There are many reasons why people not directly affected by food insecurity should consider it a problem, even taking moral considerations about social justice out of the equation.

The most eye-catching is that in creating desperate people, hunger becomes a source of conflict and a threat to everyone’s security.

“One of the arguments is terrorism and national security. When you have people living in poverty and hunger, that’s a breeding ground for terrorism,” David Dawe, senior economist at the Rome-based United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) tells IPS. “That’s a strong argument.”

Josette Sheeran, head of the World Food Programme (WFP), another U.N. food agency based in Rome, also believes that empty stomachs feed trouble.

“A hungry world is a dangerous world,” Sheeran told reporters earlier this year. “Without food, people have only three options: they riot, they emigrate, or they die. None of these are acceptable.”

While these may indeed be “strong arguments” for powerful states to take action, their implications set some NGOs engaged in the war on hunger on edge. Some reject them outright.

“I don’t buy this argument that if we don’t do the right thing they’ll come over here and ruin our lives,” John Hilary, executive director of the London-based anti-poverty group War on Want tells IPS. “I think that’s too near to the far right and the British National Party.”

Oxfam International believes the self-interest case is valid, while harbouring concerns that it could be twisted by groups in developed countries to block immigration and imports from developing countries.

“It is true that it is in the developed world’s interest to eradicate hunger, but I also perceive some risks in this message,” Teresa Cavero, head of research at Oxfam’s Spanish section tells IPS.

“With the economic crisis and the temptation for greater protectionism, it could be a double-edged sword. For example, it could be said that by encouraging growth in developing countries, people will have more job opportunities in their homelands and there will be less migration. This may be correct in part, but it does not mean immigration is a bad thing.”

It is also true, however, that decades of taking the developed world to task over the need to eradicate hunger as part of a quest for social justice has not been enormously successful.

It could be argued that the developed world will only find the necessary commitment to fighting hunger when the issue climbs to a higher position on the political agenda. And this may not come about unless voters in rich countries see food insecurity as a problem that is in their self-interest to solve.

“I’m more comfortable with the justice message, but it’s right that it’s in the developed world’s interest to fight hunger, and any arguments you build to make the developed countries take action are positive,” Cavero says.

“The first thing governments and people in rich countries need to be aware of is the reality we are confronted with. Today we have more and more people in hunger, and the WFP have announced the shameful figure of one billion hungry people has been passed.”

While fear is one factor that might stir the well-fed, Dawe sees money as another: “On the economic level, there is a huge reservoir of potential demand for developed world products in developing countries if people break out of hunger and poverty.”

Cavero agrees: “We at Oxfam are aware of the role trade can have in economic development if it is conducted under fair rules, which is not the case now, along with strong transparent markets. Healthy growth would lead to improvements in overall welfare, which is good for the South and good for the North.

“It is in the North’s interest to have a developing world that is not suffering hunger because the whole economy suffers. If they are free from hunger, they can work on their own development. But you must be free from hunger before you can overcome poverty, and only then can you participate in the global economy. Hunger is a dead weight that’s too heavy to allow welfare to be achieved.”

Cavero believes that highlighting the link between food security and the threat of climate change is another way to give developed countries an incentive to act. If developing countries try to eliminate poverty and hunger by following the North’s resource-energy intensive model of development, global temperatures are set to accelerate.

“To get an agreement and action on climate change we must first make sure the developing world, where most of the world’s poverty and hunger is concentrated among poor farming communities, is tackling food security in a sustainable way so that we can put policies into place to avoid a global disaster,” Cavero says.

“We must achieve this through a sustainable model of agriculture. There is a chance to achieve a win-win-win scenario – a win for food security, a win for climate change, and a win for social, economic and environmental sustainability.”

Dawe says the developed world would benefit from the contribution people freed of food insecurity could make to science and culture.

“We’re living in an interdependent world. All knowledge is built on the insights and contributions of others,” he says.

“The more smart people are working on a problem, whether it be AIDS or global warming or anything else, the closer you get to finding an answer. The same argument applies to culture, art, music and other fields.

“Hunger and food insecurity are holding people back from reaching their own potential and contributing to humanity’s potential. We’re not as rich as we could be and I don’t mean in material terms.”

