Remember a couple of weeks ago, when a Brazilian soy magnate turned a voracious eye on the Amazon rainforest, marveling at how awesome it would be to raze more of it to plant soy? Blairo Maggi, known as Brazil's "soy king," said this:
With the worsening of the global food crisis, the time is coming when it will be inevitable to discuss whether we preserve the environment or produce more food. There is no way to produce more food without occupying more land and taking down more trees.
Well, I think I may have found an ally for him: the cash-flush Chinese government. From the FT:
Chinese companies will be encouraged to buy farmland abroad, particularly in Africa and South America, to help guarantee food security under a plan being considered by Beijing.
And this:
China imported up to 60 percent of the soybean it consumed last year and the crop would be a focus of policy support for companies acquiring land overseas, along with bananas, vegetables and edible oil crops, said an official familiar with the ministry's proposal. The ministry is already talking to Brazil about the possible acquisition of land for soybean, according to [an] official.
Nice one. As China solidifies its position as manufacturing center for the U.S. and Europe, it's hacking away at its arable land, developing it to erect factories and fouling it with pollutants. As a result, it's rapidly becoming a massive net food importer. From China Daily:
China reported a deficit of $3.66 billion in agricultural product trade in the first quarter, against a surplus of $460 million for the same period of 2007.
Seems like it's committing a significant portion of its vast foreign-exchange holdings to food and now foreign land. And unlike the United States -- which years ago began to liquidate government-held grain reserves -- it's committed to storing some for possible rough times ahead:
The Ministry of Commerce last week issued a notice calling for tightened control on grain and fertilizer exports, faster imports of commodities such as edible oil and meat, and expanding storage of farm produce to ensure domestic supply.
In a global economic system built to maximize transnational trade, nations maximize their "comparative advantage," and look abroad for goods they don't produce "efficiently." For China, that means tapping its massive pools of cheap labor and cheap coal to become a manufacturing powerhouse -- and looking to places like Brazil to grow food.
And in Brazil, agribiz leaders like above-mentioned Maggi -- and their business partners like U.S. grain trading giants Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, and Bunge -- are only too ready to accommodate. From a recent US World & News Report article:
Farmers and agribusiness people in this part of Brazil [the half-rainforest, half-savanna state of Mato Grosso] are watching the global food commodity price issue with considerable interest. By and large, they believe that the highly mechanized, chemical-intensive, big-scale production they have developed (and in some cases adapted from the U.S.) is what a world contending with expensive food staples needs.
One Brazilian ag economist told the magazine that "Brazil has more available but unexploited farmland than all of what is being currently used in the European Union."
Unfortunately, much of that available but unexploited farmland lies in the rainforest -- a vast carbon sink that contributes mightily to climate stability.
Rather than plunk factories atop China's farmland or cut farms into Brazil's rainforests and savannas, the time may have come to rethink the obsession with global trade and redefine "comparative advantage."
Climate Citizen: Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care
How industry pressures and competing national agendas dim prospects for a climate treaty
Tweet for the bees
Comments
View as Threaded
hapa Posted 6:39 pm
10 May 2008
and besides, we throw away a lot of food, we could do that deal
economy's wrecked, climate's melting, oil's scarce, green's the way out.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:14 am
11 May 2008
It operates on bottomline considerations only. There is no representation of any kind of any other value system. it is the same with Russia.
We at least have the recent memory of some form of democracy. Before 2000.
This is why it is very important for US to gain our manufacturing and financial leadership back. We have a majority that does value environmental concerns. China can't be fought militarily, nor would it be a good idea, even if it were possible.
Negotiation backed by economic power must be employed. But we have lost that capacity. China does not even need our consumption, they are feeding their own juggernaut now.
