The sun sets behind liquified natural gas tanks in Hazira, Gujarat, India. (Photo: Puneet Vikram Singh/Getty Images)


In an effort to hold the United States' development bank accountable for financing "climate-damaging" international projects, a trio of environmental organizations filed suit Wednesday over the Trump administration's attempt to exempt it from a key federal government transparency law.

"The DFC should be using the power of the U.S. purse to build clean and renewable energy opportunities, while holding itself accountable to the public as the Sunshine Act clearly requires."
—Kate DeAngelis, Friends of the Earth

Congress passed the Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development (BUILD) Act in 2018, creating the United States International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) by merging the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and U.S. Agency for International Development's Development Credit Authority.

Although DFC adopted the regulations of OPIC, the new agency declared in an April 2020 rule that the Sunshine Act "is not applicable to DFC." The groups behind the lawsuit—the Center for Biological Diversity, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), and Friends of the Earth—disagree.

"This is an easy one for the Biden administration," said Bill Snape, senior counsel with the Center for Biological Diversity and lead lawyer on the legal filing, in a statement. "Congress intended this new agency to be open to the public and follow the Sunshine Act. While the Trump administration used the agency to favor its special interest benefactors like the oil and gas industry, our lawsuit says 'no more.' This agency needs sunshine, and it needs it now."

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the suit (pdf) seeks a finding that the institution is violating not only the Sunshine Act but also the Administrative Procedure Act. The former, passed in 1976, states that "every portion of every meeting of an agency shall be open to public observation," meaning that the subject, time, and date of meetings are announced at least a week in advance and minutes or transcripts along with relevant records are made public.



The Trump admin used the US International Development Finance Corporation to favor its oil & gas industry special interests instead of following the law and opening deliberations to the public.

So today we're taking them to court.https://t.co/2V6xZEWZiC

— Friends of the Earth (Action) (@foe_us) June 2, 2021

"Over decades of work, CIEL has witnessed the importance of transparency for communities on the ground," said CIEL's Carla GarcĂ­a Zendejas. "Time and time again, we have seen that the Sunshine Act meetings are a vital lifeline in securing access to information about the DFC's decision-making processes."

"This is particularly evident in the Maipo region of Chile. The community has spent years calling on OPIC to take action in the Alto Maipo Hydroelectric Project," she explained. "As the construction is underway and the livelihoods of the Maipo River Valley residents are at risk, transparency and accountability at the DFC are more important than ever."

Zendejas added that "CIEL—and our partners around the world—expect more from the corporation, which is meant to finance development in a way that builds and strengthens civic institutions, while providing for public accountability and transparency."


As Kate DeAngelis of Friends of the Earth put it: "The new U.S. International Development Finance Corporation must be a part of the climate solution, not the problem."

"The DFC should be using the power of the U.S. purse to build clean and renewable energy opportunities, while holding itself accountable to the public as the Sunshine Act clearly requires," she continued. DeAngelis also highlighted foreign projects that have generated concerns.

"The DFC's support of disastrous liquified natural gas development in Mozambique and fracking projects in Argentina are prime examples of why this agency needs more sunshine," she said. "As an international organization, Friends of the Earth is acutely aware of the need to stop exporting our pollution and problems to other countries."



Each year, @DFCgov provides billions of dollars in financing each year to international projects, including fracking and environmentally destructive road-building. (2/6)

— Center for International Environmental Law (@ciel_tweets) June 2, 2021

In April, President Joe Biden marked Earth Day with a Leaders Summit on Climate and released an International Climate Finance Plan that disappointed some progressives. The White House said at the time that DFC "will update its development strategy to not only include climate for the first time, but also to make investments in climate mitigation and adaptation a top priority."

As Biden hosted the summit, DFC committed to increasing climate-focused investment and getting its portfolio to net-zero emissions by 2040.

Snape said Wednesday that "although President Biden's DFC has committed itself to 'net-zero emissions through its investment portfolio by 2040,' the agency still lags badly behind other countries' development agencies and is still promoting dirty shale gas and oil throughout the world."

Last month, 13 lawmakers led by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) sent a letter urging President Joe Biden to direct federal agencies including DFC to "end all new public financing support for fossil fuel projects overseas within 90 days."

