NGO "ANOTHER WAY" (STICHTING BAKENS VERZET), NETHERLANDS, SUSTAINABLE INTEGRATED SELF-FINANCING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGIES

“The global system of production of wealth and its distribution is characterised by kleptocracy, primitive accumulation and dispossession. Economists call it ‘rent seeking’, and they justify this with the argument that ‘surplus’ from the rural and agricultural areas is needed in order for Africa to grow and industrialise; that this is how they did it in the West…..Globalised capital (the so-called ‘foreign direct investments’ or FDIs) and its several manifestations – banks, insurance companies, shipping agents, commodity speculators, wholesale traders, chain retailers, etc – are in league with the local economic and power elites in the ‘recipient’ countries, and their god is ‘accumulate, accumulate and accumulate…..The fundamental reality of Africa is that it is integrated into a global system of kleptocratic capitalism characterised by primitive accumulation or ‘rent seeking’ by the rich nations and within each nation by the rich power elite.’ (Y.Tandon, Kleptocratic Capitalism : Challenges of the green economy for Sustainable Africa, Pambazuka News, Fahamy – Networks for Social Justice, Nairobi, 30 June, 2011.)

Une bonne introduction à ce sujet est fourni par Paul Buchheit dans son article Five Poisons of Privatisation publié par Commons Dreams, Portland (Maine), 11 Mars, 2013. L’article se réfère surtout aux États Unis; toutefois son contenu s’applique au niveau mondial.

“Economic reforms based on the idea of limitless growth in a limited world, can only be maintained by the powerful grabbing the resources of the vulnerable. The resource grab that is essential for “growth” creates a culture of rape—the rape of the earth, of local self-reliant economies, and of women. The only way in which this “growth” is “inclusive” is by its inclusion of ever larger numbers in its circle of violence…..An economics unleashed by economic liberalization—an economics of deregulation of commerce, of privatization and commodification of seeds and food, land and water, women and children—degrades social values, deepens patriarchy, and intensifies violence against women.” (V. Shiva, Our violent economy is hurting women, Yes ! Magazine, Positive Futures Network, Bainbridge Island, Janvier 18, 2013.)

“Increasing scarcity of resources like land and water mean that assets being monopolised by the few cannot continue if we are to have a sustainable future. Poverty reduction in the face of extreme wealth will become harder as resources become more scarce. More equal societies are better able to cope with disasters and extreme weather events.” (The cost of inequality : how wealth and income extremes hurt us all, Oxfam Media Briefing 02/2012, Londres, Janvier 2013.)

“La Via Campesina, the international peasants movement, representing more than 200 million small farmers around the world, denounces the utilization of the [Doha, 2012] climate negotiations to legitimize the continuation of business as usual at the expense of humanity and the planet. The inaction in the climate negotiations is a reflection of the corporate capture of governments by big business who want to continue exploiting nature to gain as much profit as possible.” (Governments produce blank pages in Doha for planet’s future; la Via Campesina farmers are cooling the planet, La Via Campesina Organisation, Press Release, Jakarta, 07 Décembre, 2012.)

“ ….. by underpricing the raw materials we use today, by ignoring or under-valuing many of the economic externalities, we have been drawing down on future growth. Because modern economics has underplayed the costs of environmental degradation and the fact that our grandchildren will pay more in real terms for many of the depleted raw materials than us, we have penalised future generations and the planet to have the consumption-driven engine running faster now, breaking one of the ground rules of classical economics in the process.” G. Maxton, We’re all economists now…just don’t expect difficult questions, World Economics Association Newsletter, Vol. 2, Issue 5, October, 2012, p. 10).

“The logic of destruction [ by multinationals under the mantel of “the Green Economy”] is part of a larger logic of scarcity, the foundational premise of the capitalist economy, which consists of transforming scarce goods uncontrolled by the market into commodities. Everything is evaluated by the scarcity of goods. The scarcer the goods, the more willing we will be to pay for them. If we are presented with a total lack, we no longer speak of the likelihood of having to pay, but rather of the obligation to do so. If everyone who needed a piece of the earth to farm or to live had access to it, no one would need to buy or rent land. The earth becomes a commodity when whole populations are evicted from it, either by means of fencing it off, or by concessions, land grabbing, agricultural exploitation, etc. If we could produce our own food, no one would pay for it. If we all had access to water, no one would consider themselves obliged to pay for it. Economic transactions become possible when people congregate in cities, water sources reduce, dry up, or become contaminated, (or when they simply appear to be contaminated, for instance, in order to sell water in bottles), or when we construct dams everywhere.

“Programmed destruction is simply a way to create scarcity. It’s nothing new and it goes well beyond the Green Economy. In order for the salaried workforce to be lucrative, capitalism had to destroy ways of living that offered alternative social systems across the entire world. It did so by playing the ‘modernity’ card and even by having recourse to the bullets of imperial wars. To transform seeds into a big commercial enterprise, we have encouraged the destruction of traditional systems of caring for, improving, saving, exchanging and producing seeds, destroying the ability of thousands of rural men and women to produce their own seeds. This destruction continues even today. There is no other way to explain the absurdity of banning the sale and exchange of local seeds in Europe and its imposition across the world through intellectual property laws.” ( Behind the “Green Economy” : Profiting from environmental and climate crisis, GRAIN, Allianza Biodiversidad, WRM, ATALC, site web www.grain.org, Barcelona, 11 Septembre, 2012.)