Energy revolution is the one and only way for the US to regain it's superpower status. And that is the only hope to stop China and Russia from obliterating the human friendliness of spaceship earth as we know it.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
green8659 Posted 1:37 am
11 May 2008
Green and Environmental Website | Almighty Cleanse
Permalink
Jonas Posted 2:43 am
11 May 2008
We should list a few more deals and movements, before we single out China as the most obvious symbol of what's going on:
-Libya is using its gas and oil money to buy up farm land in the Ukraine - Europe's most fundamental grain store (mentioned too in the FT article, I thought)
-Mainland Arab oil profiting states are buying up land in Latin America and Africa, for food and biofuels
-Venezuela - led by a hybrid-socialist petrodemocrat - has invited Malaysia, led by a neofascist regime, to "come over and plant as much oil palm trees as you want"
-Brazil is colonizing West-Africa, to plant sugarcane
In short, this is mostly a South-South affair.
Who are we to judge this? We have a bit of a history of hypocrisy on this front, on the one hand pretending to plea for transparency, democracy and human rights, while on the other hand blocking all possible progress in Africa by imposing damaging free trade agreements or by subsidizing our farmers.
The only thing we Euro-Americans must especially not do, is to teach China a lesson about colonialism or human rights or 'no-strings-attached' development, based on ultra-liberal free market ideals.
China's influence in Africa must be left to develop as an autonomous force. Popular resentment amongst Africans is already growing, and this is crucial.
We must encourage this social emancipation by shutting our mouths, and not by counter-acting China's presence by sending aid and support to this nascent African civil society.
If we do that, we break the neck of this resistance.
To make the parallel: just imagine European workers in the 19th century. They came up for themselves and forced the bosses to become human. They did so by striking, by organising, sometimes by terrorist means. Against the state and against the ruling capitalist class.
From this arose democracy, social justice and eventually the wellfare state.
Now just imagine these workers had some outside force keeping them busy with sweets and keeping them uncritical. Denying them their force of creating a class consciousness. That would have been catastrophic.
Well, in the contemporary African case, Euro-Americans act like this paternalistic force that denies Africans to use their social power. We feed, clothe, house Africans. This must stop.
Let the Chinese show their maddening capitalist brutality, and the Africans might, for the first time in history, use their emancipatory power. Against their state, and against the new bosses.
So my advice to ourselves is simple: let the Africans come up for themselves. China's growing presence will be the catalyst.
Permalink
Jonas Posted 2:53 am
11 May 2008
That's not true. 120 million hectares of unused pasture, located far away from the Amazon, is available.
We should be more honest when talking about Brazil's case.
We are obsessed with the Amazon, and rightly so, but it clearly clouds our view on reality.
Just like the Congo: the DRC has 100 million hectares of explicit non-forest land available for agriculture.
But everyone who dares to venture there to grow a maize plant, will be accused by some mindbogglingly obsessive green organisation from Europe. Even if you grow your maize 1000 kilometers South of the nearest rainforest tree.
So let's be a bit more objective on this. It can only strentghen the case of those who really want a realistic solution to the threats posed against the remaining rainforests.
If we're not careful, we receive the cynicism of a man like Maggi, whose only purpose was to laugh at Euro-American conservationists, in an obscene way.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:50 am
11 May 2008
But we should be careful in the way we throw around terms. I'd be interested to hear from Tom what he has in mind when he talks of redefining "comparative advantage" -- one of the most venerable, and most understood, concepts in economics. For one, comparative advantage does not mean trading partners do what they do best, but do what they do comparatively best. Thus, though one country may be more efficient than another country in producing both widgets and wheat -- that is, it will have an absolute advantage in both -- it will still improve the welfare of both countries to trade in the good that they are comparatively less efficient at producing.
What would be useful, is for more analysis to be done looking at what are different countries' comparative advantages once one takes eco-system services into account.
I'm also curious to know from Jonas what he means by Brazil having "120 million hectares of unused pasture". I assume you're talking about the Cerrado. My understanding is most pasture is already being used for grazing cattle. And even if there is some that is not, it certainly is being used by something or somebody, if "only" wildlife.