War on Want still believes the battleground should be social justice, not self- interest.

“The scandal is that many people who are producing food in rural areas cannot afford to buy what they produce. That’s a serious condemnation of the model we’ve allowed to grow,” says Hilary.

“What we need is a less exploitative model of agriculture. Vast areas of the developing world are being turned over to cattle grazing, or soy for cattle or biofuels so the rich world can eat more meat and drive around in ecological cars when the priority should be ensuring there is enough affordable food for everyone.

“I do believe the moral case is strong and that hunger is a profound challenge to our idea of progress. If we thought that our privileged lives depended on exploitation, more would be done. It’s a moral and political question.”

Reposted from Inter Press Service (IPS).

Israel and Hamas Should Cooperate With UN Investigation

April 23, 2009

(Jerusalem) – The Israeli military’s findings about the conduct of its forces in Gaza, announced on April 22, lack credibility and confirm the need for an impartial international inquiry into alleged violations by both Israel and Hamas, Human Rights Watch said today. Israel and Hamas should cooperate with Justice Richard Goldstone, the eminent international jurist appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate serious laws-of-war violations during the recent conflict.

“The investigative results make clear that the Israeli military will not objectively monitor itself,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The conclusions are an apparent attempt to mask violations of the laws of war by Israeli forces in Gaza. Only an impartial inquiry will provide a measure of redress for the civilians who were killed unlawfully. ”

After major hostilities ended in Gaza, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) created five teams headed by colonels to investigate the conduct of Israeli soldiers during “Operation Cast Lead,” from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009. The teams examined attacks in which the military fired upon United Nations facilities, attacks on medical facilities and crews, claims of harm to civilians not involved in hostilities, the use of white phosphorous munitions, and the destruction of civilian structures.

The military’s investigation concluded that “throughout the fighting in Gaza, the IDF operated in accordance with international law.” The investigation found “a very small number of incidents in which intelligence or operational errors took place” that were “unavoidable and occur in all combat situations, in particular of the type which Hamas forced on the IDF, by choosing to fight from within the civilian population.”

Human Rights Watch’s investigation into the fighting in Gaza concluded that Israeli forces were responsible for serious violations of the laws of war, including the use of heavy artillery and white phosphorus munitions in densely populated areas, the apparent targeting of people trying to convey their civilian status, and the destruction of civilian objects in excess of military need. Some of the cases of white-phosphorus use demonstrate evidence of war crimes, Human Rights Watch said last month in a 71-page report.

The military’s finding that “no phosphorus munitions were used on built-up areas” is blatantly wrong, Human Rights Watch said. Immediately after major fighting stopped, Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza found spent white phosphorous artillery shells, canister liners, and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on city streets and apartment roofs, in residential courtyards, and at a United Nations school. Artillery shells containing white phosphorus also struck a hospital and the headquarters of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), both in central Gaza City.

Human Rights Watch has also found that Hamas committed serious violations of the laws of war by deliberately and indiscriminately firing Qassam and Grad rockets into civilian areas in Israel. Hamas has shown no inclination to investigate or prosecute alleged war crimes by Palestinian fighters, and its spokesmen continue to justify the unlawful rocket attacks that target Israeli civilians, Human Rights Watch said.

Human Rights Watch said that the Israeli military’s investigations were inadequate to determine whether and when Israeli forces violated the laws of war. Without access to Gaza, the military’s investigators could not have adequately interviewed Palestinian victims and witnesses of the alleged violations.

In addition, the officers who headed the investigations, all colonels, were of insufficient rank to address abuses that resulted from policies set by senior commanders, Human Rights Watch said. In June 2006, after an explosion apparently caused by an IDF artillery shell killed seven members of a Palestinian family on a Gaza beach, the Israeli military appointed a major-general to lead the inquiry.

“Credible investigations need to be thorough, transparent, and run by a senior officer,” said Stork. “These investigations are none of the above.”

In its investigative conclusions, the Israeli military said that a “central operational IDF investigation” of the entire Gaza operation is ongoing, and “additional issues” are undergoing “a process of verification or investigation at various levels within the IDF.”

