Supreme Court of Pakistan asks govt. to complete trial of 128 Indian fishermen within 6 weeks

PRESS RELEASE

KARACHI, Sep 14: A bench of Supreme Court of Pakistan headed by Chief Justice Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry on Tuesday ordered the government to complete the trial of 128 under trial Indian fishermen within six weeks.
The Supreme Court disposed of the constitution petition jointly filed by Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research (PILER) and Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum (PFF) to challenge the continuing detention as well as arrest, prosecution, conviction of 582 Indian Fisherman in various Jails of Sindh. Sayed Iqbal Haider, senior advocate of the Supreme Court appeared on behalf of the petitioners in the Supreme Court.
The Interior Ministry submitted a detailed report before the Supreme Court stating that the government has already released 442 Indian fishermen, who had completed their terms in the jails and they have already been sent back to their homes.
Earlier on 12th August 2010, the Supreme Court of Pakistan had issued notices of the said petition to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan as well as Home Department, Government of Sindh, and had required them to disclosed under what legal provision or lawful Authority, the 582 Indian Fisherman, named in the Constitution Petition, were arrested, prosecuted, convicted and later detained after completion of their sentences.
On the last date of hearing i.e 26th August 2010, the Supreme Court was informed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan that they it has already informed the Ministry of Interior of Pakistan to release the detained 456 Indian Fisherman, who have completed their sentences and their nationality has been confirmed by the Indian high commission. The Supreme Court had ordered repeat of the notice to the Ministry of Interior as to why these detained Indian fisherman are not being released and repatriated to India.

Shujauddin Qureshi
Senior Research Associate
Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research (PILER),
Gulshan-e-Maymar, Karachi-75340
Ph: +(92-21) 36351145-7
Fax: +(92-21) 36350345
Cell: +(92)300-3929788

Pak-India Peace Caravan

PRESS RELEAS
a? oAman Ke Badhte Qadamâ? Peace Caravan inaugurated at Karachi Press Club

KARACHI, Aug. 7: Speakers at the
launching ceremony of Pak-India Peace Caravan â?oAman Ke Badhte Qamamâ? underlined
the need for long lasting peace in the South Asian region and asked both India
and Pakistan to relax visa conditions and increase public spending on peopleâ?Ts
welfare by reducing defence budgets.

The speakers included Executive
Director, Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research (PILER) Karamat
Ali, General Secretary of Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum (PFF) Saeed Baloch and Ali
Jehangir Siddiqui. General Secretary of Pakistan Peace Coalition (PPC) B. M.
Kutty presided over the inauguration ceremony. The inauguration ceremony was organized
by Pakistan Peace Coalition (PPC).

The programme, started with
recitation of poetry of Shah Abdul Latif Bhitai by Faqeers of shrine of Sindhi
Sufi poet was also included poetry recitation by pro-peace Fahmida Riaz, Sheema
Kirmani, Fazil Jamili, Tauqeer Chughtai, Latif Mughal, Nadeem Sabtain, Momin
Khan, Afzaal Bela. The programme concluded with Kalams sung by Faqeer of Sachal
Sarmastâ?Ts Mazar.

Speaking on the occasion Karamat
Ali gave a brief background of peace efforts by people of India and Pakistan.
He said the peace caravan is such an initiative.

He said the Pakistani Caravan would
also collect funds for relief of flood affected people. He announced launch of the
PPC Flood Relief Fund. He appealed the people to donate in the fund, which
would be handed over to Edhi Foundation.

Talking about the Peace Caravan,
he said the Caravan in India has already started from Mumbai on July 28 and would
culminate at Atari on August 13, 2010. Due to lesser distance as compared to
distance in India, the caravan in Pakistan would start its journey from Dargah
of Hazrat Abdullah Shah Ghazi in Karachi on August 8 and within 5 days would
reach at Data Darbar in Lahore on the same date i.e. August 13.

Recalling the past, Ali said Indian
friends had initiated the Peace Carvan idea, which was endorsed by civil
society organizations of both the countries. One such programme was the
Indo-Pakistan Delhi-to-Multan Peace March in 2005. The March started from the Dargah
of the sufi saint Hazrat Nizamuddin Auliya in Delhi and culminated at the
shrine of saint Bahauddin Zakariya in Multan, taking the message of love and
brotherhood to the towns, cities and villages of the two countries.

That was a successful effort
towards peace. Although some other programmes like the â?~Nuclear-Free, Visa-Free
South Asia Conventionâ?T in Delhi in August 2005, and in Lahore in 2007 were held,
friends in India and Pakistan felt it necessary to continue such efforts for
building pressure on both the governments to seriously take steps for
sustainable peace in the region.

Karamat Ali said the peace
caravan would also make appeal for donations for flood affectees of Pakistan
and the collected amount would be handed over to Edhi Foundation for onward
distribution among the people.

A representative of business community
Ali Jehangir Siddiqui underlined the need for increasing bilateral trade between
India and Pakistan. Peace and trade are linked, he added.

Ends



Shujauddin Qureshi

Senior Research Associate

Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research (PILER),

Gulshan-e-Maymar, Karachi-75340

Response to the visit of President Mahinda Rajapakse to New Delhi.

The Prime Minister
Dr. Manmohan Singh
South Block, Raisina Hill
New Delhi - 110 101
India

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

Subject: Regarding the visit of President Mahinda Rajapakse to New Delhi.

We are aware that the Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse is schedule to visit New Delhi on the 8th of June 2010. At this juncture we as concerned citizens of South Asia would like to lay out a few basic concerns.

As concerned citizens of various nations in this region, we have silently witnessed the human tragedy that unfolded in Sri Lanka, due to the war that was savagely fought to an end in May last year.

As you are well aware, since the declared ‘end’ of this war, there are many international human rights organisations including the US State Department Report in October, 2009, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Rapporteur on Extra- Judicial Killings have declared beyond any further doubt that there is a dire necessity for investigations into crimes against humanity and war crimes during the final phase of that war for certain, if not from before. While the aggression and the resulting violence are two-sided in a conflict situation, we firmly believe the onus of respecting law and order and honouring international commitments falls more heavily on an elected, democratic government, than on an armed organisation that was banned by over 35 countries including India.

We are of the firm opinion that India as a member country of both SAARC and the Commonwealth of Nations, as a democratic country and a neighbour, cannot afford to ignore the human tragedy of the ethnic Tamil minority in Sri Lanka. Of the over 2.4 million Tamil people in Sri Lanka, over 300,000 were wholly uprooted from their ancestral villages and thrown into barbed wire camps as refugees or internally displaced persons (IDPs). These camps were administered by the Sri Lankan military and though access was severely curtailed, it was widely known that abject conditions in these camps are in violation of all human decency and the rights of the displaced.

We are now faced with a situation of a country, parts of which have been ravaged by war, where a long term solution in not in sight. Political will for a long term solution can only be assured with enough pressure on the Sri Lankan government at the regional and international levels. To this end, we would like to briefly outline a few basic concerns.

They are:
1. The wholly militarised approach of the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) in handling IDP issues and their supposed resettlement without a well thought out, democratically designed and publicly declared programme;
2. Continued military rule in Tamil areas with paramilitary groups allowed to operate in collaboration with State security forces;
3. Lack of any credible system or mechanism for redress and reconciliation offered to the war affected Tamil people;
4. The delay in providing any just political solution to the aggravated ethnic crisis that developed into an armed conflict and protracted war.

We would like to urge the Indian government to take an unambiguous stand on the Sri Lankan government during and after the war. As an intrinsic part of the post war reconstruction efforts in Sri Lanka, it is incumbent upon India to insist on; basic standards of human rights to be maintained at all times; that adequate steps be taken towards to address the long and short term grievances of affected communities; and a long term political solution to the ethnic struggle be worked upon.

We therefore appeal to the government of India, on behalf of all concerned citizens in India and South Asia who wish to see democracy flourish in the region, to impress upon the Sri Lankan President and his government to take steps immediately to implement -

1. A holistic, pragmatic “recovery programme” for the war-devastated regions of the country, which would be discussed and approved in the Sri Lankan parliament and would be provided with a credible level of budgetary support, equal to the magnitude of the task. This programme should be monitored by a parliamentary select committee, and be implemented through provincial council administrations in the North – East, that would address all issues of
a) The affected people in the North, in the Vanni and the East, including widows, Orphaned children and ex-combatants, in resettling them in their own villages or in Places of their choice;
b) Southern war victims in border villages; and
c) Disabled soldiers, the war widows and the parents/dependents of those missing in action.
2. Demilitarising of the whole society within a stipulated, short time frame that would immediately disband all paramilitary groups and establish law and order in the whole society;
3. Reconstitute the most recently appointed (May 17) Presidential Commission on “Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation” as a South Asian Commission on Reconciliation and Reparation in Sri Lanka, as an independent commission responsible to the SAARC, with a mandate to resolve all issues of the war including disappearances, torture, arbitrary arrests, issues of war widows and orphaned children, discussed and approved in SL parliament;
4. Accept a South Asian eminent civil society group that includes representation from the mainstream media, to visit war affected areas as a fact finding mission.