The letter came a day after the International Energy Agency warned that countries must immediately transition from fossil fuels to renewable power sources.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.



Despite 'Green Recovery' Vows, G7 Nations Spent Billions More on Fossil Fuels Than Renewables Over Past Year

"The recovery policies of some G7 nations threw major lifelines to the oil and gas industry, risking an increase in the production and lock-in of these energy systems for decades."
Published on Wednesday, June 02, 2021
by Common Dreams

"System change not climate change" is written on a banner at a rally of the climate action movement Fridays for Future. Demonstrators gathered during the Covid-19 pandemic on October 20, 2020 in Berlin to demand a a green recovery. (Photo: Annette Riedl/picture alliance via Getty Images)

Even as officials prepare for the G7 summit where seven of the world's richest nations will reportedly discuss climate action and a "green recovery" from the Covid-19 pandemic, a new report reveals that those same countries poured tens of billions of dollars more into fossil fuels in the last year than they spent supporting renewable energy.

According to the relief agency Tearfund, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), and the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), the G7 nations invested $189 billion in fossil fuel production and deregulation between January 2020 and March 2021, while committing just $147 billion to developing renewable energy.

The groups' report, titled "Cleaning Up Their Act?," notes that in most cases, the money invested by the U.S., the U.K., Japan, France, Germany, Italy, and Canada was spent without "green strings," which would have conditioned the spending on fossil fuel companies' commitment to climate action.

"Investments with no 'green strings' attached are highly problematic, as they end up benefiting fossil-fuel intensive activities without requirements for any climate targets or reductions in pollution." —Angela Picciariello, ODI

The countries "missed major opportunities to make their response to Covid-19 greener," the report reads. "More than eight in every ten dollars committed to fossil fuels came with no 'green strings' attached."

"Investments with no 'green strings' attached are highly problematic, as they end up benefiting fossil-fuel intensive activities without requirements for any climate targets or reductions in pollution," said Angela Picciariello, senior research officer at ODI.

Despite promises to "build back better" after the pandemic by U.S. President Joe Biden—who adopted the slogan for his 2020 campaign—and other leaders, the U.S. and Canadian governments rolled back fossil fuel regulations in the last year, including waiving requirements for impact assessments for infrastructure projects, suspending penalties for pollution-causing corporations, and extending deadlines for emissions reporting.

"The emissions of already-developed reserves of oil, gas and coal alone could bring the world beyond the +1.5°C warming limit set by the Paris Agreement," the report states. "Yet the recovery policies of some G7 nations threw major lifelines to the oil and gas industry, risking an increase in the production and lock-in of these energy systems for decades."

G7 nations particularly invested in transportation systems that run on fossil fuels, spending $115 billion on bailouts for companies including Air France, British Airways, and Honda. More than 80% of the funds were given to the companies without securing commitments to reduce emissions, according to the report.

"So much for the green recovery," tweeted Nick Taylor, a lecturer at the Political Economy Research Center in London.



So much for the 'green recovery'. In 2020 G7 countries pumped $189bn into coal, oil & gas, $42bn more than renewables https://t.co/WsLCJwtBCO


— Nick Taylor (@nicklaus_taylor) June 2, 2021

The report comes days after G7 leaders announced their plans to discuss significant steps to mitigate the climate crisis at the summit, which begins June 11 in Cornwall, England.

The officials will reportedly discuss phasing out new direct government support for international fossil fuels, conserving 30% of land by 2030 to boost biodiversity and help absorb carbon emissions, and other measures.

The G7's actions since the pandemic began, however, have left advocates questioning leaders' commitment to the "green recovery" they have spent the last year promising.

"While eight out of 11 countries substantially improved the greenness of their plans over the last year, at the time of writing only four (Canada, France, Germany and the U.K.) have developed plans that will cause more environmental good than harm," the report reads.

A G7 summit where leaders take seriously the need to invest in renewable energy rather than fossil fuels, said ODI, "could also lay groundwork for a successful COP26," which is taking place in November in Scotland.



