[biofuel13]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('biofuel13', 'T')he Africa "problem" didn't even exist until Europeans and Americans started exploiting and colonizing Africa. If we want to solve the problems there it is actually quite simple:

1 Discourage capitalism and agriculture

2 Encourage a return to traditional tribal communities and culture

3 Leave them alone

For the first few decades things would be rough for them, but after a time their population would come back into balance and they could lead happy satisfying lives.

[HEADER_RACK]

1. Stop all food aid shipments
2. stop all fetlizer shipments
3. Remove all WHO workers and vaccinations
4. Pass out firearms to the populace
5. Give males massive doses of testosterone and other steroids
6. Pass out cocaine in large quantities

[RedStateGreen]

I think it's rather arrogant to tell another continent with over fifty sovereign nations in it how to handle its affairs. We've got enough problems without sticking our noses in other people's business.

[PrairieMule]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RedStateGreen', 'I') think it's rather arrogant to tell another continent with over fifty sovereign nations in it how to handle its affairs. We've got enough problems without sticking our noses in other people's business.

[lorenzo]

It seems like the Gulf states are becoming aware of the fact that in a post-easy-food&fuel world, land resources are very important.

They have begun buying up land and farms in Africa.

Nice. They act just like me. I must be on the right track. I haven't seen an Arab on my African farm, though. Not yet.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
Gulf eyes oil-for-food pacts
By Meena Janardhan

DUBAI - Recent attempts by Persian Gulf countries to invest in farmlands abroad to counter soaring inflation and guarantee long-term food security could prove to be a win-win situation in the short term for both the oil-rich region and its investment-hungry neighbors, but continued high oil prices may neutralize the gains in the long-run, say experts.

With Gulf countries importing 60% of their food on average, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are taking the lead in investing in Asia and Africa to secure supplies of cereals, meat and vegetables.

The move reverses a recent Gulf trend of acquiring plush assets in the West in favor of acquiring agriculture lands in developing countries, who themselves face a crisis amid high oil price-induced inflation and even food shortage.

Calling for transforming the buyer-seller relationship in the energy sector between India and the Gulf countries into a more substantial and enduring relationship, Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee told the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research last month, "I see India's requirement for energy security and that of the Gulf countries for food security as opportunities that can be leveraged to mutual advantage."

Similarly, during Prime Minister Yousaf Gillani's visit to Saudi Arabia in early June, Pakistan sought US$6 billion in financial and oil aid in return for "hundreds of thousands of acres [hectares] of agricultural land, which could be tilled by the Saudis."

Such arrangements are likely to become increasingly common since inflation and food shortage are likely to worsen worldwide in future, said Shoaib Ismail, a halophyte agronomist who studies utilizing plants for food, fuel, feed and fiber.

Worried about inflation fueling social unrest, major food exporters to the Gulf countries resorted to export curbs. For example, India - the world's second-largest rice exporter in 2007 - banned all non-basmati rice shipments in March. Simultaneous moves elsewhere triggered a wave of panic buying, causing benchmark Thai prices to triple.

"The Gulf region is not conducive for sustainable agriculture and has been dependant on imported food, which it has been able to buy at the prevailing international price without difficulty. However, when oil and other natural resources diminish in future, the region cannot maintain the same level of dependence on external food supplies," Ismail told Inter Press Service.

Just 1% of land in the UAE is arable, while in Saudi Arabia it is marginally better at 3%. In comparison, 24% of land in Britain and 40% in Poland is arable.

As a result, Saudi Arabia plans to stop purchases of wheat from local farmers by 2016, abandoning a three-decade programme aimed at self-sufficiency that has depleted the country's scarce water supplies. Reeling under shortages of rice, Saudi Arabia has approached India, which annually exports 500,000 to 600,000 tonnes of rice to the kingdom.

"Given that global political scenarios vary constantly, the Gulf countries could come under pressure in future food negotiations," added Ismail of the International Center for Biosaline Agriculture in Dubai.

Explaining the willingness to invest over the long term, Ismail said the Gulf countries are cooperating with developing countries that have similar cultural, religious and political backgrounds, and with whom they have had longstanding ties. "They could get basic commodities at relatively low prices, thereby reducing their dependency on Western countries; and food-exporting counterparts get investments that could offset hardships related to increasing cost of land, water and fertilizers."

The Gulf countries unsuccessfully attempted to convert Sudan into their breadbasket in the 1970s after the US threatened to cut food supplies following the oil boycott.

This time, however, media reports indicate that the UAE government and private entities like Abraaj Capital have already acquired about 324,000 hectares of farmland in Pakistan. As incentive, Islamabad is offering legal and tax concessions to foreign investors in specialized agriculture and livestock "free zones" and may also introduce legislation to exempt such investors from government-imposed export bans.