We urge you to include the above mentioned issues in your deliberations with the Sri Lankan president. We hope that the Indian Government will take a firm stand supporting the rights of the people of Sri Lanka, especially those most affected by the war. This in turn we hope will generate the political pressure needed to ensure that the basic rights of the people in Sri Lanka are assured to them. It is only through such efforts can the island nation ensure for long term peace, justice and dignity.

As this is a serious public issue of importance, we wish to inform you that this appeal would be released to the media as public information.

Thanking you,

Signed -

1. E. Deenadayalan, Concerned Citizens for South Asia
2. Tapan K. Bose, South Asia Forum for Human Rights
3. M. Subbu, New Trade Union Initiative
4. Saheli Women’s Group, New Delhi
5. Ashok Choudhary, National Forum of Forest People and Forest Workers
6. National Alliance of People’s Movement
7. Xavier Jayeraj, South Asian People’s Initiatives (SAPI), New Delhi
8. Jatin Desai, Focus on Global South
9. Delhi Forum, New Delhi
10. Ravi Hemadri, Concerned Citizens for South Asia
11. Justice Rajinder Sachar, New Delhi
12. Kuldip Nayar, New Delhi
13. Vasanthi Raman, Senior Fellow, Centre for Women's Development Studies, New Delhi
14. Sumit Chakravarty, Mainstream, New Delhi
15. Surendra Mohan, New Delhi
16. Anuradha Chenoy, New Delhi
17. Rita Manchanda
18. V. Joseph Xavier sj, Superior and Head - Research, Indian Social Institute, Bangalore
19. Saheli, New Delhi
20. Ramesh Gopalakrishnan, Amnesty International
21. Kavitha Muralidharan, journalist, Chennai.
22. Mary E John, Centre for Women's Development Studies, New Delhi
23. Anusha Hariharan, Student, JNU, New Delhi
24. Kalyani Menon-Sen, Jagori, New Delhi
25. Pamela Philipose, Women Feature Service, New Delhi
26. Priya Thangarajah, NLSIU, Bangalore
27. Ramlath Kavil, Mumbai
28. Supriya Madangarli Mumbai
29. Viji P Penkoottu, Kerala
30. Fr. Soosai Arokiasamy S.J., Vidyajyoti College of Theology, Delhi
31. Jothi SJ, Director, Udayani SOcial Action Forum,Kolkata
32. Dr Veena R Poonacha , Director, Research Center for Women's Studies, SNDT Women's University, Mumbai
33. Geeta charusivam
34. Stan Swamy, Bagaicha, Ranchi
35. AXJ. Bosco SJ, CITRA, Secunderabad
36. Rudi Heredia, ISI, New Delhi
37. Paul Vaz, Mumbai
38. Anto Joseph, Manthan, Patna
39. JESA Patna, Bihar
40. Sunny George Kunnel, De Nobili College, Pune
41. The Director, Indian Social Institute, New Delhi
42. Social Centre, Nagar, Maharashtra
43. Dr. Lazar Savari SJ, Professor, St. Joseph’s College, Trichy, Tamilnadu
44. Thomas Kocherry, World Forum of Fisher Peoples (WFFP)

Press Release on pre-draft notification on the proposed Coastal Zone Regulation Notification 2010

While welcoming the consultative process initiated by the Ministry for Environment and Forests by issuing a pre-draft notification on the proposed Coastal Zone Regulation Notification 2010 and also translating it in coastal languages, we however, are forced to reject the pre-draft on grounds that it is contrary to the aspirations and demands made by Fishworkers groups and other organisations working on issues related to Indian coast land.
The pre-draft notification has failed to address the two main issues raised by Fishworkers groups and other organisations, i.e. to strengthen the coastal regulations for long term protection of coastal ecosystems and secondly to recognise and guarantee the rights of the fishing communities to their habitats.
The pre-draft notification, it appears is aimed at weakening the coastal protection regime rather than strengthening it and this is sought to be done through the various nefarious provisions of the notification which aim at legitimising all previous dilutions of CRZ 1991 notification besides leaving loopholes for future encroachments on coastal lands for pecuniary gains of the few at the cost of the traditional occupations of many.
It is quite apparent that the pre-draft notification seeks to legalise all the irregularities committed since the 1991 notification and this is sought to be done through the reclassification of the coastal zones, which calls for redrawing the coastal zone management plans whereby earlier designated CRZ-I areas can now be reclassified as CRZ-II or CRZ-III.
Even though the pre-draft acknowledges the fact that 25 per cent of the country’s population lives within 50 kms of the coast, it provides for setting up nuclear power plants within this area that is densely populated. This is just one of the many instances where the rights of the coastal inhabitants are sought to be trampled upon rather than being upheld.
Besides, it permits non polluting IT industries and SEZ even in CRZ-1 areas. Pollution is merely one aspect, such permissions could result in heavy industrialisation of the coastline and the possibility of mega housing projects in the name of SEZ cannot be ruled out.
The pre-draft notification gives blanket exemption for power generation by non-conventional sources in non CRZ-1 areas. Permitting wave energy or tidal energy plants is acceptable but why all non-conventional energy sources is the question. Similarly, the 1991 notification did not provide for storage of petroleum products, fertilizers and chemical in non-CRZ-1 areas as is done in the present pre-draft notification.
Similarly, while permitting power plants (nuclear and thermal) along the coastline, the adverse impact on environment and coastal ecology has totally been ignored. The impact of the jetties, the result of drawing large quantities of water for cooling such plants and subsequent release of heated water in the sea has not at all been considered.
The pre-draft notification also permits the Greenfield airport in New Mumbai and that too in an area that is currently under mangrove cover which is designated as an eco-sensitive zone.
Tourism related development along the coastline has been a contentious issue given the fact that tourist resorts have been permitted within the No Development Zone on a mere condition that they are permitted in designated areas. Ironically the designated areas have not been identified as a result of which any beach is open for development in the name of tourism.
As if the opening left for tourism related development was not sufficient, the pre-draft notification also provides for housing colonies to come up along the coastline with the State Coastal Zone Management Authorities being given the powers to clear housing projects of up to 20,000 sq mts. Given the manner in which the SCZMA have been functioning, one can well imagine what will happen to our coastline in the near future.
The only positive aspect in the pre-draft notification is the provision for regulating coastal protection measures which will hopefully put an end to the “sea walls’ being constructed without any scientific study and merely at the whims and fancies of the powers that be.

As stated earlier, the pre-draft notification totally fails to protect the rights and livelihood of the coastal inhabitants including the fishing community and seeks to only throw open more and more coastal areas for development. One such instance is the manner in which it provides for development of ports only on the basis of erosion without given any consideration to the cumulative effect of such development including the displacement of fishing communities.

What is most shocking is that the pre-draft provision permits setting up of SEZ within the CRZ areas. This is a brazen display of lack of sensitivity to people’s aspirations as SEZ have been opposed in different parts of the country and now they are proposed to be set up within the CRZ areas!

The pre-draft notification also provides for drawing the ‘Hazard Line’ which is a truly haphazard provision. The parameters for drawing this line are vague and it is silent on what kind of regulations will apply to the area that will come within the landward side or seaward side of this so called hazard line. The greatest fear is that using the hazard line, wherever it is towards the sea side, the ‘No Development Zone’ will be thrown open for development on grounds that there is no danger in doing so and this will spell a death blow to our cliffs and high lands along the coastline, which are quite prized properties for the rich and the mighty wanting their abodes facing the sea.

Although aquatic areas are included in the notification for management, there is absolutely no application of mind of how these areas are going to be managed except for a provision not to let out untreated sewage in these areas. While the notification is silent on the rights of the traditional inhabitants of areas abutting these aquatic areas, it has fortunately prohibited reclamation of these areas.

The special dispensation given to certain geographical locations which are classified under a new Coastal Regulation Zone is once again haphazardly done. In fact some of the recommendations made for these specific geographical locations are applicable for the entire coastline and should in fact be made mandatory all over the country. Besides, under special dispensation pipe dreams are provided for like roads on stilts in order to protect the mangroves raising the question whether this is really feasible.

One of the biggest drawbacks of the pre-draft notification is the exclusion of the island territories. Even though the government has come out with a separate notification with regards to the Andaman and Nicobar and Lakshadweep island groups, the question of various other islands that dot our coastline has not been addressed making one wonder whether these individual islands will be auctioned to the highest bidder to have as their personal trophies?

The sections pertaining to implementation of the CRZ provisions once again indicate that the government has not taken the ground reality into account but merely come out with a notification that sounds good on paper but cannot be implemented. Lessons learnt over the last nearly decade in implementing the 1991 notification have totally been ignored and time-frames have been set up that are not practical and not feasible which will in effect turn the CRZ 2010 into nothing but yet another paper tiger.

The Ministry has displayed total insensitivity by ignoring the aspirations of the coastal people. Their rights over the land and their right to livelihood have not been considered at all and instead the pre-draft notification remains stuck in the same old rut of merely providing some concessions to these communities.