Finally, to your list of Chinese overseas investments in agriculture, you can add the two projects that China says it will be investing in in Indonesia. As reported by Biopact earlier this year:
Sinopec, China's top oil company, reportedly will cooperate with an Indonesian enterprise to set up biofuel plants and to grow energy crops in Indonesia, with a major investment of US$5 billion. Indonesia's national news agency Antara reported about the project, which would become Sinopec's second large overseas biofuel investment.
The plants and plantations are set to be located in Indonesia's Papua and East Kalimantan regions, and will be used for extracting biodiesel from crude palm oil and jatropha curcas oil. Sinopec will cooperate with PT Puri Usaha Kencana to build the plants as well as to crop oil palm and Jatropha curcas. According to Al Hilal Hamdi, chairman of Indonesia's National Biofuels Task Force, the project is likely to begin this year.
...
In January 2007, another oil major, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Indonesian government under which it intends to invest $5.5 billion in the development of the biofuel sector in Indonesia, announcing the establishment of 3 biodiesel processing plants in Kalimantan.
Personally, I suspect that the biofuel angle is just a cover, something that makes for good press, and what the investing companies are mainly interested in is palm oil, whether for food or for biodiesel.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:52 am
11 May 2008
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:13 am
11 May 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:27 am
11 May 2008
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:11 am
11 May 2008
And I am not sure I understand Ron's answer. The foreign investors with land holdings in the US are presumably either private citizens or independent companies, who in no way represent the interests of their countries' governments. How is that analogous to what Tom describes in Brazil, and Ron mentions in Indonesia, where the Chinese government erects superficially autonomous agencies which are in fact intended to carry out the government's economic foreign policy?
Would the Chinese companies winning these land deals be subject to the environmental regulations (such as they are) of Brazil and Indonesia? Would they pay taxes? Could they be sued by their Brazilian or Indonesian workers or business partners, in Brazilian or Indonesian courts?
In what way would the entry onto their land not be equivalent to a border crossing? Why would the status of the land be something other than that of the land on which Chinese embassies and consulates are built?
In the event of a war between Brazil and another country, if the military of the other country should bomb the Chinese-owned territory, would that be as serious a violation of international law, and an offense against China and the Chinese people, as the (allegedly) accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, by the US?
In the event of a violent uprising by Brazilian workers against their Chinese bosses, whose responsibility is it to defend Chinese persons and property?
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:53 am
11 May 2008
<<
Who are we to judge this? We have a bit of a history of hypocrisy on this front, on the one hand pretending to plea for transparency, democracy and human rights, while on the other hand blocking all possible progress in Africa by imposing damaging free trade agreements or by subsidizing our farmers.
The only thing we Euro-Americans must especially not do, is to teach China a lesson about colonialism or human rights or 'no-strings-attached' development, based on ultra-liberal free market ideals.
China's influence in Africa must be left to develop as an autonomous force. Popular resentment amongst Africans is already growing, and this is crucial.
We must encourage this social emancipation by shutting our mouths, and not by counter-acting China's presence by sending aid and support to this nascent African civil society.
If we do that, we break the neck of this resistance.
>>
One hears the argument made often nowadays, not to wag one's finger at the Chinese with regard to human rights, whether in Africa or amongst minorities within China. But usually that has nothing to do with the Africans, directly; rather, Westerners seem to be grappling for any bit of leverage they can use against the Chinese, and believe it will be counter-productive to push them on human rights.
As for the Africans and their several interests and causes, which liberal Westerners will of course like to support, Jonas's advice, that we should do little or nothing to help them, say, against Chinese "maddening capitalist brutality," is also not without precedent. There are very learned and thoughtful activists working for social justice, after all, who consider it unethical to give money to beggars in the street, on the ground that that will only delay the revolution.