The investigative results released today try to justify civilian deaths by saying that the military warned Gaza’s population of impending attack. Human Rights Watch noted that warnings do not permit a force to conduct attacks that would otherwise be unlawful. Moreover, in the case of Gaza, the warnings were frequently too vague and therefore not “effective,” as required by international law.

“If the IDF believes it did no wrong in Gaza, then Israel should cooperate fully with the Goldstone investigation,” Stork said. “Both Israel and Hamas should welcome this investigation.”

Reprinted from Human Rights Watch.

Also see this report:  Rain of Fire

Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza

March 25, 2009

This 71-page report provides witness accounts of the devastating effects that white phosphorus munitions had on civilians and civilian property in Gaza. Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza immediately after hostilities ended found spent shells, canister liners, and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on city streets, apartment roofs, residential courtyards, and at a United Nations school. The report also presents ballistics evidence, photographs, and satellite imagery, as well as documents from the Israeli military and government.

Get the report:

• Download report (PDF, 5.94 MB)
• Download report with cover (PDF, 6.08 MB)
• Purchase a printed copy of this report

OSLO (15 October 2008)-Unless based on respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and forest communities, efforts by rich countries to combat climate change by funding reductions in deforestation in developing countries will fail, and could even unleash a devastating wave of forest loss, cultural destruction and civil conflict, warned a leading group of forestry and development experts meeting in Oslo this week.

The experts are gathering in Oslo with policymakers and community leaders for a conference on rights, forests and climate change. The conference was organized by two non-profits, Rainforest Foundation Norway and the US-based Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI).

Speaking at the meeting, Norway’s Minister of Environment and International Development, Erik Solheim, says efforts towards reduced emissions from deforestation in developing countries should be based on the rights of indigenous peoples to the forests they depend on for their livelihoods, and provide tangible benefits consistent with their essential role in sustainable forest management.

“In addition to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, early action, pilot projects and demonstrations should safeguard biodiversity, contribute to poverty reduction and secure the rights of forest dependent communities in order to achieve any degree of permanence, legitimacy and effectiveness,” said Solheim.

Deforestation is responsible for about 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing it is seen as one of the quickest and cheapest ways of cutting emissions.

“Moves to finance reductions in tropical deforestation and forest degradation are necessary and welcome,” said Andy White, Coordinator of RRI. “But on their own they won’t solve the problem. Poorly devised, they could even make it worse. If such initiatives are well designed they can not only secure carbon but present a global opportunity to address the underlying causes of poverty and conflict in many developing countries.”

Globally, climate change negotiators are considering the introduction of a new financial mechanism, known as Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), that could generate billions of dollars for reducing forest loss in the tropics. Meanwhile, the Government of Norway has already pledged up to 3 billion Norwegian kroner annually (US$ 500 million) to cut emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in tropical countries.

“To achieve long-term reductions in deforestation and forest degradation, it is absolutely necessary to respect and strengthen the rights of indigenous and other forest dependent communities,” says Lars Løvold, director of Rainforest Foundation Norway. “Many of these schemes are still being developed, and major decisions on how to spend the money will be made in the next few years. For us, the question is whether this money will result in a great deal of good or a great deal of harm to the environment and forest communities.”

Previous attempts to reduce deforestation and forest degradation have largely failed, often due to a lack of attention to human rights, property rights and transparency.

“There are growing conflicts between indigenous peoples and both forestry companies and conservation organizations. Imposed forest management initiatives are only viable if they respect the customary rights of forest peoples and ensure they have control about what happens on their lands. Indigenous peoples must be accepted as full and fair participants in all climate negotiations,” said Joji Carino, Director of TEBTEBBA, the Indigenous Peoples’ International Center for Policy Research and Education.

Conference organizers worry that REDD could fuel corruption and provoke tensions and land grab situations unless good governance, policies and the rule of law are first put in place.

“Indigenous peoples are rightly concerned about how these new investments could affect their access to the forests that they depend on for their livelihoods,” Solheim noted. “This is precisely why we are fully supportive of a role for indigenous peoples and other forest dependent communities in the development and monitoring of climate plans and investments at the national and global level. These rights need to be respected, not just for moral reasons, although that is vital. It is also a matter of pragmatism and effectiveness.”