If G7 nations are going to clean up their act, the #G7Summit could also lay groundwork for a successful #COP26 >> https://t.co/re6cxhjpVi

End domestic public support for fossil fuels now
Urge greater ambition among its guests
Provide support for a green economic recovery https://t.co/xPKXOVKN1r

— ODI (@ODI_Global) June 2, 2021

"Every day, we witness the worsening consequences of the climate crisis for communities around the world—farmers' crops failing; floods and fires engulfing towns and villages; families facing an uncertain future," said Paul Cook, the head of advocacy at Tearfund. "Choices made now by the G7 countries will either accelerate the transition towards a climate-safe future for all, or jeopardize efforts to date to tackle the climate crisis."
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.



Agroecology Under Threat

The industrial model marginalizes the world's majority food producers—smallholder farmers, food provisioners and workers, Indigenous Peoples, and their innovative solutions, while causing far-reaching and detrimental environmental impacts.
Published on
Thursday, June 03, 2021
by
Inter Press Service

As a vital science, practice, and movement, with inextricably linked ecological, social, and political elements, agroecology is gaining more acceptance globally. (Photo: World Food Programme WFP)


This week*, the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) is expected to endorse recommendations on agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable food systems, after an intense period of negotiation involving governments, UN agencies and institutions, Indigenous People's organizations, civil society, and the private sector.

As they do so, they must also take a stance against the creeping co-option and "greenwashing" of agroecology and uphold the social and political foundations of agroecology. It is these inherent characteristics that are so crucial for the deep structural transformation of global food systems that we so urgently need.

Support for the industrialized model of food and agriculture—which is premised on a mindset that commodifies food, externalizes its true environmental and social costs and is upheld by short-term, unambitious policies and funding streams—needs to change.

As a vital science, practice, and movement, with inextricably linked ecological, social, and political elements, agroecology is gaining more acceptance globally. From our work convening food systems actors working in agroecology, regenerative agriculture, and Indigenous foodways, coupled with the launch of recent studies on the need for investment in agroecology and this review on agroecology's contribution to food security and nutrition, we know the evidence clearly supports it as a transformative approach.

In particular, agroecology combines ecological principles of diversity, resilience and recycling (for example) and the co-creation of knowledge, contextual factors like culture and tradition with responsible governance and the importance of circular and solidarity economies.

Yet, there is an emerging and real risk that agroecological messages, approaches, and methods are being cherry-picked and absorbed into the public narrative without recognition of the deeply transformative elements that define agroecology and how they lead to a healthy and sustainable future of food for all.

COVID-19 has been a brutal demonstration of what goes wrong when we do not recognize the deep interconnections between human, animal, and ecological health. It has disrupted food systems—and subsequently people's livelihoods and health—on a global scale and, unlike anything before, has called into question the unsustainable and vulnerable industrialized food systems currently at play.

Support for the industrialized model of food and agriculture—which is premised on a mindset that commodifies food, externalizes its true environmental and social costs and is upheld by short-term, unambitious policies and funding streams—needs to change.

The industrial model marginalizes the world's majority food producers—smallholder farmers, food provisioners and workers, Indigenous Peoples, and their innovative solutions, while causing far-reaching and detrimental environmental impacts. It is estimated that food systems account for approximately 30% of global emissions.

The pandemic recovery moment cannot be left to pass and instead must be harnessed as a moment for real change.

There is a growing diversity of voices and communities from around the world laying claim to agroecology's transformative effects: 600,000 farmers in Andhra Pradesh, India, are transitioning to natural farming with support from the state government working in partnership with civil society organizations, while other countries like Costa Rica, Senegal, and Germany are setting meaningful targets and transitioning their support towards agroecology and organic agriculture.

There are increasing numbers of local, regional, and global farmers' networks advocating for this approach. This is all happening even in spite of the fact that most agriculture and food subsidies, policies and programs, and donor activity, are still geared towards shoring up an industrialized model of food production.

With the UN Food Systems Summit and COP26 just a matter of months away, it's never been more important to embrace systems-based approaches and protect all that they stand for. In order to unlock the real benefits of agroecology, we need to see adapted policies, public investments, institutions, and research that promote a whole-systems approach and the advancement of agroecological and regenerative approaches that embed social and political principles.

Decision-makers must, from the get-go: acknowledge the strong role that local institutions and communities have; protect and expand rights, investment in infrastructure; and, embrace the central role of smallholder farmers, Indigenous Peoples, and women.

Crucially, this will involve actively resisting the rise of so-called "junk agroecology" and, concurrently, widening the frame of the evidence used to influence and inform decision-making.