Then again, we should ask whom Jonas means by "we." To me, his words make more sense if he is talking about European and North American governments, and perhaps the IMF and the World Bank too. But certainly private well-informed independent observers have every right to speak out -- not only against Chinese capitalism, but against the equally maddening hypocrisy of their own Western governments! And how can it not be but that such free speech must give courage to the Africans as they discover their "emancipatory power"?
Of course, the Chinese -- the people even more than the government -- are at a strange point in their development, being brought to crisis in this season of the Beijing Olympics. We should observe that many of them seem not to have distinguished at all carefully between independent protesters and the French government, when they punished French businesses in China after the disrupted running of the Olympic torch through Paris.
By the way, on a totally different subject, Jonas uses "Euro-American" apparently to mean, "any member of either the set of all Europeans or the set of all Americans." We in the US tend to use it to mean, much more narrowly, "an American [and never a European] of European ancestry [exclusive therefore of other American groups, such as Native Americans and African-Americans]."
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:34 am
11 May 2008
Just because a company is state-owned doesn't automatically give it diplomatic or other special privileges. Such privileges must be given in the first place by the host government, and normally pertain only to diplomatic missions and military bases. I would imagine that the investments referred to by Tom, Jonas and the ones I mentioned would be treated like foreign investments by private entities: subject to taxes, and subject (at least in law) to environmental regulations.
Many of the answers to the questions you raise -- e.g., whether the companies could they be sued by their Brazilian or Indonesian workers or business partners, in Brazilian or Indonesian courts -- are typically set out in bilateral investment treaties (BITs), of which a quick search on UNCTAD's "Investment Instruments Online" web page shows already exists between China and Indonesia (but not yet, it appears, between China and Brazil).
No, entry onto their land would not be equivalent to a border crossing. And I think I've explained why, unless the Brazilians or Indonesians confer such status, the status of the land would not be the same as that of the land on which Chinese embassies and consulates are built.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Jonas Posted 8:01 am
11 May 2008
Let me be more precise: Western governments should stop using development assistance as a way to support and set the agenda for African civil society groups in their resistance against China.
This is very much what is happening today. The case of the mining activities in the DRCongo, where China just signed a $9 billion deal, says a lot. Many European NGOs receive money from governments, to set up local clones to "watch" China.
I think this is a bad idea, because the Africans must really come up with an autonomously defined form of resistance. And they must do so alone. Only then do they achieve true sovereignty and liberation.
So I wanted to hint more at the opportunities that may arise from China's presence and the growing resistance to it.
The Europeans have a tendency to use late-modern procedures to criticize China (a legalistic, journalistic, or institutional approach). Let's say these are suitable for highly developed societies with an obedient middle class that doesn't have the courage nor the will to debate fundamental issues. These European stratagemes are no longer in touch with the raw social power that is often needed to break free, such as the power demonstrated by our workers in the 19th century, who were also pushed off their lands and forced to urbanise.
Okay, maybe this is all a bit too romantic, and I'm not per se a proponent of 'revolution'.
But Europe should be careful not to "smoothen" the Africans into accepting raw capitalism. According to Europe's tactics, the Africans may criticise China, - the more the better - but they may not criticise or resist the far more fundamental aspects of what's going on: dispossession, capitalist land grabs, the production of obscene inequality, perpetual forcefeeding of neoliberal economic principles.
Because on these latter points, the EU, with all its high talk about human rights, social justice, democracy and transparency, is basically on the same line as China. The real fundamentals are not up for debate. (Europe's companies in Africa, and in China for that matter, prove this all too well.)
I think the Africans should gather the strength to put these issues up for debate.
They have a great tradition of organising themselves into resistance groups in the macquis. They must continue this metaphor and not be tamed by formalistic European forms of negotiation and dialogue.
Permalink
Jonas Posted 8:26 am
11 May 2008
But even a government "buying" land in another country never becomes the true owner of this land, unless that's formally agreed upon (but no country in the world would simply hand over territorial sovereignty to another government).