The Gulf countries are increasingly receptive to such arrangements because they view this as an opportunity to import food at 20% to 25% less cost, thereby addressing domestic inflationary pressure, which was officially about 12% in the UAE last year and perhaps double unofficially.

Since self-sufficiency is not an option, apart from dialogue with exporter countries and investments in agricultural projects abroad, "buffer stocks of basic food items should be contemplated to reduce exposure to market volatility," the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center's Food Inflation Report recommended in May.

With oil prices likely to remain well over $100 a barrel, the Gulf countries are estimated to reap a cumulative windfall of about $9 trillion by 2020, allowing them to intervene in the market through various measures ranging from price caps to subsidies.

But one of the chief reasons grain prices have increased is due to a rise in production costs, particularly from higher energy expenditure, estimated at about 40%. Thus, "what makes the UAE's export earnings increase is also what causes its imported food to increase apace," Dalton Garis, of The Petroleum Institute in Abu Dhabi, explained in the UAE's Gulf News last week.

Commenting on the viability factor of the new initiative, Ismail explained, "India, Pakistan and Sudan have closer ties with the Gulf compared to [major rice grower and exporter] Thailand. While political stability would be a factor in Sudan and Thailand, India and Pakistan are likely to be attractive destinations because of their relations with the Gulf countries, which pre-dates oil."

Encouraging the new public-private partnerships, Ismail said he preferred a proactive private sector role because "it can bring about significant results" quickly. The government, he said, should "serve as facilitator and oversee policies and regulations."

But questions remain about how such direct arrangements would work or how domestic shortages, inflationary pressures and politics in the food exporting countries would pan out in the long run.

Anticipating a second wave of trouble as the Gulf region's population booms in the years ahead, Ismail stressed that "with all limitations to make agriculture sustainable in this region, efforts should also be made to produce vegetables [in greenhouses], fruits and other crops. There should be clear prioritization for primary agricultural products [grains and pulses] and secondary products [fruits and fodder]. It is possible to make the latter sustainable with relatively marginal land and water resources."

(Inter Press Service.)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF20Ak01.html

[Specop_007]

Loads slow? Are you surfing the same PO.com I am....

But really, posting the entire article should be fine as long as you cite the source.

So your buying land in Africa?

[lorenzo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '
')So your buying land in Africa?

[frankthetank]

Have fun.

Nigeria has some excellent farmland. I know Rwanda is an excellent place to farm, alongside the Tutsi's.

Kenya might be OK, along with a few other countries, but i'd be very cautious...you might wake up with your arms hacked off.

[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Specop_007', '
')So your buying land in Africa?

[lorenzo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('frankthetank', 'y')ou might wake up with your arms hacked off.

[burtonridr]

It's funny how our government makes them look stupid and careless and whatever else, but the countries in the middle east are making smarter moves than our government.

1. They are starting to restrict how much they sell the to global economy.

2. They are buying up fertile land

3. They never needed much oil for their daily lives to begin with.


Very strange...

[jdmartin]

I think what's scary about this article (at least from an American point of view) is the end result, which isn't really stated: continued flowing of our resources from the United States, and to a large extent, Europe, out of those areas and back into other countries. In other words, the countries that have what we need (SA et al) are not turning those dollars back into our economy through the purchase of grains, buildings, airplanes, etc long term but beginning to set up their own feifdoms where they can purchase all the food they need, those people will get some money back to buy the oil, money that ultimately came from us.

They're sidestepping us. We'll still need their oil, because of our lifestyle & economy, so they'll be flush with our money, but they'll be trading it back to someone else, creating a one-way pipeline of funds out of America. Which can only serve to make us poorer long-term. And if things work out for them, as they're on their downslope and oil is running less full-throttle, as we need less of it through demand destruction they'll have less to sell anyway. Of course, we'll probably just bomb the living shit out of them to get what's left.

[lorenzo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('burtonridr', 'I')t's funny how our government makes them look stupid and careless and whatever else, but the countries in the middle east are making smarter moves than our government.

1. They are starting to restrict how much they sell the to global economy.

2. They are buying up fertile land

3. They never needed much oil for their daily lives to begin with.


Very strange...

[roccman]

So does anyone still think that Gates and the Rockefellers spending quite a bit of time in Africa in the past 3-5 years is a mystery?

Africa - vast natural resources and a disorganized population.

Gee - any other examples of this come to mind?

Like - Native Americans in oh - 1700-1880's...in North America

Naw...its all tin foil.

[lorenzo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('roccman', 'S')o does anyone still think that Gates and the Rockefellers spending quite a bit of time in Africa in the past 3-5 years is a mystery?

Africa - vast natural resources and a disorganized population.

Gee - any other examples of this come to mind?

Like - Native Americans in oh - 1700-1880's...in North America

Naw...its all tin foil.

