Rains in Sri Lanka, once a blessing, now a curse

Column: Burning Points, UPI Asia Online
HONG KONG, China, October 16, 2009

The people of Sri Lanka have always looked forward to the rainy season, which generally begins in October and ends in January, as it brings many blessings. It brings much needed water to the paddy fields and assures food for the year to come. It also fills the reservoirs. Many of the blessings for the year ahead also depend on rains from the heavens.

However, for the nearly 300,000 people in camps for internally displaced persons, the expectation of rain this year will not create such feelings of joy. In fact, for them it will bring enormous adversity. Leaking roofs, overflowing gutters and swamp-like conditions are what they will have to expect. Their relatives living outside, the people of goodwill in the country, as well as the United Nations and various relief agencies have already brought their problems to the attention of the government and the public. However, the government has a greater consideration that outweighs the concerns for the comfort of these persons.

The government spokesmen tell the world in their televised interviews that there still might be Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam terrorists hidden in the midst of the internally displaced persons. Therefore, whether there is rain or not, the people will have to remain in the camps until all potential LTTE members are identified, the spokesmen say.

So, the government argues that, when compared to the risk to national security, the sufferings that internally displaced persons may have to undergo during the rainy season are matters of secondary importance. The government spokesmen using this language are not actors in a drama produced by Bertolt Brecht, the German poet, playwright and theatre director, who used such characters only to expose the hypocrisy and inhumanity of the national security doctrines that prevailed in his time.

The government spokesmen are dead serious and want the nation and the international community to believe their argument of the good intentions of a government which is supposed to be sorry for the people living in pathetic and wretched living conditions but which is unable to do anything due to the overpowering considerations of national security.

For centuries, even the poorest people in Sri Lanka had learned to put up safe roofs over their heads when the rainy season arrived. They had learned to live comfortably with warm cups of tea and homes arranged with their modest means while the rains poured outside. But now, even that minimal way of life has been deprived to a large group of citizens who live in the camps for the internally displaced persons.

This tragic drama enacted amidst the wind and rain reflects not just the tragedy of people in those camps, but also the tragedy of all people living under a political system that dares to lie as an excuse for whatever it wishes to do, despite the harsh consequences its actions may bring on the nation. As Brecht once pointed, messages made by irresponsible persons and received through antennas by the people can create wretched conditions.

Another sad aspect of this situation is there are no avenues that the justice system of Sri Lanka can offer the large number of people to make a complaint about the suffering they will experience in the rainy season. The lawyers and judges in the country have boasted of public interest litigation and the like, but what kind of public interest initiative exists in a country where people cannot even find relief to escape the rain?

--

(Basil Fernando is director of the Asian Human Rights Commission based in Hong Kong. He is a Sri Lankan lawyer who has also been a senior U.N. human rights officer in Cambodia. He has published several books and written extensively on human rights issues in Asia. His blog can be read at http://srilanka-lawlessness.com.)

Source from:

http://www.upiasia.com/Human_Rights/2009/10/16/rains_in_sri_lanka_once_a_blessing_now_a_curse/9069/




-----------------------------
Asian Human Rights Commission
19/F, Go-Up Commercial Building,
998 Canton Road, Kowloon, Hongkong S.A.R.
Tel: +(852) - 2698-6339 Fax: +(852) - 2698-6367

The Great Land Grab: Rush for World's Farmland Threatens Food Security for the Poor

Oakland CA: As experts on food and agriculture come together in Rome on October 12, 2009 to discuss the challenge of feeding the world by 2050, a new report from the Oakland Institute, The Great Land Grab: Rush for World's Farmland Threatens Food Security for the Poor, sounds the alarm on the threat that land grabbing poses to food security and livelihoods. Land grabs--the purchase of vast tracts of land from poor, developing countries by wealthier, food-insecure nations and private investors--have become a widespread phenomenon, with foreign interests seeking or securing between 37 million and 49 million acres of farmland between 2006 and the middle of 2009. While such land grabs have not gone unnoticed, much attention has focused on individual countries, such as China and Saudi Arabia, buying land in poor nations. The Great Land Grab lays bare the insidious role played by international financial institutions like the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank and Foreign Investment Advisory Service (FIAS), as well as rich nations, in promoting and facilitating this widespread land reappropriation--all in the name of promoting food security through foreign investment in agriculture. The report concludes that the current debate surrounding the land grab phenomenon fails to adequately and rigorously examine the consequences of this trend, and exposes how the huge sell-offs of resources undermines food security and land reform efforts. The authors implore that we question the assumption that increased investment in agriculture is beneficial for all parties involved.

"The history of foreign direct investment in agriculture reveals the plethora of social and economic problems that have plagued local citizens and belies the claims that the current land acquisitions will positively impact the development of poor nations," said Shepard Daniel, fellow at the Oakland Institute and lead author of the report. "Throughout history, corporate agribusiness has been known to establish itself in developing countries with the effect of either driving independent farmers off their land or turning farmers into plantation workers. No matter how convincing the claim that these massive international acquisitions will bring much-needed agricultural investment to poor countries, evidence shows there is simply no place for the small farmer in the vast majority of these land grab situations that will only increase monoculture-based, export-oriented agriculture, further jeopardizing international food security," she continued.