If I'm not mistaken, the only country in the world where a legal entity or an individual can actually own land, in the true sense of the word, is the USA.
In all other countries, the State or the Crown owns the land.
--
On another and purely informative note, it will be interesting to see whether these Chinese government-owned companies who are buying up land in Congo for palm oil plantations, will actually monitor and honor the Chinese government's own law against tropical deforestation for plantations.
I remembered this from Mongabay:
In a surprising move, China has developed guidelines for the establishment of sustainable forest plantations abroad by Chinese firms, according to the International Tropical Timber Organization's (ITTO) April 1 Tropical Timber Market Report. The move comes as China faces increasing criticism from environmental groups for pillaging the world's forests to feed its rapidly growing economy.
The State Forestry Administration will soon begin the process of selecting companies to implement the guidelines, which include bans on illegal logging and clearing of natural forests for plantations, on a "trial basis," according to ITTO.
The guidelines are significant as China plays an increasingly important role in resource extraction in forests around the world. Chinese firms are aggressively investing in oil palm plantations in Indonesia and logging operations throughout Asia and Africa.
Mongabay.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:54 am
11 May 2008
Trade interdependency is the a good way to avoid war, particularly among Democracies.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 11:40 am
11 May 2008
Who will cut down the last tree? Or will peak resources and escalating prices lead to a deflation of super-capitalism? Could humans possibly learn to share the remaining resources equitably and develop ecological economics?
Coming soon to a planet near you! Stay tuned...
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 12:10 pm
11 May 2008
You also write, "If I'm not mistaken, the only country in the world where a legal entity or an individual can actually own land, in the true sense of the word, is the USA."
I'm not sure what you mean by "in the true sense of the word." If by that, you mean both surface and sub-surface rights, perhaps ... but I doubt even that. Otherwise, I don't know what you are talking about. Foreigners can purchase land here in France, for example, very easily ... and do.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 1:14 pm
11 May 2008
In all other countries, the State or the Crown owns the land.
I'd be interested to know what you mean by land ownership "in the true sense of the word". For all practical purposes land ownership rights in the US would seem to be no less and no greater than in many or most other countries, and subject to virtually identical limitations and conditions (eminent domain, air rights, mineral rights etc.).
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Russ Posted 5:49 pm
11 May 2008
But I don't think it's true that ownership so-called "rights" are the same here as everywhere else.
America's private property concept is fascist in the true sense of the word in conferring vast rights and little or no responsibilities on such "owners". This is fundamentally a rights-of-the-strong ideology.
Indeed some states have taken the "property rights" ideology to truly barbaric levels. While I take it there's nowhere you're allowed to set up a machine-gun on your "property" and fire outward at anything you want, this is only quantitatively, not qualitatively, different from what is allowed of noise, disruption, destruction, and every other sort of externality.
I haven't heard of other countries where such barbarism is enshrined legally and philosophically.
This is as bad as anachronisms get. There's simply too much crowding and high impacts are too easy to achieve, to still adhere to this "property" concept (which was dubious in the first place).
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 6:04 pm
11 May 2008
Note to Tom: Sorry, I realize we've now REALLY gone off topic!
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:36 pm
11 May 2008
What was common practice in developing nations, exploitatuion of resources without regard for environmental degradation, has come to the US and Canada. With Chinese corporations buying the rights to Canadian tar sands, the citizens of Canada no longer have any environmental oversight.
This expands trade, with resources swapped in deals designed only to erode government regulation. The deals go on the books as positive for the economy. More corporate feudal shenanigans.
Why did Alito and Roberts both come from the field of corporate citizens' rights? Pretty obvious. Cheney the organ grinder, calling the dancing duuhbya's tune. Ooo oo eee eee ahh ahh, says the shaved chimp.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 10:44 pm
11 May 2008
Recent treaties establish corporate property rights that over ride environmental laws. The government in question is now sued by the multinational corporation when its rights to develop its property conflict with national environmental laws.