[dorlomin]

Buying land in Africa does not mean you will always own that land. Outside of South Africa and Botswana in the south and some of the Arab states in the north, the rule of law can be somewhat tenuous. It will be different country to country though. You are more likely to be allowed to farm in peace (as a multinational) in say Zambia than say Mali.

[big_rc]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', 'B')uying land in Africa does not mean you will always own that land. Outside of South Africa and Botswana in the south and some of the Arab states in the north, the rule of law can be somewhat tenuous. It will be different country to country though. You are more likely to be allowed to farm in peace (as a multinational) in say Zambia than say Mali.

[jdmartin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('big_rc', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', 'B')uying land in Africa does not mean you will always own that land. Outside of South Africa and Botswana in the south and some of the Arab states in the north, the rule of law can be somewhat tenuous. It will be different country to country though. You are more likely to be allowed to farm in peace (as a multinational) in say Zambia than say Mali.

[lorenzo]

Wow, this professor hits the nail right on the head!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
Green activists 'are keeping Africa poor'

Western do-gooders are impoverishing Africa by promoting traditional farming at the expense of modern scientific agriculture, according to Britain's former chief scientist.

Anti-science attitudes among aid agencies, poverty campaigners and green activists are denying the continent access to technology that could improve millions of lives, Professor Sir David King will say today.

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from Europe and America are turning African countries against sophisticated farming methods, including GM crops, in favour of indigenous and organic approaches that cannot deliver the continent's much needed “green revolution”, he believes.

Speaking before a keynote lecture tonight to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, of which he is president, Sir David said that the slow pace of African development was linked directly to Western influence. “I'm going to suggest, and I believe this very strongly, that a big part has been played in the impoverishment of that continent by the focus on nontechnological agricultural techniques, on techniques of farming that pertain to the history of that continent rather than techniques that pertain to modern technological capability. Why has that continent not joined Asia in the big green revolutions that have taken place over the past few decades? The suffering within that continent, I believe, is largely driven by attitudes developed in the West which are somewhat anti-science, anti-technology - attitudes that lead towards organic farming, for example, attitudes that lead against the use of genetic technology for crops that could deal with increased salinity in the water, that can deal with flooding for rice crops, that can deal with drought resistance.”

Sir David, who stepped down in December as the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, will use his presidential address to the BA Festival of Science in Liverpool to accuse governments and NGOs of confused thinking about African development.

“Solutions will only emerge if full use is made of modern agricultural technology methods, under progressive, scientifically informed regulation,” he will say. “The most advanced form of plant breeding, using modern genetic techniques, is now available to us. Plant breeding needs to meet a range of demands, including defences against evolving plant diseases, drought resistance, saline resistance, and flood tolerance. The problem is that the Western-world move toward organic farming - a lifestyle choice for a community with surplus food - and against agricultural technology in general and GM in particular, has been adopted across Africa, with the exception of South Africa, with devastating consequences.”

His remarks will place him in direct opposition to former Whitehall colleagues. The Government endorsed recently the International Assessement of Agricultural Science and Technology, a report from 400 scientists and development experts published in April, which championed small-scale farming and traditional knowledge. The exercise was led by Professor Bob Watson, the chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Sir David said that its findings were short-sighted. “I hesitate to criticise Bob Watson, who I admire enormously, but I think that we have been overwhelmed by attitudes to Africa that for some reason are qualitatively different to attitudes elsewhere.

“We have the technology to feed the population of the planet. The question is do we have the ability to understand that we have it, and to deliver?” Sir David, who was born and brought up in South Africa, added: “I think there is a tremendous groundswell of feeling that we need to support tradition in Africa. What that actually means in practice is if you go to a marketplace in a lovely town like Livingstone in Zambia, near Victoria Falls, you will see hundreds of people with little piles of their crops for sale.

“This is an extremely inefficient process. The sort of thing we're seeing existed in this country hundreds of years ago. I don't believe that will lead to the economic development of Africa.”

He will cite the example of rice that can resist flooding, which has been developed by the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines. Its development has been held up for several years because scientists felt they could not use GM techniques, such is the scale of Western-influenced opposition to the technology.

He will also accuse green groups such as the UN Environment Programme of agitating against new technologies on the basis of speculative risks, while ignoring potential benefits.

“For example, Friends of the Earth in 1999 worried that drought-tolerant crops may have the potential to grow in habitats unavailable' to conventional crops. The priority of providing food to an area of the world in greatest need appears to not have been noted.For decades, approaches to international development have been dominated by this well-meaning but fatally flawed doctrine.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 699096.ece

[americandream]

Hear hear! As a Marxist I must admit to finding the attitudes of these so called "liberals" condescending and counterproductive.

"Fair trade/ethical trading" absolutely horrifies me. If we are going to have the free market, then I say let's have it in all it's glory, completely unfettered and without any intervention WHATSOEVER!

Let capitalism advance across the globe as the necessary precursor to true secular socialism. Do away with this nostalgic nonsense posing as human advancement!