A narrow focus just on scientific evidence (though critically necessary) at the expense of other types of evidence, diverse perspectives, and ways of knowing will only continue to jeopardize our understanding of the interconnected challenges we face and hold us back from mobilizing around the transformative opportunities across our food systems that are readily available—and within reach.

This is an urgent call to action.

*The Special Session of the 48th Plenary of CFS will take place virtually on Friday, 4 June 2021 to endorse the CFS Policy Recommendations on Agroecological and Other Innovative Approaches. The endorsement of the Policy Recommendations was moved from CFS 47 (held in February 2021) as their negotiations and completion was delayed due to COVID-19.

Dr Lauren Baker, PhD, is Senior Director of Programs at the Global Alliance for the Future of Food. She has more than 20 years of experience facilitating cross-sectoral research, policy and advocacy for sustainable food systems in non-profit, academic, business, policy and philanthropic contexts. Previously, she led the Toronto Food Policy Council, a citizen advisory group embedded within the City of Toronto’s Public Health Division, and was the Founding Director of Sustain Ontario—the Alliance for Healthy Food and Farming. Lauren teaches in the Global Food Equity program at the University of Toronto, and is a research associate with Ryerson University’s Centre for Studies in Food Security.

© 2021 Inter Press Service
GOP Governors' Termination of Jobless Aid Could Cost Local Economies Over $12 Billion: Report

"If states proceed with their plans to end these critical programs, they will be ripping the rug out from under millions of Americans and further hindering our economic recovery."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer 
Published on Thursday, June 03, 2021
by Common Dreams

A vehicle is seen during a caravan protest asking the state of Florida to fix its unemployment system on May 22, 2020 in Miami Beach. (Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

In addition to stripping a key lifeline from millions of jobless workers across the country, Republican governors' plans to prematurely cut off emergency unemployment benefits could cost local economies an estimated $12 billion as previously covered individuals and families lose the extra $300 in weekly federal aid they were using to buy groceries and other necessities.

According to a report (pdf) released Wednesday by the Joint Economic Committee, a congressional panel chaired by Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), the decision by dozens of Republican governors to cut off the $300-per-week boost to unemployment insurance "will take over $755 million from UI beneficiaries and their families on average."

"There is little evidence that enhanced UI is holding back employment. In fact, ending it could cost local economies more than $12 billion."
—Rep. Don Beyer

"These numbers, while rough estimates, nonetheless probably understate the extent of the economic loss caused by this decision," the report reads. "By ending these programs early, states are refusing billions of already appropriated federal dollars that could be spent in local groceries, restaurants, and retail shops."

The JEC's cost estimate does not include Maryland, which earlier this week became the 25th Republican-led state to announce it will end its participation in the $300 weekly unemployment boost—formally known as Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC)—that supplemented notoriously low state benefits.

Maryland, along with 20 other GOP-led states, is also opting out of Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), federal programs designed to provide aid to jobless gig workers and those who have exhausted their eligibility for state-level benefits. Depending on when the state submitted a notice of withdrawal to the Biden administration, the benefits will officially end between June 12 and July 13.

Originally approved in March 2020 under the CARES Act and extended in subsequent relief packages, the emergency unemployment programs aren't set to expire nationwide until early September.

The JEC warns in its new analysis that "the earlier that states prematurely cut off FPUC, the more money their local economies stand to lose."

"Estimates of the multiplier effect of UI find every $1 in UI generates $1.61 in local spending," the report notes. "Based on this multiplier, localities around the country will miss out on more than $12 billion flowing back into their economies from FPUC-related spending from June 19 to September 5. This estimate does not include the amounts lost to early cancellation of PUA/PEUC, underscoring that the loss to local economies as a result of early termination will far exceed the $12 billion estimate."

In a statement, Beyer said that the unemployment benefits approved at the start of the coronavirus pandemic last year "ensured that tens of millions of Americans were still able to put food on the table, prescriptions in the medicine cabinet, and keep the lights on during one of the worst economic recessions in our nation's history."

"Many of those Americans still remain deeply uncertain about their economic futures as we still remain more than eight million jobs short of where we were pre-pandemic," Beyer added, rejecting Republican governors' widely disputed claim that enhanced unemployment benefits are dissuading people from returning to the workforce.