What was common practice in developing nations, exploitatuion of resources without regard for environmental degradation, has come to the US and Canada. With Chinese corporations buying the rights to Canadian tar sands, the citizens of Canada no longer have any environmental oversight.
That is the popular perception, but not the legal reality. Foreign corporations in some BITs do now have the right to challenge governments on the basis that they are not being treated the same as domestic companies in the same business, but the right to sue does not mean they will win automatically.
And to claim that "[w]ith Chinese corporations buying the rights to Canadian tar sands, the citizens of Canada no longer have any environ-mental oversight" is not true. Of course Canada retains oversight. They may have a costly fight on their hands if the Chinese corporations (or corporations of any other nationality) decide to fight back, but that is a different thing.
Any Canadian reader care to comment?
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:12 pm
11 May 2008
Not that different, when the US is in debt to China. And the supreme court is of the extreme anti-regulation bent.
A costly fight that further erodes government funds may be abandoned by corporate friendly, as in bushco appointed, government officials. These treaties are the excuse that neo-cons need to finally roll back what they deem to be socialism.
Things like national parks and highway systems are anathema to this crowd. And nationalization of mineral rights and environmental regulation. They view it all as government power run amock.
They see government as a ceremonial figurehead with corporations doing all the real work of governance, with contractors even fighting wars for us, because government is inefficient and ineffective.
This is modern corporate feudalism. I know many people think it is a wild conspiracy theory, but no conspiracy is necessary just bidness as usual. corporate lobbyists write the laws, legislators vote without reading them.
The hedge fund operators are consulted by the fed chairman for an explanation of how the crisis in worldwide credit they engineered, actually works. This is criminal governance, the inside trader manipulators "advising" the fed chairman.
This makes mob bankers look like small time players. In fact they are. The big crooks operate with a legal pass.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
2wheeler Posted 5:04 am
12 May 2008
The R&D investment should not be in sugar cane, palm oil or even switchgrass, but algae. It's so simple, it's gotta be good. I'm not saying land will ever be passe` but... as a means of production it is not required since the advent of hydroponics. I suspect that a significant portion of the earth's photosynthetic capacity is already marine-based, further evidence of its potential (a tiny fraction of which should still be sufficient to power human civilization at this point).
The 120 million hectare figures (for example) cited by other commenters are a drop in the bucket compared to marine surface area on this planet.
In addition, the excessive nutrient runoff water pollution problems causing "dead zones" outside the rivers of the Missisippi and others, could be solved if such a source were able to be tapped to feed the algal production mentioned above (instead of the bloom and asphyxiation of ocean life that it now csuses beyond those river mouths).
UNH article
wikipedia entry
Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:47 pm
12 May 2008
By capturing the run off by harvesting the biomass methane emissions are cut. Creating a huge offset. Land is not taken out of the carbon sink mode to produce this fuel from biomass, biogas.
The huge floating mass of biomass choking oceans in various spots could be fed on by biodigestor harvesting ships outfitted with wind, wave, and solar devices to power biomass conversion and fuel storage.
And the organic fertilizer could restore soil carbon sink activity destroyed by chemical ag.
How much biomass like this exists? How much methane GHG is it responsible for? Enough to power all out trucks and trains? maybe, methane, natural gas runs great in diesel engines.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:51 pm
12 May 2008
Biogas offsets GHG by intercepting methane release.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
VeganCountyFan Posted 7:45 pm
12 May 2008
From the explanatory notes of the Land Registration Bill 2001
"The Crown is the only absolute owner of land in England and Wales: all others hold an estate in land. Estates, which derive from feudal terms of tenure, originally took many forms but were reduced by the Law of Property Act 1925 to two, an estate in fee simple absolute in possession, generally known as "freehold"; and an estate for a term of years absolute generally known as "leasehold".
Permalink