"Our report dismantles the myth of the 'win-win' argument that has been offered to quell concerns around this trend. A myopic focus on potential benefits, such as increased investment in agriculture in poor countries, is sidelining the issue of food security for the world's poor and land reform from the forefront of the debate," said Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute and co-author of the report. "Food security and the implementation of land reform policies are inextricably linked. There are 1.5 billion small-scale farmers in the world who live on less than 2 hectares of land; secure and equitable access to and control over land allows these farmers to produce food, which is vital for their own food security as well as that of rural populations throughout the developing world," she continued.

The Great Land Grab critically examines the role of the private sector in agricultural development and exposes implications of private sector control over food resources. The report concludes that those who promote the benefits of private sector growth in agriculture fail to recognize that acquisition of crucial food-producing lands by foreign private entities poses a threat to rural economies and livelihoods, land reform agendas, and other efforts aimed at making access to food more equitable. "Much press coverage and research has focused on the food security motivations of food import-dependent countries," said Daniel. "We forget, however, that the main thrust of investment is coming from the private sector, whose interests do not lie in establishing food security, but rather in making a profit in international food markets."

An estimated 1.02 billion people-one sixth of humanity-suffer from chronic hunger, and, in one of the world's cruelest ironies, 70 percent of this starving population live and work on small-scale farms and in rural areas. To tackle the growing crisis of world hunger, policy makers and agriculture experts will gather at the World Food Summit in November 2009; preparation for the summit is revolving around increased investment in agriculture. However, as The Great Land Grab points out, there is a dangerous disconnect between increasing agricultural investment through rich countries amassing land in poor countries and the goal of secure and adequate food supplies for poor and vulnerable populations.

Source from: Oakland Institute

Solution for Drinking Water

Praja Abhilasha Network provided Tubewells to Karadiyanaru village in Batticaloa. now there are 36 families are derectly getting benefits.

A New Report Exposes the Role of International Financial Institutions in the Expansion of Land Grabs

The Great Land Grab: Rush for World's Farmland Threatens Food Security for the Poor




Oakland CA: As experts on food and agriculture come together in Rome on October 12, 2009 to discuss the challenge of feeding the world by 2050, a new report from the Oakland Institute, The Great Land Grab: Rush for World's Farmland Threatens Food Security for the Poor, sounds the alarm on the threat that land grabbing poses to food security and livelihoods. Land grabs--the purchase of vast tracts of land from poor, developing countries by wealthier, food-insecure nations and private investors--have become a widespread phenomenon, with foreign interests seeking or securing between 37 million and 49 million acres of farmland between 2006 and the middle of 2009. While such land grabs have not gone unnoticed, much attention has focused on individual countries, such as China and Saudi Arabia, buying land in poor nations. The Great Land Grab lays bare the insidious role played by international financial institutions like the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank and Foreign Investment Advisory Service (FIAS), as well as rich nations, in promoting and facilitating this widespread land reappropriation--all in the name of promoting food security through foreign investment in agriculture. The report concludes that the current debate surrounding the land grab phenomenon fails to adequately and rigorously examine the consequences of this trend, and exposes how the huge sell-offs of resources undermines food security and land reform efforts. The authors implore that we question the assumption that increased investment in agriculture is beneficial for all parties involved.

"The history of foreign direct investment in agriculture reveals the plethora of social and economic problems that have plagued local citizens and belies the claims that the current land acquisitions will positively impact the development of poor nations," said Shepard Daniel, fellow at the Oakland Institute and lead author of the report. "Throughout history, corporate agribusiness has been known to establish itself in developing countries with the effect of either driving independent farmers off their land or turning farmers into plantation workers. No matter how convincing the claim that these massive international acquisitions will bring much-needed agricultural investment to poor countries, evidence shows there is simply no place for the small farmer in the vast majority of these land grab situations that will only increase monoculture-based, export-oriented agriculture, further jeopardizing international food security," she continued.

"Our report dismantles the myth of the 'win-win' argument that has been offered to quell concerns around this trend. A myopic focus on potential benefits, such as increased investment in agriculture in poor countries, is sidelining the issue of food security for the world's poor and land reform from the forefront of the debate," said Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute and co-author of the report. "Food security and the implementation of land reform policies are inextricably linked. There are 1.5 billion small-scale farmers in the world who live on less than 2 hectares of land; secure and equitable access to and control over land allows these farmers to produce food, which is vital for their own food security as well as that of rural populations throughout the developing world," she continued.

The Great Land Grab critically examines the role of the private sector in agricultural development and exposes implications of private sector control over food resources. The report concludes that those who promote the benefits of private sector growth in agriculture fail to recognize that acquisition of crucial food-producing lands by foreign private entities poses a threat to rural economies and livelihoods, land reform agendas, and other efforts aimed at making access to food more equitable. "Much press coverage and research has focused on the food security motivations of food import-dependent countries," said Daniel. "We forget, however, that the main thrust of investment is coming from the private sector, whose interests do not lie in establishing food security, but rather in making a profit in international food markets."

An estimated 1.02 billion people-one sixth of humanity-suffer from chronic hunger, and, in one of the world's cruelest ironies, 70 percent of this starving population live and work on small-scale farms and in rural areas. To tackle the growing crisis of world hunger, policy makers and agriculture experts will gather at the World Food Summit in November 2009; preparation for the summit is revolving around increased investment in agriculture. However, as The Great Land Grab points out, there is a dangerous disconnect between increasing agricultural investment through rich countries amassing land in poor countries and the goal of secure and adequate food supplies for poor and vulnerable populations.