What is shocking that the pre-draft notification provisions reveal that there is no real place for fishermen in CRZ-I and CRZ-II and where they will be rehabilitated is not mentioned. What is more disturbing is that by throwing open the coastline for development, the traditional occupants of the country’s coastline are sought to be hounded out of their ancestral habitats by outsiders.


Thomas Kocherry
Special Invitee
Email: thomasksa@gmail.com
Mobile: 9360645772

Stop Land Grabbing Now! -ENGLISH, FRENCH AND SPANISH Statements

ENGLISH STATEMENT
1
STOP LAND GRABBING NOW!
Say NO to the principles of “responsible” agro-enterprise
investment promoted by the World Bank
State and private investors, from Citadel Capital to Goldman Sachs, are leasing or buying
up tens of millions of hectares of farmlands in Asia, Africa and Latin America for food and
fuel production. This land grabbing is a serious threat to the food sovereignty of our
peoples and the right to food of our rural communities. In response to this new wave of
land grabbing, the World Bank (WB) is promoting a set of seven principles to guide such
investments and make them successful. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO),
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development (UNCTAD) have agreed to join the WB in collectively pushing
these principles. 1 Their starting point is the fact that the current rush of private sector
interest to buy up farmland is risky. After all, the WB has just finalised a study showing
the magnitude of this trend and its central focus on transferring rights over agricultural
land in developing countries to foreign investors. The WB seems convinced that all private
capital flows to expand global agribusiness operations where they have not yet taken
hold are good and must be allowed to proceed so that the corporate sector can extract
more wealth from the countryside. Since these investment deals are hinged on massive
privatisation and transfer of land rights, the WB wants them to meet a few criteria to
reduce the risks of social backlash: respect the rights of existing users of land, water and
other resources (by paying them off ); protect and improve livelihoods at the household
and community level (provide jobs and social services); and do no harm to the
environment. These are the core ideas behind the WB's seven principles for socially
acceptable land grabbing.
These principles will not accomplish their ostensible objectives. They are rather a move to
try to legitimize land grabbing. Facilitating the long-term corporate (foreign and
domestic) takeover of rural people's farmlands is completely unacceptable no matter
which guidelines are followed. The WB's principles, which would be entirely voluntary, aim
to distract from the fact that today's global food crisis, marked by more than 1 billion
people going hungry each day, will not be solved by large scale industrial agriculture,
which virtually all of these land acquisitions aim to promote.
1 "Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment that Respects Rights, Livelihoods and Resources"
Available at:
http://www.donorplatform.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,1280
2
Land grabbing has already started to intensify in many countries over the past 10-15
years with the adoption of deregulation policies, trade and investment agreements, and
market oriented governance reforms. The recent food and financial crises have provided
the impetus for a surge in land grabbing by governments and financial investors trying
to secure agricultural production capacity and future food supplies as well as assets that
are sure to fetch high returns. Wealthy governments have sought to lease agricultural
lands for long periods of time to feed their populations and industries back home. At the
same time, corporations are seeking long term economic concessions for plantation
agriculture to produce agro-fuels, rubber, oils, etc. These trends are also visible in coastal
areas, where land, marine resources and water bodies are being sold, leased, or developed
for tourism to corporate investors and local elites, at the expense of artisanal fishers and
coastal communities. One way or the other, agricultural lands and forests are being
diverted away from smallhold producers, fishers and pastoralists to commercial purposes,
and leading to displacement, hunger and poverty.
With the current farmland grab, corporate driven globalisation has reached a new phase
that will undermine peoples’ self-determination, food sovereignty and survival as never
before. The WB and many governments see land and rights to land, as a crucial asset base
for corporations seeking high returns on capital since land is not only the basis for
producing food and raw materials for the new energy economy, but also a way to capture
water. Land is being revalued on purely economic terms by the WB, governments and
corporations and in the process, the multi-functionality, and ecological, social and cultural
values of land are being negated. It is thus more important than ever that these
resources are defended from corporate and state predation and instead be made
available to those who need them to feed themselves and others sustainably, and to
survive as communities and societies.
Land grabbing – even where there are no related forced evictions - denies land for local
communities, destroys livelihoods, reduces the political space for peasant oriented
agricultural policies and distorts markets towards increasingly concentrated agribusiness
interests and global trade rather than towards sustainable peasant/smallhold production
for local and national markets. Land grabbing will accelerate eco-system destruction and
the climate crisis because of the type of monoculture oriented, industrial agricultural
production that many of these “acquired” lands will be used for. Promoting or permitting
land grabbing violates the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights and undermines the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Land
grabbing ignores the principles adopted by the International Conference on Agrarian
Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD) in 2006 and the recommendations made by the
International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development
(IAASTD).
Land grabbing must be immediately stopped. The WB’s principles attempt to create the
illusion that land grabbing can proceed without disastrous consequences to peoples,
communities, eco-systems and the climate. This illusion is false and misleading. Farmer's
and indigenous peoples organisations, social movements and civil society groups largely
agree that what we need instead is to:
1. Keep land in the hands of local communities and implement genuine agrarian
reform in order to ensure equitable access to land and natural resources.
2. Heavily support agro-ecological peasant, smallhold farming, fishing and
pastoralism, including participatory research and training programmes so that
3
small-scale food providers can produce ample, healthy and safe food for
everybody.
3. Overhaul farm and trade policies to embrace food sovereignty and support local
and regional markets that people can participate in and benefit from.
4. Promote community-oriented food and farming systems hinged on local people's
control over land, water and biodiversity. Enforce strict mandatory regulations that
curb the access of corporations and other powerful actors (state and private) to
agricultural, coastal and grazing lands, forests, and wetlands.
No principles in the world can justify land grabbing!
La Via Campesina
FIAN
Land Research Action Network (LRAN)
GRAIN
22 April 2010
Endorsed by:
AFRICA
 African Biodiversity Network (ABN)
 Anywaa Survival Organisation,
Ethiopia
 Association Centre Ecologique
Albert Schweitzer (CEAS BURKINA),
Burkina Faso
 Coordination Nationale des
Usagers des Ressources Naturelles
du Bassin du Niger au Mali, Mali
 CNCR (Conseil National de
Concertation et de Coopération
des Ruraux), Sénégal
 Collectif pour la Défense des
Terres Malgaches TANY
 Confédération Paysanne du
Congo, Congo RDC
 COPAGEN (Coalition pour la
protection du patrimoine
génétique africaine)
 East African Farmers Federation
(EAFF)
 Eastern and Southern Africa Small
Scale Farmers' Forum (ESAFF)
 Economic Justice Network of
FOCCISA, Southern Africa
 Food Security, Policy and
Advocacy Network (FoodSPAN),
Ghana
 FORA/DESC, Niger
 Ghana Civil Society Coalition on
Land (CICOL), Ghana
 Haki Ardhi, Tanzania
 Inades-Formation
 IPACC (Indigenous People of Africa
Co-ordinating Committee)
 London International Oromo
Workhshop Group, Ethiopia
 ROPPA (Réseau des Organisations
Paysannes et des Producteurs de
l'Afrique de l'Ouest)
 Synergie Paysanne, Bénin
ASIA
 Aliansi Gerakan Reforma Agraria
(AGRA), Indonesia
 All Nepal Peasants' Association
(ANPA), Nepal
 Alternative Agriculture Network,
Thailand
 Alternate Forum for Research in
Mindanao (AFRIM), Philippines
 Andhra Pradesh Vyvasaya
Vruthidarula Union (APVVU), India
4
 Anti Debt Coalition (KAU),
Indonesia
 Aquila Ismail, Pakistan
 Asian Human Rights Commission
(AHRC)
 Bantad Mountain Range
Conservation Network, Thailand
 Biothai (Thailand)
 Bridges Across Borders Southeast
Asia, Cambodia
 Centre for Agrarian Reform,
Empowerment and
Transformation, Inc., Philippines
 Centro Saka, Inc., Philippines
 CIDSE, Lao PDR
 Daulat Institute, Indonesia
 Delhi Forum, India
 Focus on the Global South, India,
Thailand, Philippines
 Foundation for Ecological
Recovery/TERRA, Thailand
 Four Regions Slum Network,
Thailand
 Friends of the Earth Indonesia
(WALHI), Indonesia
 HASATIL, Timor Leste
 IMSE, India
 Indian Social Action Forum
(INSAF), India
 Indonesian Fisher folk Union (SNI),
Indonesia
 Indonesian Human Rights
Committee for Social Justice
(IHCS), Indonesia
 Indonesian Peasant' Union (SPI).
Indonesia
 International Collective in Support
of Fishworkers (ICSF), India
 Kelompok Studi dan
Pengembangan Prakarsa
Masyarakat/Study Group for the
People Initiative Development
(KSPPM), Indonesia
 KIARA-Fisheries Justice Coalition
of Indonesia, Indonesia
 Klongyong and Pichaipuben Land
Cooperatives, Thailand
 Land Reform Network of Thailand,
Thailand
 Lokoj Institute, Bangladesh
 MARAG, India
 Melanesian Indigenous Land
Defense Alliance (MILDA)
 My Village, Cambodia
 National Fisheries Solidarity
Movement (NAFSO), Sri Lanka
 National Fishworkers Forum, India
 National Forum of Forest Peoples
and Forest Workers, India
 Northeastern Land Reform
Network, Thailand
 Northern Peasant Federation,
Thailand
 NZNI, Mongolia
 PARAGOS-Pilipinas, Philippines
 Pastoral Peoples Movement, India
 PCC, Mongolia
 People's Coalition for the Rights to
Water (KruHA), Indonesia
 PERMATIL (Permaculture), Timor-
Leste
 Perween Rehman, Pakistan
 Project for Ecological Awareness
Building (EAB),Thailand
 Roots for Equity, Pakistan
 Sintesa Foundation, Indonesia
 Social Action for Change,
Cambodia
 Solidarity Workshop, Bangladesh
 Southern Farmer Federation,
Thailand
 Sustainable Agriculture
Foundation, Thailand
 The NGO Forum on Cambodia,
Cambodia
 Village Focus Cambodia,
Cambodia
 Village Focus International, Lao
PDR
 World Forum of Fisher Peoples
(WFFP), Sri Lanka
LATIN AMERICA
 Asamblea de Afectados
Ambientales, México
 BIOS, Argentina
 COECO-Ceiba (Amigos de la Tierra),
Costa Rica
 FIAN Comayagua, Honduras
 Grupo Semillas, Colombia
 Red de Biodiversidad de Costa
Rica, Costa Rica
 Red en Defensa del Maiz, México
 REL-UITA
5
 Sistema de la Investigación de la
Problemática Agraria del Ecuador
(SIPAE), Ecuador
EUROPE
 Both Ends, Netherlands
 CADTM, Belgium
 Centre Tricontinental – CETRI,
Belgium
 CNCD-11.11.11, Belgium
 Comité belgo-brasileiro, Belgium
 Entraide et Fraternité, Belgium
 FIAN Austria
 FIAN Belgium
 FIAN France
 FIAN Netherlands
 FIAN Norway
 FIAN Sweden
 FUGEA, Belgium
 Guatemala Solidarität, Austria
 SOS Faim – Agir avec le Sud,
Belgium
 The Slow Food Foundation for
Biodiversity, Italy
 The Transnational Institute (TNI),
Netherlands
 Uniterre, Switzerland
NORTH AMERICA
 Agricultural Missions, Inc. (AMI),
USA
 Columban Center for Advocacy
and Outreach, USA
 Cumberland Countians for Peace
& Justice, USA
 Grassroots International, USA
 National Family Farm Coalition,
USA
 Network for Environmental &
Economic Responsibility, United
Church of Christ, USA
 Pete Von Christierson, USA
 PLANT (Partners for the Land &
Agricultural Needs of Traditional
Peoples), USA
 Raj Patel, Visiting Scholar, Center
for African Studies, University of
California at Berkeley, USA
 The Institute for Food and
Development Policy (Food First),
USA
 Why Hunger, USA
INTERNATIONAL
 FIAN International
 Friends of the Earth International
 GRAIN
 La Via Campesina
 Land Research Action Network
(LRAN)
 World Alliance of Mobile
Indigenous People (WAMIP)
 World Rainforest Movement
(WRM)