"There is little evidence that enhanced UI is holding back employment," said Beyer. "In fact, ending it could cost local economies more than $12 billion. If states proceed with their plans to end these critical programs, they will be ripping the rug out from under millions of Americans and further hindering our economic recovery."



As Republican Governors cut off unemployment benefits to workers in their states, many are arguing about supposed labor shortages.

But in addition to hurting unemployed workers, new economic analysis by @JECDems finds cutting off those benefits will cost their states billions. https://t.co/RFuFX8BtP2

— Rep. Don Beyer (@RepDonBeyer) June 2, 2021

The National Employment Law Project and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) argued last month that under the specific terms of the CARES Act, the Biden administration has a legal obligation to continue providing the emergency jobless benefits regardless of Republican governors' actions.

But administration officials have told media outlets in recent days that they believe they are powerless to stop Republican-led states from withdrawing from the aid programs, despite the devastating impact the moves could have on millions of workers and the economic recovery.

"States are canceling federal UI because of a faux panic over the rate of re-hiring—but the economy is already improving, thanks to the money injected by these programs," Andrew Stettner, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, argued Thursday. "There are surely going to be more ups and downs in our recovery, possibly reflected in tomorrow's jobs report. We must recognize that this economic progress is happening in part because of—not in spite of—federal unemployment aid."

On Thursday morning, the Department of Labor announced that 461,000 people applied for unemployment benefits last week—a pandemic low but still far above pre-crisis levels.

"Total initial claims are still 2.5 times what they were before Covid," Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute wrote in a series of tweets responding to the new data. "Many Republican-led states are preparing to cancel pandemic UI benefits. This will not just hurt workers who can't find work or can't work right now, it will hurt the economy in these states, because those benefits are supporting spending. It's terrible economics."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Corporations Should Not Have the Power to Undermine Global Efforts to Vaccinate People

Even if governments agree to suspend patent protections for vaccines, corporations can fight back with expensive lawsuits.
Published on Thursday, June 03, 2021
by Inequality.org

Demonstrators hold a rally to "Free the Vaccine," calling on the U.S. to commit to a global coronavirus plan that includes sharing formulas with the world to help ensure that every nation has access to a vaccine, on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on May 5, 2021. (Photo: Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images)

President Joe Biden's support of suspending Covid-19 vaccine patents to facilitate the global production of immunologic agents is vital. If approved by the World Trade Organization (WTO), it will make it easier for many countries to produce their own vaccines at a time when high-income countries control more than 80 percent of the vaccines and only 0.3 percent have gone to low-income countries.

Biden took action in the face of a massive social and political campaign. One of the leaders of this campaign, Arthur Stamoulis, the director of the Citizens Trade Campaign, stated that "President Biden's willingness to support the waiver is a testament not only to his character, but to the excellent work of the hundreds of organizations and millions of individuals who urged this to happen."

But even if governments reach an agreement at the WTO, the fight unfortunately might not end there.

Government actions to guarantee vaccines, as well as other interventions to ensure access to medical treatment and balance economic recovery with support for the most unprotected social sectors, could all be targeted by corporate lawsuits.

Companies could still appeal to supranational arbitration in tribunals, such as the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). While these tribunals do not have the power to reverse government policies, they can put tremendous pressure on policymakers to bend to the will of powerful corporations.

The pharmaceutical industry has made clear their opposition to the patent waiver. Both the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization have threatened that this suspension will interrupt vaccine distribution. They have also pressed for the prevention of the "expropriation" and transfer of technology to other countries.

Government actions to guarantee vaccines, as well as other interventions to ensure access to medical treatment and balance economic recovery with support for the most unprotected social sectors, could all be targeted by corporate lawsuits.

In fact, since the beginning of the pandemic, law firms have been advising their clients regarding measures they can take to file multimillion-dollar lawsuits under bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and free trade agreements (FTAs) if their operations or profits are impacted by Covid response policies.

For example, Aceris Law, an international arbitration firm based in Washington, D.C., declared that "while the future remains uncertain, the response to the Covid-19 pandemic is likely to violate various protections provided in bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and may bring rise to claims in the future by foreign investors."


