Food and Climate Summits

Notes from Pat Mooney's presentation to the Food Secure Canada Virtual AGM, November 2009

Food Systems: Problem or Solution?
At the preparatory meetings leading up to the Food Summit in Rome and the Climate Summit in Coopenhagen at the end of 2009, food systems have been usually seen in the context of climate change, either as a problem, that is, a source of carbon emissions, or as an opportunity, to make money or to solve energy or carbon sequestration needs. It is of course dangerous to look at the food supply on which humans depend in this way.

There has been almost no discussion of the current food crisis and how it will get worse. At recent meetings in Barcelona, for example, Canada was a leader in gutting documents of references to small producers in favour of support for new technologies, including not just biotecnology but synthetic biology and nanotechnology.

 In addition to the focus on climate, two other key issues are on the table:

• The growing number of people who are hungry: one billion hungry, an additional billion malnourished. However, the concern is general, no commitments for specific actions are expected
• The restructuring of international food and agriculture institutions to create “a one stop shop for food and agriculture issues”. The underlying question is the exent to which this will consolidate power in the hands of the Bretton Woods institutions and global foundations (Rockefeller, Gates), sidestepping the oversight of the United Nations and its process of one country, one vote. Part of this is also the potential role for civil society (La Via Campesina has been playing a powerful role here).

   

Canada's Role

 In preparation for Copenhagen, Canada sided with other countries who want to give carte blanch to biotechnology, nanotechnology, synthetic biology, agrofuels and “climate-ready” plant varieties as solutions. Canada worked actively to remove all the 'small-holder' language from the draft documents, and for this it received a string of “Fossil of the Day” awards.

The assumption seems to be: if we’re going to feed the world's population by 2050, we must industrialize the entire food system. The best thing for small producers is “a one-way bus ticket to the city”. Of course, this system can only rescue the major crops (rice, wheat, maize) in major growing areas. For example, industrial /corporate livestock farming uses 5 breeds of 5 species, while small-holder farmers are maintaining 8000 breeds of 40 species.

In fact, the only ones who can battle climate change are the small producers. They are already feeding the world, not as a food chain but as a food web, which includes 25 million urban farmers (probably more since that figure comes from before the current food crisis). 15% of the world's food comes from hunting/gathering; at least half of the world's food comes from small producers, feeding their neighbours in a sustainable way and maintaining the diversity -- in the public realm -- that we will need to get through climate change. “

We need to remove the food chain from around our necks.

The ETC Group has just published a briefing on Food and Climate Change, entitled "Who Will Feed Us?" - the question which was not being asked at the Copenhagen Summit. This is an expanded version (25 pages) of Pat's presentation and can be downloaded here.