FRENCH STATEMENT


1
POUR UN ARRÊT
IMMÉDIAT DE
L’ACCAPAREMENT
DE TERRES!!
Disons NON aux principes promus par la Banque mondiale en vue d’
investissements « responsables » de la part des entreprises agroalimentaires!
En réponse à la nouvelle vague d’accaparements de terres, par laquelle des états et des
investisseurs privés, de Citadel Capital à Goldman Sachs, louent ou achètent des dizaines
de millions d’hectares de bonnes terres agricoles en Asie, Afrique et Amérique Latine pour
produire de la nourriture ou des agrocombustibles, la Banque mondiale (BM) est en train
de promouvoir un ensemble de sept principes afin d’assurer le succès de ces
investissements. La FAO, le FIDA et la CNUCED ont accepté de rejoindre la BM pour,
ensemble, faire avancer ces principes.1 Leur point de départ est que la course actuelle du
secteur privé pour l’acquisition de terres agricoles est risquée. La BM vient tout juste de
finaliser une étude montrant l’importance de cette tendance qui vise principalement le
transfert à des investisseurs étrangers de droits sur des terres agricoles des pays en
développement. La BM semble convaincue que tout flux de capital privé visant à
l’expansion de l’agrobusiness transnational là où il n’a pas encore pénétré est bon et doit
pouvoir avancer afin que le secteur industriel puisse retirer plus de richesses du milieu
rural. Comme ces investissements sont liés à une privatisation massive et un transfert de
droits sur la terre, la BM veut mettre en application un certain nombre de critères afin de
réduire les risques d’explosions sociales : « respect » des droits des utilisateurs actuels de
la terre, de l’eau et d'autres ressources (en les indemnisant), protection et amélioration des
conditions de vie au niveau des familles et des communautés (en fournissant des emplois
et des services sociaux), et respect de l’environnement. Ce sont les idées centrales qui se
cachent derrière les sept principes de la BM pour permettre un accaparement de terres
« socialement acceptable ».
Ces principes n’atteindront pas leurs objectifs annoncés. Ces principes sont plutôt un
écran de fumée pour tenter de légitimer l’acquisition de terres à grande échelle. Faciliter le
1 Voir "Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment that Respect Rights, Livelihoods and
Resources", disponible en anglais uniquement :
http://www.donorplatform.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,1280. La FAO est
l'Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture, la CNUCED est la Conférence
des Nations Unies sur le commerce et le développement, et le FIDA est le Fonds international pour le
développement agricole.
2
contrôle à long terme par des acteurs étrangers sur des terres agricoles appartenant à des
communautés rurales est totalement inacceptable, quels que soient les principes suivis.
Les principes de la BM, qui seraient totalement volontaires, visent à détourner notre
attention du fait que la crise alimentaire actuelle, marquée par un milliard de personnes
en manque de nourriture, ne sera pas resolue par l'agriculture industrielle à grande
échelle, ce que toutes ces acquisitions foncières cherchent à promouvoir.
L’accaparement de terres a commencé à s’intensifier dans de nombreux pays déjà au
cours des dix ou quinze dernières années, avec l’adoption de politiques de dérégulation,
d’accords commerciaux et d’investissements, et des réformes de gouvernance tournées
vers le marché. Les récentes crises alimentaire et financière ont fourni le prétexte à cette
vague d’accaparement de terres par les gouvernements et les investisseurs financiers
pour essayer de garantir la capacité de production agricole et les futurs stocks
alimentaires, ainsi que des actifs qui, à coup sûr, leur fourniront de grands dividendes. Les
gouvernements riches cherchent à louer des terres agricoles pour de longues périodes
afin de nourrir leurs populations et leurs industries. Parallèlement, les firmes sont à la
recherche de concessions de longue durée pour y établir des plantations où elles
produiront des agrocarburants, du caoutchouc, de l’huile, etc. On observe la même
tendance dans les régions côtières où la terre, les ressources marines et hydriques sont
vendues, louées ou cédées à des promoteurs de tourisme et aux élites locales au
détriment des pêcheurs artisans et des communautés locales. D’une manière ou d’une
autre, les terres agricoles et les forêts sont soustraites au contrôle des petits producteurs –
femmes et hommes -, des pêcheurs et des éleveurs à des fins commerciales, ce qui
conduit à leur déplacement, à la faim et à la pauvreté.
Avec cet actuel accaparement de terres agricoles à grande échelle, le paradigme de la
mondialisation a franchi une nouvelle étape qui sapera l’autodétermination des peuples
et leur souveraineté alimentaire. La BM voit la terre et les droits à la terre comme un atout
crucial pour les entreprises à la recherche de gros dividendes sur leurs capitaux. Pour eux
la terre n’est pas seulement la base pour produire de la nourriture et des matières
premières nécessaires aux nouvelles formes d’énergie, c’est aussi la pierre angulaire pour
exploiter les réserves d'eau.
Il est donc plus important que jamais de protéger ses ressources de la convoitise des
entreprises et des états, afin de les laisser à ceux qui en ont besoin pour se nourrir euxmêmes
et nourrir les autres de manière durable, et leur permettre de continuer à exister
en tant que communautés et sociétés.
L’accaparement de terres à grande échelle – même quand il n’est pas accompagné
d’expulsions forcées – prive les communautés locales de terre, détruit des modes de vie,
donne moins de place aux politiques agricoles orientées vers les paysans/paysannes, et
entraîne une distorsion des marchés en favorisant la concentration toujours plus grande
de l’agrobusiness et du commerce global, plutôt que de promouvoir une agriculture
paysanne durable, tournée vers les marchés locaux et nationaux et les générations
futures. Cela accélérera aussi la destruction des écosystèmes et la crise climatique.
Promouvoir ou permettre l’accaparement de terres à grande échelle est une violation du
Pacte international relatif aux Droits économiques sociaux et culturels. C’est en
contradiction avec la Convention des Nations Unies sur les droits des peuples indigènes.
L’accaparement de terres à grande échelle ignore les principes adoptés par la Conférence
internationale sur la réforme agraire et le développement rural (CIRADR) en 2006 et les
recommandations faites par l’Evaluation internationale des connaissances, des sciences et
des technologies agricoles au service du développement (IAASTD en anglais).
3
L’accaparement de terres à grande échelle doit cesser immédiatement. Les principes de la
BM essaient de faire croire que les accaparements de terre peuvent ne pas avoir de
conséquences désastreuses. Les organisations paysannes et des peuples indigènes, les
mouvements sociaux et des groupes de la société civile reconnaissent largement que ce
qu’il faut plutôt, c’est :
1. maintenir la terre entre les mains des communautés locales et mettre en oeuvre
une véritable réforme agraire afin d’assurer un accès équitable à la terre et aux
ressources naturelles;
2. soutenir fortement l’agriculture paysanne agroécologique, la pêche et l'élevage à
petite échelle, des programmes de recherche agronomique participative et des
programmes de formation, afin que les petits producteurs puissent produire en
abondance des aliments,de qualité pour tous et toutes;
3. changer en profondeur les politiques agricoles et commerciales en vue d’adopter
la souveraineté alimentaire et soutenir les marchés locaux et régionaux auxquels
les gens puissent accéder pour en tirer profit;
4. promouvoir des systèmes agricoles et alimentaires basés sur le contrôle par les
communautés de ressources telles que la terre, l'eau et la biodiversité. Mettre en
oeuvre des régulations strictes et obligatoires qui limitent l'accès des entreprises et
autres acteurs publics et privés aux terres agricoles, aux zones côtières et humides,
aux pâturages et aux forêts.
Aucun principe au monde ne peut justifier l’accaparement de terres !
La Via Campesina
FIAN
Land Research Action Network (LRAN)
GRAIN
22 Avril 2010
Déclaration co-sponsorisée par :
AFRICA
 African Biodiversity Network (ABN)
 Anywaa Survival Organisation,
Ethiopia
 Association Centre Ecologique
Albert Schweitzer (CEAS BURKINA),
Burkina Faso
 Coordination Nationale des
Usagers des Ressources Naturelles
du Bassin du Niger au Mali, Mali
 CNCR (Conseil National de
Concertation et de Coopération
des Ruraux), Sénégal
 Collectif pour la Défense des
Terres Malgaches TANY
 Confédération Paysanne du
Congo, Congo RDC
 COPAGEN (Coalition pour la
protection du patrimoine
génétique africaine)
 East African Farmers Federation
(EAFF)
 Eastern and Southern Africa Small
Scale Farmers' Forum (ESAFF)
 Economic Justice Network of
FOCCISA, Southern Africa
 Food Security, Policy and
Advocacy Network (FoodSPAN),
Ghana
 FORA/DESC, Niger
4
 Ghana Civil Society Coalition on
Land (CICOL), Ghana
 Haki Ardhi, Tanzania
 Inades-Formation
 IPACC (Indigenous People of Africa
Co-ordinating Committee)
 London International Oromo
Workhshop Group, Ethiopia
 ROPPA (Réseau des Organisations
Paysannes et des Producteurs de
l'Afrique de l'Ouest)
 Synergie Paysanne, Bénin
ASIA
 Aliansi Gerakan Reforma Agraria
(AGRA), Indonesia
 All Nepal Peasants' Association
(ANPA), Nepal
 Alternative Agriculture Network,
Thailand
 Alternate Forum for Research in
Mindanao (AFRIM), Philippines
 Andhra Pradesh Vyvasaya
Vruthidarula Union (APVVU), India
 Anti Debt Coalition (KAU),
Indonesia
 Aquila Ismail, Pakistan
 Asian Human Rights Commission
(AHRC)
 Bantad Mountain Range
Conservation Network, Thailand
 Biothai (Thailand)
 Bridges Across Borders Southeast
Asia, Cambodia
 Centre for Agrarian Reform,
Empowerment and
Transformation, Inc., Philippines
 Centro Saka, Inc., Philippines
 CIDSE, Lao PDR
 Daulat Institute, Indonesia
 Delhi Forum, India
 Focus on the Global South, India,
Thailand, Philippines
 Foundation for Ecological
Recovery/TERRA, Thailand
 Four Regions Slum Network,
Thailand
 Friends of the Earth Indonesia
(WALHI), Indonesia
 HASATIL, Timor Leste
 IMSE, India
 Indian Social Action Forum
(INSAF), India
 Indonesian Fisher folk Union (SNI),
Indonesia
 Indonesian Human Rights
Committee for Social Justice
(IHCS), Indonesia
 Indonesian Peasant' Union (SPI).
Indonesia
 International Collective in Support
of Fishworkers (ICSF), India
 Kelompok Studi dan
Pengembangan Prakarsa
Masyarakat/Study Group for the
People Initiative Development
(KSPPM), Indonesia
 KIARA-Fisheries Justice Coalition
of Indonesia, Indonesia
 Klongyong and Pichaipuben Land
Cooperatives, Thailand
 Land Reform Network of Thailand,
Thailand
 Lokoj Institute, Bangladesh
 MARAG, India
 Melanesian Indigenous Land
Defense Alliance (MILDA)
 My Village, Cambodia
 National Fisheries Solidarity
Movement (NAFSO), Sri Lanka
 National Fishworkers Forum, India
 National Forum of Forest Peoples
and Forest Workers, India
 Northeastern Land Reform
Network, Thailand
 Northern Peasant Federation,
Thailand
 NZNI, Mongolia
 PARAGOS-Pilipinas, Philippines
 Pastoral Peoples Movement, India
 PCC, Mongolia
 People's Coalition for the Rights to
Water (KruHA), Indonesia
 PERMATIL (Permaculture), Timor-
Leste
 Perween Rehman, Pakistan
 Project for Ecological Awareness
Building (EAB),Thailand
 Roots for Equity, Pakistan
 Sintesa Foundation, Indonesia
 Social Action for Change,
Cambodia
 Solidarity Workshop, Bangladesh
 Southern Farmer Federation,
5
Thailand
 Sustainable Agriculture
Foundation, Thailand
 The NGO Forum on Cambodia,
Cambodia
 Village Focus Cambodia,
Cambodia
 Village Focus International, Lao
PDR
 World Forum of Fisher Peoples
(WFFP), Sri Lanka
LATIN AMERICA
 Asamblea de Afectados
Ambientales, México
 BIOS, Argentina
 COECO-Ceiba (Amigos de la Tierra),
Costa Rica
 FIAN Comayagua, Honduras
 Grupo Semillas, Colombia
 Red de Biodiversidad de Costa
Rica, Costa Rica
 Red en Defensa del Maiz, México
 REL-UITA
 Sistema de la Investigación de la
Problemática Agraria del Ecuador
(SIPAE), Ecuador
EUROPE
 Both Ends, Netherlands
 CADTM, Belgium
 Centre Tricontinental – CETRI,
Belgium
 CNCD-11.11.11, Belgium
 Comité belgo-brasileiro, Belgium
 Entraide et Fraternité, Belgium
 FIAN Austria
 FIAN Belgium
 FIAN France
 FIAN Netherlands
 FIAN Norway
 FIAN Sweden
 FUGEA, Belgium
 Guatemala Solidarität, Austria
 SOS Faim – Agir avec le Sud,
Belgium
 The Slow Food Foundation for
Biodiversity, Italy
 The Transnational Institute (TNI),
Netherlands
 Uniterre, Switzerland
NORTH AMERICA
 Agricultural Missions, Inc. (AMI),
USA
 Columban Center for Advocacy
and Outreach, USA
 Cumberland Countians for Peace
& Justice, USA
 Grassroots International, USA
 National Family Farm Coalition,
USA
 Network for Environmental &
Economic Responsibility, United
Church of Christ, USA
 Pete Von Christierson, USA
 PLANT (Partners for the Land &
Agricultural Needs of Traditional
Peoples), USA
 Raj Patel, Visiting Scholar, Center
for African Studies, University of
California at Berkeley, USA
 The Institute for Food and
Development Policy (Food First),
USA
 Why Hunger, USA
INTERNATIONAL
 FIAN International
 Friends of the Earth International
 GRAIN
 La Via Campesina
 Land Research Action Network
(LRAN)
 World Alliance of Mobile
Indigenous People (WAMIP)
 World Rainforest Movement
(WRM)