According to an article in the specialized magazine Global Arbitration Review, "Mexico adopted two energy policies that were said to be in response to the fall in energy demand caused by Covid-19. The policies have had the practical effect of curbing renewable energy production by suspending all testing on solar and wind farms, giving enhanced grid access to non-renewable electricity generators, and strengthening the Federal Electricity Commission's role in electricity planning. In response, several investors are reportedly considering bringing a claim against Mexico amid a doubt over the motive of these measures."

Indeed, since 2020 lawsuits against governments have propagated like a virus in supranational tribunals. The supranational system for protecting investments functions in parallel to international law, promoted by the implementation of more than 2,600 BITs and FTAs. The lawsuits reach up to millions or even billions of dollars and target public policies and regulations that, the investors argue, reduce the value of their investments or even their expected profits (indirect expropriation).

Since 2020, at least 72 new cases of investor-state lawsuits were registered at ICSID alone, several of them for exorbitant amounts. The Brazilian construction company Odebrecht has sued Peru for more than $1.2 billion. The Dutch port company Bob Meijer has sued the Republic of Georgia for $1 billion. The Italian construction company Webuild has sued Panama for $2.2 billion. And Mexico has been the target of at least three new cases since 2020 (by Rabobank, Espiritu Santo Holdings, and First Majestic), making it one of the most-sued countries in the world.

One year ago, 630 organizations, including the International Trade Union Confederation, raised the alarm about this situation, urging governments to "take a lead in ensuring countries around the world do not face a wave of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases arising from actions taken to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic and ensuing economic crisis."

Biden criticized this system during his campaign, declaring: "I don't believe that corporations should get special tribunals that are not available to other organizations." He added, "I oppose the ability of private corporations to attack labor, health, and environmental policies through the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process, and I oppose the inclusion of such provisions in future trade agreements."

Now, in addition to waving patents and confronting powerful intellectual property rights, he should work with other countries to protect governments from the proliferation of more lawsuits by investors against governments and begin to dismantle this biased system.

Nowadays, when policymakers around the world are struggling to find resources to address the Covid-19 pandemic and its impacts, they should not be overwhelmed by having to defend themselves against multimillion-dollar corporate lawsuits. It is time to put health and security above the corporate thirst for profits.



Foreign Policy In Focus contributor Manuel PĂ©rez Rocha is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Bill Gates Almost Single-Handedly Derailed the Plan That Could Have Led to a 'People's Vaccine'

For all his philanthropy, Gates is deeply committed to protecting the rights of patent holder
s.
 Published on Thursday, June 03, 2021 
by


Billionaire Bill Gates on Sunday argued against a temporary patent waiver for Covid-19 vaccines at the World Trade Organization during an interview with Sky News. (Photo: Screenshot/Sky News)


Hard to believe now, but in the first few months of the pandemic it looked like the world was going to act together to develop a "people's vaccine."

Given the scope and urgency of the looming crisis in February 2020, hundreds of global health experts and researchers converged for two intense days at the Geneva headquarters of the World Health Organization (WHO) where they drew up extensive plans for pooling global scientific knowledge in order to expedite the quest for a vaccine.

Their plan amounted to a bold rejection of the usual pharmaceutical model where drug companies carry out research behind proprietary walls, jealously guarding their "intellectual property" as they race to get a patent, which will give them a monopoly on their new product.

Instead, the urgent plan drawn up at WHO headquarters by some of the world's top infectious disease experts was based on a concept rarely seen in the ultra-lucrative world of pharmaceutical drugs—co-operation in the interests of creating a public good.

The Gates-Big Pharma model has been a disaster, with pharmaceutical companies making astronomical profits as they dole out scarce supplies of their patented COVID vaccines to the highest bidders, leaving poor countries with little chance of vaccinating their people before 2024.

But, in the grim winter and early spring of 2020, governments around the world were sufficiently scared of the deadly new virus that they seemed willing to embrace such a radical scheme—even over the objections of Big Pharma.

"The early days featured tantalizing glimpses of an open-science, co-operative pandemic response," notes Alexander Zaitchik, author of the forthcoming book "Owning the Sun: A People's History of Monopoly Medicine, from Aspirin to COVID-19."

But the inspiring plan devised by the scientists—which promised to create a vaccine essentially belonging to the world's people, not to corporate shareholders—was crushed fairly decisively when Bill Gates ventured into the fray.