Experience from Brazil, the country in the world with the most advanced monitoring of its forests, gives valuable insight to the discussion on how forests can be protected. According to research from the Brazilian NGO Instituto Socioambiental, 19 percent of unprotected forest areas in Brazil have been deforested, while deforestation inside federal national parks is 2 percent. In indigenous territories, however, only 1.1 percent have been deforested.

The Oslo conference will discuss the Four Foundations for Effective Investments in Climate Change:

1. Recognize rights – establish an equitable legal and regulatory framework for land and resources.
2. Prioritize payment to communities – ensure that benefits and payments prioritize indigenous and local communities, according to their potential role as forest stewards.
3. Establish independent advisory and auditing processes to guide, monitor and audit investments and actions at national and global levels.
4. Monitor more than carbon to keep track of the status of forests, forest carbon, biodiversity and impacts on rights and livelihoods. Secure a role for indigenous peoples in monitoring of emissions, making full use of their knowledge of the state of forest ecosystems, something which could be particularly relevant to keep track of forest degradation.

New research to be presented at the conference demonstrates that the costs of recognizing local rights and tenure systems are low relative to the projected costs of REDD, and that indigenous and other forest communities own or manage a major portion of the global forest carbon stock. The research also shows that communities have proven to be good stewards of the forest.

A new study by RRI and Intercooperation, a Swiss development organization, finds that the average direct cost to legally recognize traditional community tenure rights is around $3 per hectare – an insignificant investment to make when the minimum estimates needed to pay for elements of a global REDD scheme are somewhere between $800 and $3500 per hectare each year for the next 22 years.

Another study that will be released at the conference, by Professor Arun Agrawal of the University of Michigan, uses data from 325 sites in 12 countries to show that community ownership of forests provides the best possibility for increasing carbon stocks and improving livelihood outcomes. This is the most robust research to date at a global scale on the relationship between forest tenure and carbon sequestration, livelihood benefits and biodiversity.

Agrawal’s study also finds that the larger the property owned by communities, the better the chances for maintaining and sequestering carbon. This research shows the tremendous scope for cost-effective investments that strengthen local land rights, reduce poverty and conflict, and protect remaining natural forest areas.

To help ensure effective investments to combat in climate change, Rainforest Foundation Norway and RRI have called for the formation of independent bodies to advise and monitor the UN Convention on Climate Change.

“We believe that such advisory functions should be given serious consideration,” said Solheim. The conference will take up this recommendation and consider how to best move forward in its deliberations.

Major decisions on REDD, as well as other measures to combat climate change, are likely to be made at the 15th Conference of the UN Convention on Climate Change, which will be held in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2009.

“In the next fifteen months, the world will have to make a choice,” said Løvold. “We can continue to ignore the legitimate rights of forest dwellers, which will exacerbate conflict in forests and make REDD ineffective. Or we can learn from the lessons of the past, recognize the property and human rights of forest dwellers, and almost immediately start reaping the benefits.”

###

Interested readers can find background information and follow the conference discussions at http://www.rightsandclimate.org/.

The mission of the Rainforest Foundation is to support indigenous peoples and traditional populations of the world’s rainforests in their efforts to protect their environment and fulfill their rights by assisting them in: securing and controlling the natural resources necessary for their long-term well-being and managing these resources in ways which do not harm their environment, violate their culture or compromise their future; and developing the means to protect their individual and collective rights and to obtain, shape, and control basic services from the state. http://www.rainforest.no/, www.rainforest.no/html/180.htm

The Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) in a new coalition of organisations dedicated to raising global awareness of the critical need for forest tenure, policy and market reforms, in order to achieve global goals of poverty alleviation, biodiversity conservation and forest-based economic growth. Partners currently include ACICAFOC (Coordinating Association of Indigenous and Agroforestry Communities of Central America), the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Civic Response, the Foundation for People and Community Development (FPCD), Forest Peoples Programme, Forest Trends, the World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), Intercooperation, the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the Federation of Community Forest Organisations of Nepal (FECOFUN), and the Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC). For further information, visit the Web site at: http://www.rightsandresources.org/