SPANISH STATEMENT


1
¡¡DETENGAMOS
DE INMEDIATO
EL ACAPARAMIENTO
DE TIERRAS!!
Digamos NO a los principios promovidos por el Banco Mundial
sobre inversiones agrícolas “responsables”
Inversionistas oficiales y privados —de Citadel Capital a Goldman Sachs— están rentando
o comprando decenas de millones de hectáreas de buenas tierras de cultivo en Asia,
África y América Latina para producir alimentos y agrocombustibles. Este acaparamiento
de tierras es una grave amenaza a la soberanía alimentaria de nuestros pueblos y al
derecho a la alimentación de nuestras comunidades rurales.
En respuesta a esta nueva ola de acaparamiento de tierra, el Banco Mundial (BM) está
promoviendo una serie de siete principios para hacer que estas inversiones tengan éxito.
La Organización de Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación (FAO), el Fondo
Internacional de Desarrollo de la Agricultura (FIDA) y la Conferencia de Naciones Unidas
sobre Comercio y Desarrollo (conocida como UNCTAD por sus siglas en inglés) han
accedido a unirse al BM para impulsar colectivamente estos principios.1 Su punto de
partida es el hecho de que la actual fiebre del sector privado por comprar tierras agrícolas
es arriesgada. El BM acaba de terminar un estudio que muestra la magnitud de esta
tendencia y su interés central en la transferencia de derechos sobre tierras agrícolas en los
países en desarrollo a inversionistas extranjeros.
El BM parece convencido de que cualquier flujo de capital privado que expanda los
agronegocios transnacionales donde aún no hayan penetrado es bueno y debe
permitírsele proseguir, de tal modo que el sector corporativo pueda extraer más riqueza
del campo.
Dado que estos negocios de inversión están anclados en una privatización masiva y en la
transferencia de derechos sobre la tierra, el BM quiere cumplir unos cuantos criterios para
reducir los riesgos de inesperadas reacciones sociales: “respetar” los derechos de los
actuales usuarios a la tierra, el agua y otros recursos (pagándoles alguna indemnización),
proteger y mejorar los medios de vida a nivel familiar y de la comunidad
1 Ver "Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment that Respects Rights, Livelihoods and
Resources " Disponibles sólo en inglés en:
http://www.donorplatform.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,1280
2
(proporcionando empleos y otros servicios) y no dañar el ambiente. Éstas son las ideas
centrales tras los siete principios del BM para lograr un acaparamiento de tierras
“socialmente aceptable”.
Estos principios no cumplirán sus aparentes objetivos. Más bien son una jugada que
intenta legitimar el acaparamiento de tierras. Facilitar que corporaciones (nacionales o
extranjeras) se apoderen a largo plazo de las tierras agrícolas de las comunidades rurales
es totalmente inaceptable, no importa qué lineamientos se sigan. Los principios del BM,
que serían totalmente voluntarios, intentan distraer del hecho de que la crisis alimentaria
global de hoy en día con la cifra récord de más de mil millones de personas sufriendo
hambre, no será resuelta por la agricultura industrial a gran escala que van a aplicar
prácticamente todos los inversionistas que están adquiriendo tierra.
El acaparamiento de tierras comenzó a intensificarse en muchos países durante los
últimos diez a quince años con la adopción de las políticas de desregulación, los
acuerdos de comercio e inversión, y las reformas en la gobernanza orientadas al mercado.
Las recientes crisis alimentaria y financiera aumentaron el ímpetu de esta oleada de
acaparamientos de tierra por parte de gobiernos e inversionistas financieros que intentan
asegurar una capacidad de producción agrícola y existencias alimentarias futuras, así
como activos que con toda seguridad les rindan grandes dividendos. Gobiernos
pudientes andan en busca de tierras agrícolas en el extranjero para alimentar sus
poblaciones y sus industrias nacionales. Al mismo tiempo, las corporaciones están a la
caza de concesiones económicas de largo plazo para instalar plantaciones agrícolas y
producir agrocombustibles, caucho, aceites, etc. Esta tendencia también es palpable en
zonas costeras en las que la tierra y los recursos marinos e hídricos están siendo
vendidos, alquilados o cedidos a inversionistas en turismo y élites locales en detrimento
de las comunidades costeras y de pescadores.
De un modo o de otro, las tierras de cultivo y los bosques son arrebatados, con fines
comerciales, de los/as pequeños/as productores/as, de los/as pescadores/as y los/as
pastores/as, lo que conduce al desplazamiento, al hambre y a la pobreza.
Con el reciente acaparamiento de tierras agrícolas, el paradigma de la globalización ha
llegado a una nueva etapa que socavará la libre determinación de los pueblos, su
soberanía alimentaria y su subsistencia de una manera inédita. El BM ve la tierra, y los
derechos agrarios, como un activo clave para las corporaciones que buscan altos
dividendos de su capital, ya que la tierra no es sólo la base para producir alimentos y
materias primas para la nueva economía agro-energética, sino también una piedra
angular para capturar agua.
EL BM, los gobiernos y las corporaciones están revaluando la tierra en términos
meramente económicos, y de paso están negando la multifuncionalidad y los valores
ecológicos, sociales y culturales ligados con la tierra. Por tanto, ahora es más importante
que nunca que defendamos estos recursos de la predación de gobiernos y corporaciones
de manera que estén disponibles para quienes los necesitan para alimentarse
sustentablemente a sí mismos y a otros; y para sobrevivir como comunidades y
sociedades.
El acaparamiento de tierras —aun en los casos en que no hubiera desalojos forzosos — le
niega la tierra a las comunidades locales, destruye modos de vida, reduce el espacio
político para las políticas agrícolas orientadas al campesinado y distorsiona los mercados
hacia una concentración más y más grande de los intereses de las agroempresas y del
3
comercio global, en lugar de promover una agricultura campesina sustentable para los
mercados locales y nacionales y para las futuras generaciones. También acelerará la
destrucción de los ecosistemas y la crisis climática a causa de la producción agrícola
industrial de monocultivos para la cual serán usadas muchas de las tierras adquiridas.
Promover o permitir el acaparamiento de tierras viola el Pacto Internacional sobre
Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (PIDESC), y socava la Declaración de Naciones
Unidas sobre los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas. El acaparamiento de tierras ignora
los principios adoptados por la Conferencia Internacional sobre Reforma Agraria y
Desarrollo Rural (CIRADR) del 2006 y las recomendaciones hechas por la Evaluación