The multibillionaire, often described as the "global health czar," has achieved an exulted, almost revered status for giving away tens of billions of his fortune in a seemingly selfless effort to help the world.

Unlike other billionaire philanthropists, who lavish money on their alma maters or prestigious cultural institutions, Gates has focused on helping the world's poor.

Long before the pandemic struck, Gates was channelling billions from his foundation to support vaccine programs in the developing world.

And yet, as Zaitchik documents, Gates almost single-handedly derailed the plan that could have led to a "people's vaccine."

That's because, for all his philanthropy, Gates is deeply committed to protecting the rights of patent holders. He made his own mega-fortune through patents on his computer innovations and has long supported the pharmaceutical industry's claim that patents are necessary to encourage investment.

Big Pharma has been only too happy to let the selfless billionaire be the frontman for their cause, seemingly providing evidence of its moral validity.

So, even before the scientific community had a chance to launch its co-operative public initiative in May 2020, Gates had put forward his own COVID initiative based on protecting drug patents and encouraging vaccine philanthropy.

Of course, the Gates-Big Pharma model has been a disaster, with pharmaceutical companies making astronomical profits as they dole out scarce supplies of their patented COVID vaccines to the highest bidders, leaving poor countries with little chance of vaccinating their people before 2024.

This abject failure prompted an alliance of developing nations, led by South Africa and India, to demand that patents be waived for COVID vaccines and drugs until the end of the pandemic.

For months, rich countries rejected the patent-waiver demand. But a surprise recent endorsement by the Biden administration has changed the dynamics somewhat, pushing even the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to support the poor countries' initiative, although Gates himself has not changed his tune.

Among other things, the vaccine tragedy highlights the danger posed by the extreme concentration of wealth and power that Bill Gates represents.

It turns out that his mega-philanthropy comes with a hitch: it enables Gates to develop extraordinary influence over crucial matters, such as whether or not the world's poor will have a chance to survive the pandemic.

Dr. Jonas Salk, developer of the polio vaccine, famously dismissed a question about ownership of his discovery with the question: "Could you patent the sun?"

To which Bill Gates would presumably reply: "Absolutely. How else can we encourage investment?"


Linda McQuaig is an author, journalist, and former NDP candidate for Toronto Centre in the Canadian federal election. She is also the author of "The Sport and Prey of Capitalists: How the Rich Are Stealing Canada's Public Wealth" (2019), "War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet: It's the Crude, Dude" (2006) and (with Neil Brooks) of "Billionaires’ Ball: Gluttony and Hubris in an Age of Epic Inequality" (2012).
© 2021 TheStar.com



UN Labor Agency Finds Pandemic Pushed Over 100 Million Workers Into Poverty

The Covid-19 crisis has exacerbated preexisting inequalities and undermined progress on poverty reduction, gender equality, and battling child and forced labor, according to the International Labor Organization.

by Jessica Corbett, staff writer



UCLA senior food service worker Claudia Salcedo and assistant cook Evelyn Aguila work in the kitchen of the Bruin Plate Residential Dining Restaurant as they prepare Brussel sprouts to be added to meals packaged for low-income families in partnership with the Venice Family Center on December 2, 2020 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo: Al Seib/Los Angeles Times)

Over a year after projecting that the coronavirus pandemic could have a "catastrophic" impact on the global economy and workforce, the United Nations labor agency on Wednesday revealed that the public health crisis pushed more than 100 million workers worldwide into poverty.

"Recovery from Covid-19 is not just a health issue. The serious damage to economies and societies needs to be overcome too."
—Guy Ryder, ILO

The new report (pdf), entitled World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends 2021 (WESO Trends), also warns of the "real risk that—absent comprehensive and concerted policy efforts—the Covid-19 crisis will leave behind a legacy of widened inequality and reduced overall progress in the world of work across multiple dimensions."

Worryingly, the International Labor Organization (ILO) report shows that "the recovery process is likely to be both incomplete and uneven," said Guy Ryder, the agency's director-general, in a video about the findings.

"Incomplete because the damage done will not be fully repaired by the end of 2022, we will still have a major jobs shortfall," Ryder explained. "Uneven because it's the rich countries, the high-income countries, which are the best placed—because they have vaccines, because they have the fiscal means to do so—to recover more quickly."