Internacional del Papel del Conocimiento, la Ciencia y la Tecnología en el Desarrollo
Agrícola (IAASTD)
El acaparamiento de tierras debe terminar de inmediato. Los principios del BM pretenden
crear la ilusión de que se pueden evitar las consecuencias desastrosas. Las organizaciones
campesinas y de pueblos indígenas, los movimientos sociales y los grupos de la sociedad
civil están ampliamente de acuerdo en que lo que realmente necesitamos es:
1. Mantener la tierra en manos de las comunidades locales e implementar una reforma
agraria genuina, con el fin de asegurar un acceso equitativo a la tierra y a los
recursos naturales.
2. Apoyar fuertemente la agricultura campesina, la pesca y el pastoreo agroecológicos
de pequeña escala, incluyendo capacitación e investigación participativa, de manera
que los/as proveedores/as de alimentos puedan producirlos de manera abundante,
sana y segura para todos/as.
3. Cambiar profundamente las políticas agrícolas y comerciales con el fin de adoptar la
soberanía alimentaria y apoyar los mercados locales y regionales en los que la gente
pueda participar y beneficiarse de ello.
4. Promover sistemas agrícolas y alimentarios basados en el control local de las
comunidades sobre la tierra, el agua y la biodiversidad. Implementar efectivamente
regulación obligatoria y estricta que limite el acceso de las corporaciones y otros
actores poderosos tanto gubernamentales como privados a tierras agrícolas, de
pastoreo, costeras, boques y humedales.
¡Ningún principio en el mundo puede justificar
el acaparamiento de tierras!
La Via Campesina
FIAN
Land Research Action Network (LRAN)
GRAIN
22 de Abril de 2010
Declaración apoyada por:
AFRICA
 African Biodiversity Network (ABN)
 Anywaa Survival Organisation,
Ethiopia
 Association Centre Ecologique
Albert Schweitzer (CEAS BURKINA),
Burkina Faso
4
 Coordination Nationale des
Usagers des Ressources Naturelles
du Bassin du Niger au Mali, Mali
 CNCR (Conseil National de
Concertation et de Coopération
des Ruraux), Sénégal
 Collectif pour la Défense des
Terres Malgaches TANY
 Confédération Paysanne du
Congo, Congo RDC
 COPAGEN (Coalition pour la
protection du patrimoine
génétique africaine)
 East African Farmers Federation
(EAFF)
 Eastern and Southern Africa Small
Scale Farmers' Forum (ESAFF)
 Economic Justice Network of
FOCCISA, Southern Africa
 Food Security, Policy and
Advocacy Network (FoodSPAN),
Ghana
 FORA/DESC, Niger
 Ghana Civil Society Coalition on
Land (CICOL), Ghana
 Haki Ardhi, Tanzania
 Inades-Formation
 IPACC (Indigenous People of Africa
Co-ordinating Committee)
 London International Oromo
Workhshop Group, Ethiopia
 ROPPA (Réseau des Organisations
Paysannes et des Producteurs de
l'Afrique de l'Ouest)
 Synergie Paysanne, Bénin
ASIA
 Aliansi Gerakan Reforma Agraria
(AGRA), Indonesia
 All Nepal Peasants' Association
(ANPA), Nepal
 Alternative Agriculture Network,
Thailand
 Alternate Forum for Research in
Mindanao (AFRIM), Philippines
 Andhra Pradesh Vyvasaya
Vruthidarula Union (APVVU), India
 Anti Debt Coalition (KAU),
Indonesia
 Aquila Ismail, Pakistan
 Asian Human Rights Commission
(AHRC)
 Bantad Mountain Range
Conservation Network, Thailand
 Biothai (Thailand)
 Bridges Across Borders Southeast
Asia, Cambodia
 Centre for Agrarian Reform,
Empowerment and
Transformation, Inc., Philippines
 Centro Saka, Inc., Philippines
 CIDSE, Lao PDR
 Daulat Institute, Indonesia
 Delhi Forum, India
 Focus on the Global South, India,
Thailand, Philippines
 Foundation for Ecological
Recovery/TERRA, Thailand
 Four Regions Slum Network,
Thailand
 Friends of the Earth Indonesia
(WALHI), Indonesia
 HASATIL, Timor Leste
 IMSE, India
 Indian Social Action Forum
(INSAF), India
 Indonesian Fisher folk Union (SNI),
Indonesia
 Indonesian Human Rights
Committee for Social Justice
(IHCS), Indonesia
 Indonesian Peasant' Union (SPI).
Indonesia
 International Collective in Support
of Fishworkers (ICSF), India
 Kelompok Studi dan
Pengembangan Prakarsa
Masyarakat/Study Group for the
People Initiative Development
(KSPPM), Indonesia
 KIARA-Fisheries Justice Coalition
of Indonesia, Indonesia
 Klongyong and Pichaipuben Land
Cooperatives, Thailand
 Land Reform Network of Thailand,
Thailand
 Lokoj Institute, Bangladesh
 MARAG, India
 Melanesian Indigenous Land
Defense Alliance (MILDA)
 My Village, Cambodia
 National Fisheries Solidarity
Movement (NAFSO), Sri Lanka
 National Fishworkers Forum, India
5
 National Forum of Forest Peoples
and Forest Workers, India
 Northeastern Land Reform
Network, Thailand
 Northern Peasant Federation,
Thailand
 NZNI, Mongolia
 PARAGOS-Pilipinas, Philippines
 Pastoral Peoples Movement, India
 PCC, Mongolia
 People's Coalition for the Rights to
Water (KruHA), Indonesia
 PERMATIL (Permaculture), Timor-
Leste
 Perween Rehman, Pakistan
 Project for Ecological Awareness
Building (EAB),Thailand
 Roots for Equity, Pakistan
 Sintesa Foundation, Indonesia
 Social Action for Change,
Cambodia
 Solidarity Workshop, Bangladesh
 Southern Farmer Federation,
Thailand
 Sustainable Agriculture
Foundation, Thailand
 The NGO Forum on Cambodia,
Cambodia
 Village Focus Cambodia,
Cambodia
 Village Focus International, Lao
PDR
 World Forum of Fisher Peoples
(WFFP), Sri Lanka
LATIN AMERICA
 Asamblea de Afectados
Ambientales, México
 BIOS, Argentina
 COECO-Ceiba (Amigos de la Tierra),
Costa Rica
 FIAN Comayagua, Honduras
 Grupo Semillas, Colombia
 Red de Biodiversidad de Costa
Rica, Costa Rica
 Red en Defensa del Maiz, México
 REL-UITA
 Sistema de la Investigación de la
Problemática Agraria del Ecuador
(SIPAE), Ecuador
EUROPE
 Both Ends, Netherlands
 CADTM, Belgium
 Centre Tricontinental – CETRI,
Belgium
 CNCD-11.11.11, Belgium
 Comité belgo-brasileiro, Belgium
 Entraide et Fraternité, Belgium
 FIAN Austria
 FIAN Belgium
 FIAN France
 FIAN Netherlands
 FIAN Norway
 FIAN Sweden
 FUGEA, Belgium
 Guatemala Solidarität, Austria
 SOS Faim – Agir avec le Sud,
Belgium
 The Slow Food Foundation for
Biodiversity, Italy
 The Transnational Institute (TNI),
Netherlands
 Uniterre, Switzerland
NORTH AMERICA
 Agricultural Missions, Inc. (AMI),
USA
 Columban Center for Advocacy
and Outreach, USA
 Cumberland Countians for Peace
& Justice, USA
 Grassroots International, USA
 National Family Farm Coalition,
USA
 Network for Environmental &
Economic Responsibility, United
Church of Christ, USA
 Pete Von Christierson, USA
 PLANT (Partners for the Land &
Agricultural Needs of Traditional
Peoples), USA
 Raj Patel, Visiting Scholar, Center
for African Studies, University of
California at Berkeley, USA
 The Institute for Food and
Development Policy (Food First),
USA
 Why Hunger, USA
INTERNATIONAL
 FIAN International
6
 Friends of the Earth International
 GRAIN
 La Via Campesina
 Land Research Action Network
(LRAN)
 World Alliance of Mobile
Indigenous People (WAMIP)
 World Rainforest Movement
(WRM)