"So the danger is a bit of a two-speed recovery," he continued, noting that not only workers in poor countries but also those in vulnerable sectors globally could be left behind. "We need a different option. We need a human-centered recovery, which will prevent that from happening."

Our new World Employment and Social Outlook Trends report shows that the world of work recovery from #COVID19 will be uneven and incomplete before 2023.

We need a human-centred recovery strategy that benefits all, backed by action and funding.

Full story:https://t.co/Ep0CiLrxdL pic.twitter.com/Mgb8889z7d

— Guy Ryder (@GuyRyder) June 2, 2021

The ILO found that relative to 2019, an additional 108 million workers worldwide are now moderately or extremely poor—meaning their families must survive on less than $3.20 per person each day. The report says that "five years of progress towards the eradication of working poverty have been undone."

The pandemic has "highlighted the vulnerable situation of migrant workers" and undermined recent progress on gender equality, the report adds. According to Agence France-Presse, Ryder told reporters that the ongoing crisis has also negatively affected efforts to end child and forced labor.

"Looking ahead, the projected employment growth will be insufficient to close the gaps opened up by the crisis," WESO Trends warns. "To make matters worse, many of the newly created jobs are expected to be of low productivity and poor quality."

The U.N. agency projects that the pandemic-induced "jobs gap" will hit 75 million this year and fall to 23 million next year. The gap in working hours—which accounts for the jobs gap and hours reductions—is expected to be the equivalent of 100 million full-time jobs in 2021 and 26 million full-time jobs in 2022.

#COVID19 to push global unemployment over 200 million mark in 2022 – “we’ve gone backwards” to 2015 levels of working poverty, says @ilo chief @GuyRyder @UN Genevahttps://t.co/SsN0T832XS

— UN News (@UN_News_Centre) June 2, 2021

"As the overall economic situation starts to improve and pandemic-related restrictions are lifted, large numbers of people who were previously inactive in the labor market will enter the labor force again," the report says. "However, owing to the lack of sufficient jobs, the global unemployment headcount will remain elevated throughout 2021 and 2022—at 220 million and 205 million unemployed, respectively."

While the most affected regions in the first half of this year have been Latin America and the Caribbean as well as Europe and Central Asia, ILO points out that "the pandemic further exposed racial and ethnic inequality in North America." In the United States specifically, the crisis illuminated "inequalities in health and economic outcomes, linked to entrenched structural barriers."

"Worldwide, employment in the accommodation and food services sector is estimated to have been the worst affected by the crisis," says the report. The wholesale and retail trade sector was also heavily hit, as was manufacturing and construction, which "incurred a significant decline in employment as a result of the crisis, bearing the brunt of the impact in the industry sector."

The labour market crisis created by the #COVID19 pandemic is far from over.

Employment growth will be insufficient to make up for the losses suffered until at least 2023.

Check out the new ILO WESO Trends report: https://t.co/frEhP1ktgS pic.twitter.com/CeRaO0O0gm

— International Labour Organization (@ilo) June 2, 2021

"Recovery from Covid-19 is not just a health issue. The serious damage to economies and societies needs to be overcome too," Ryder emphasized in a statement. "Without a deliberate effort to accelerate the creation of decent jobs, and support the most vulnerable members of society and the recovery of the hardest-hit economic sectors, the lingering effects of the pandemic could be with us for years in the form of lost human and economic potential and higher poverty and inequality."

"We need a comprehensive and coordinated strategy, based on human-centered policies, and backed by action and funding," he added. "There can be no real recovery without a recovery of decent jobs."


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

 


Christopher Ryan Maboloc just uploaded ""Water Rights: Ethical issues and Developmental Impact." In Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics, Volume 31, Number 5 (July 2020): 84-88.."

"Water Rights: Ethical issues and Developmental Impact." In Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics, Volume 31, Number 5 (July 2020): 84-88.
Paper Thumbnail
Author Photo Christopher Ryan Maboloc
View Paper ▸ Download PDF ⬇


ABSTRACT
Ethical approaches and the right development framework when it comes to water use and conservation are critical. Water as a resource is not unlimited. Darryl Macer et al. (2011) point to the necessity of understanding the basics of water, uses of water, water resource availability, and conflict. Water is a very...
read more...