People's Memorandum to Govt. of India on Climate Conference organized by Govt. of Bolivia.

PEOPLE’S MEMORANDUM TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ON THE COCHABAMBA CLIMATE CONFERENCE ORGANISED BY THE PLURINATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF BOLIVIA &
SR. EVO MORALES AYMA, THE INDIGENOUS PRESIDENT OF THE PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA

10th April 2010

Dear Dr. Manmohan Singh,

We, the undersigned people’s organisations, social movements, trade unions, and concerned citizens of India, submit this Memorandum to you as the head of the Government of India to draw your attention to the Call and Invitation to the ‘Peoples’ World Conference On Climate Change And Mother Earth’s Rights’ to all Social Movements, Organisations and Governments, of the World by the Evo Morales Ayma - led social movement Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia; and to ask you to unequivocally respect and support this Call.

In the absence of any significant public position by your government so far on this extremely important initiative by a government of the global South, we write to you today, to demand that you now, without delay, go beyond political compulsions, technocratic understandings, and the polemics of ‘Climate Change’, and that you affirmatively respond to this Call and to the invitation extended to you by Sr. Evo Morales Ayma; and that the government of India take part in this Conference at the highest level.

We attach here for your convenience a copy of the Call and invitation issued by Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

You may recall that many mass organisations, trade unions, citizens groups and people’s movements had submitted a detailed Memorandum with demands and clear proposals to you and the GoI prior to the Copenhagen Summit, in order to raise our concerns, positions, and demands to you to represent the people of India and our interests at the Summit (We attach a copy of the Memorandum here, for your reference). On the one hand, we understand that the GoI subsequently took meaningful positions vis-à-vis placing demands on the developed world to reduce emissions, pay up, and not compare the emerging or the least developed worlds with itself; and that Indian government has also played an important role in bringing together the major emerging economies to form BASIC.

On the other hand however, when seen in terms of the concerns we had raised to you in our people’s Memorandum regarding the key issue of equity, the government of India’s position was also seen by many as ‘hiding behind the poor’. And the government of India’s position was easily exposed because of this very aspect and as a result, India could not play any substantive leadership role among those countries that have traditionally expected us to take a lead from within the developing world.

We therefore reiterate here our understanding that at this crucial juncture in world history, and given the profound crisis that climate change represents, India’s efforts should be focussed in taking the lead among and on behalf of the interests of the majority of the world’s nations – the least developed and the emerging economies - and not jockeying for a position among the club of elite nations. And that most fundamentally, the Indian position should be proactively addressing issues of equity – within countries and between countries.

We firmly believe that the economic and political issues of inequality and inequity, both within and between nations, grievously impact distribution and consumption and are at the core of the crisis of global warming and of responding meaningfully to it. The crisis is also about a few - both globally but also within countries and regions - usurping the rights and access of the vast majority of the disempowered over the commons – air, water, land, minerals, and forests. Unsustainable economic development and inequitable growth based on an economy dependent on the use of fossil-fuels and extractive industries — all of which have greatly intensified in the last 60 years — have led to the sharp rise in carbon emissions, way beyond what the Earth can absorb. The global annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions have reached about 35 billion tonnes a year from the burning of coal, oil and gas, and from deforestation. This is much more than the net absorption capacity of the Earth, estimated to be 16-17 billion tonnes a year or roughly 2.5 tonnes per person, and which is also declining due to a gradual warming of the oceans.

It is in this context of a planetary crisis that we see an extraordinarily important opportunity in the Call sent out by the Bolivian Government, to host a summit that will deliberate not on the rights of human beings over the planet and its resources, but on the Rights of Mother Earth herself; and that will assert not the rights of governments and corporations over the planet and the resources it shares with us all but will deliberate on and forcefully assert the rights and responsibilities of humanity itself.

As you must surely know, this profound idea of a Mother Earth – here, articulated by the indigenous peoples of the Andean region of the Americas - is also deeply rooted in our own cultures of this region of the world, such as in the term dharati mata that is so widely respected and practised in their own ways both by Adivasis and by peasants in India. As we see it, we as humanity are therefore indeed already linked together across the planet – and indeed, bound together - by this fundamental concept; and it is our responsibility as human beings to at all times respect, protect, and promote this concept. We ask you, and your government, to pay heed to and adopt this concept.

At a time in history when every country and every negotiator is talking the technocratic language of ‘climate’, ‘carbon’ and ‘ppm’, it is vitally important to also acknowledge that it is only an indigenous community representative and a government led by such peoples that could have initiated a Call that so radically widens the perspective: To protect and nurture the Rights of Mother Earth herself. And we should have no doubt about what a fundamental challenge this Call poses to the rich nations and to their over-dependence on an unsustainable development paradigm.

We therefore urge the government of India to second this Call.

Beyond convening a Conference however, the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia has – in its Call - also put forward four vital instrumentalities for protecting and nurturing the Rights of Mother Earth :
A Universal Declaration of Mother Earth’s Rights
Proposals for new commitments to the Kyoto Protocol and projects for a COP Decision under the United Nations Framework for Climate Change
The organisation of the Peoples’ World Referendum on Climate Change; and
· Developing an action plan to advance the establishment of a Climate Justice Tribunal;
aside from more generally defining strategies for action and mobilisation to defend life from Climate Change and to defend Mother Earth’s Rights.

Asking you to keep in mind that it was Bolivia that made the historic demand at the Bangkok preparatory meeting of COP prior to Copenhagen - that developed nations must now pay up for their historical debt, and that this was a demand that Indian Government supported at the Bangkok meeting, we demand today of the government of India that it unequivocally support the government of Bolivia’s proposals.

In this connection, we also however wish to make clear to you and to the Government of India that we consider it a gravely wrong and mistaken position by GoI that the failure that took place at Copenhagen works in the interest of countries like India (such as in the remarks made in the Lok Sabha by Mr. Jairam Ramesh, MoS (MoEF), that “the interest of developing countries like India remains protected in the decisions taken by the Conference of Parties at Copenhagen”). We believe that only a reversal or undoing of the harm already done by climate change at the earliest alone can serve the interests of the worst impacted peoples of the developing world – of whom we continue to be an integral part. We therefore demand that the Government of India must stand united with and protective of progressive efforts of other developing countries – such as Bolivia -, the G-77, the least developed countries (LDCs), and the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS).

In conclusion, we demand the Government of India join the Cochabamba Climate Conference and meaningfully participate in it at the highest levels. We have also specifically drawn your attention to the instrumentalities put forward by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia to demand that you and Indian Government specifically recognise, address, and support these instrumentalities. We believe that doing so will help build a new international alliance and global order – not only between nation-states but also, and primarily, among the peoples of this planet, and that this will moreover help us in India to review and revise our own unsustainable development trajectory of several decades – where we have so blindly followed the European and US American model of growth. It is glaringly evident that this model has, just as in Europe and North America, directly resulted in the massive over-exploitation of natural resources, the massive displacement of Adivasis and other forest dwellers, the intensified exploitation and continued pauperization of the urban labouring poor – all in the interests of the promotion of consumption by and production for rich. This is a present and a future that we surely now all know is totally unsustainable. It is therefore time that the Government of India stood up clearly and unequivocally for Mother Earth – for dharati mata –, and it can and must do so by unconditionally supporting the initiative that has been created by the Call issued by the Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

Memorandum Signed by:

People’s Movements, Networks & Organisations
National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM)
National Forum of Forest Peoples and Forest Workers (NFFPFW)
National Fishworkers’ Forum (NFF)
National Handloom Weavers’ Federation
National Hawker Federation (NHF)
Indian Network on Ethics and Climate Change (INECC)
National Domestic Workers Union
Programme for Social Action (PSA, India)
Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF)
Partners in Justice Concerns, India (PJC-I)
Narmada Bachao Andolan
Jharkhand Mines Area Coordination Committee (JMACC)
Andhra Pradesh Vyavasaya Vruthidarula Union (APVVU)
South India Handloom Weavers’ Organising Committee (SIHWOC)
Forum for Indigenous Perspectives and Action, Manipur
Matu Jan Sangattan, Uttarakhand
Himalaya Niti Abhiyan, Himachal Pradesh
Nadi Ghatti Morcha, Chhattisgarh
BIRSA, Jharkhand
Ghar Bachao Ghar Banao Andolan, Mumbai
South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People (SANDRP)
People’s Voice for Democratic Rights, Himachal Pradesh
Dynamic Action, Kerala
Equations, Bangalore
NAPM, Karnataka
Khan, Khaneej Aur Adhikar, Jharkhand
Critical Action Centre in Movements (CACIM), New Delhi
Vikalp, Uttar Pradesh
Vettiver Collective, Tamil Nadu
POSCO Pratirodh Sangram Samiti, Orissa
Niyamgiri Surakshya Manch, Orissa
Ma Mati Mahila Manch, Nayagarh, Orissa
Janaswarth Surakshya Parisad, Cuttack, Orissa
Lok Adhikar Manch, Bhubaneswar, Orissa
Centre for Sustainable-use of Natural and Social Resources, Bhubaneswar, Orissa
Orissa Human Rights Forum, Bhadrakh District,Orissa
Ganjam Jilla Adivasi Manch, Ganjam, Orissa
Center for Contemporary Studies & Research, Lucknow, UP
Samvedan Sanskritik Manch, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
LOK MANCH, Aurangabad, Bihar
DARSHAN, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
Center for Social Initiatives, Gorakhpur, UP
Friends, Varanasi, UP
Kisan Morcha, Bikaner, Rajasthan
IFFTU, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan
Arya Bheel Khand Rajya Morcha, Udaipur, Rajasthan
Matsya Mewat Shiksha Vikas Sansthan (MMSVS), Alwar, Rajasthan
Dalit Sena, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
KDRF, Bharatpur, Rajasthan
Youth Front, Pali, Rajasthan
Mahila Morcha, Banswara, Rajasthan
Chetna Sansthan, Dausa, Rajasthan
Shaheen (Women Resource Centre), Hyderabad, AP
Dalit Women Forum, AP
SRAVANTHI, Chittor, AP
Nava Chhattisgarh Mahila Sanghattan, Chhattisgarh
Forum for Women’s Rights & Development (FORWORD), Tambaram-Chennai, TN
Andhra Pradesh Matyaya Karula Union
Jan Sangharsh Vahini, Delhi
Institute for Development and Sustainability, New Delhi
Andhra Pradesh Mahila Vyavasay Vruthidariula Union
5th Scheduled Sadhana Committee -AP
Upadi Hami Hakkula Union, Andhra Pradesh
River Basin Friends(NE)
Rural Volunteers Centre Assam
Krishak Mukti Sangram Samitee,ASSAM
People's Movement for Subansiri and Brhmaputra Vally,Assam
Ekkya Mancha,Subansiri Gogamukh, Assam
Takam Mishing Poring Kebang,Assam
Sammilita Ganashakti,Assam
Thanal, Kerala
Laya, Andhra Pradesh
Orissa Development Action Forum
Environics Trust, New Delhi
Intercultural Resources, New Delhi
Kalpavriksh – India
Delhi Forum

Individuals
Thomas Kocherry, Kerala
Medha Patkar, Madhya Pradesh
Ashok Choudhury, Saharanpur, UP
Matanhy Saldanha, Goa
Ashish Kothari, Pune
Maj Gen(Retd) S.G.Vombatkare, Karnataka

Attached:
1. The Call and invitation issued by Government of the Plurinational State of Bolivia
2. Memorandum To The Government Of India On The UNFCCC’s 15th Conference Of The Parties At Copenhagen’, dated November 24 2009.

Copy to: Mr. Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State (Independent Charge), Ministry of Environment & Forests







Contact Details of Initiative: c/o F-10/12, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi – 110017.
Phone: 011- 26680883 / 26680914 / 9868165471

Stop Bull Trawling: Enforce the Law

Press Note
There was a fierce fight between Sri Lankan Fishermen and Tamilnadu Mechanised boats who are doing bull trawling in Rameswaram and Kachiadeepu area.. Bull trawling is banned. And hence Ramnadu Traditional Fish Workers Union is also opposing bull trawling. This clash has ended in the death of one of the fishermen. Boats were destroyed. The Government is not maintaining the law and order and not implementing the Tamilnadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act. As a result this continuous law and order problem occurs. Ramnadu Traditional Fishworkers’ Union President Paulsamy says that the union is going to start to start agitation stop Bull Trawling Completely. This is important to maintain peace between India and Sri Lanka. Thomas Kocherry in a special Press note says that Government of Tamilnadu is responsible for the Law and Problem arisen in Rameswaram area. Let them stop it by implementing Marine Fishing Regulation Act.
Thomas Kocherry,
Special Invitee to WFFP,
Manavalakurichy.
Tamilnadu-629252
India
7-4-2010