Le film de Philippe Diaz “The End of Poverty” (Cinema Libre Studio, Canoga Park, 2009) constitue une bonne introduction au vol de ressources. Le directeur parle de son film in dans le colloque "The End of Poverty" au site web de la www.democracynow.org, du 10 Novembre, 2009. La discussion se réfère parmi d’autre au commentaire de la Susan George au flux de US$ 25.000 par minute (US$ 13,14 billion par an) qui passe de l’Afrique au sud du Sahara au Nord industriel.

“…. producers and consumers of oil , coal and natural gas use the sky commons as an open sewer. Every day, industry disposes 90 million tons of waste products into our shared atmosphere at no cost.” (Quilligan, J.B. , Interest Rates and Climate change : Realigning our Incentives through the Power of the Commons, Kosmos, Vol. X, Number 1, Fall/winter 2010, p. 25, Kosmos Associates, Lenox, 2010.)

“The engine of perpetual growth is creating excess production in some places, poverty and migration in others, and energy insecurity and ecological degradation everywhere- all of which contribute to greenhouse gas emissions” (Quilligan, ci-dessus, p.28).

“The global commons are not being exploited merely because nature’s services are underpriced in the market, but because they are being propertized, commodified, subsidized and subjected to interest-bearing debt.” (Quilligan, ci-dessus, p.27).

Ceci constitue, selon Quilligan (p. 27) “Robbing assets from the future and selling them in the present”.

Et Vandana Shiva écrit :

“Our collective will and actions will determine whether corporations will be successful in privatising the last drop of water, the last blade of grass, the last acre of land, the last seed, or whether our movements will be able to defend life on earth, including human life in its rich diversity, abundance and freedom.” ( Rio + 20 : An undesirable U-Turn, Commons Dreams, Portland, 03 Juillet, 2012.)

Regardez la diapositive suivante :

08. La fuite financière : le vol des ressources naturelles.

1. Recherches

Faites une liste des lois de votre pays relatives à l’exploitation des ressources naturelles finies.

2. Opinion.

Quelle place y est réservée aux intérêts des populations locales ?

«Nous tenons la terre en compte fiduciaire à faveur des générations futures »

3. Opinion.

Exprimez votre opinion sur ce concept.

Quelles conséquences est-ce que l’on peut y attribuer ?

Les ressources naturelles finies.

Lisez la Déclaration des Nations Unies sur les Droits de Peuples Autochtones approuvée au cours de la 61ème session de l’Assemblée Générale des Nations Unies, Résolution 61/295, New York, 13 Septembre 2007.

Les articles 119-126 de la a constitution du Venezuela protègent expressément les droits des peuples indigènes en rapport aux ressources naturelles.

L’article 120 en prévoit:

« L’exploitation de la part de l’État des ressources naturelles situées dans les habitats indigènes sera conduite en respect pour leur l’intégrité culturelle, sociale, et sera sujette à l’information et à la consultation préalable avec les communautés intéressées. Les profits de telle exploitation à bénéfice des peuples indigènes sont sujets à la constitution et à la loi. » (Traduction T.E.Manning)

4. Opinion.

Pourquoi l’article 120 ne prévoit-il pas l’exploitation de la part des opérateurs privés ?

Êtes-vous d’accord avec l’idée exprimée dans la diapositive que les ressources naturelles finies s’entendent d’intérêt national ?

Êtes-vous d’accord avec l’idée exprimée dans la diapositive que les populations locales ont droit à une part des revenus de la vente des ressources naturelles finies ? Au cas d’affermissement, à quelle part ?

Read Women Raise their Voices Against Tree Plantations : The Role of the European Women in Disempowering Women in the South, Friends of the Earth et al., Washington, Mars 2009.

“…the three studies show that the plantations being promoted (rubber trees, wood for pulp and oil palms) were in no way designed to meet the needs of the communities. On the contrary, they were designed on the basis of an agro-export model geared to the countries of the North – and the European Union specifically in the cases studied – in order to promote excessive consumption, made possible thanks to a series of policies that benefit big corporations.” (p.31).

5. Recherches.

Actuellement, quelle part des revenus de la vente des ressources locales finies de votre zone est sujette`aux investissements locaux?

De combien est-ce qu’il s’agit ?

Quelle forme est-ce que ces investissements prennent ?

Les ressources naturelles renouvelables.

6. Opinion.

Êtes-vous d’accord avec l’idée exprimée dans la diapositive que les ressources naturelles renouvelables appartiennent aux populations locales ?

Êtes-vous d’accord avec l’idée exprimée dans la diapositive que les populations locales ont droit au 100% des revenus de la vente des ressources naturelles renouvelables ?

L’accaparement de l’eau.

L’accaparement de l’eau est lié directement avec celui des terres.

“I expect to see a globally integrated market for fresh water within 25 to 30 years. Once the spot markets for water are integrated, futures markets and other derivative water-based financial instruments — puts, calls, swaps — both exchange-traded and OTC will follow. There will be different grades and types of fresh water, just the way we have light sweet and heavy sour crude oil today. Water as an asset class will, in my view, become eventually the single most important physical-commodity based asset class, dwarfing oil, copper, agricultural commodities and precious metals.” ( W.Buiter of Citi Corp, as reported in Citi’s Willerm Buiter sees Large Potential for Water Investments, HistorySquared Blog, http://historysquared.com ,21 Juillet, 2011.) L’article contient une liste des 12 opérateurs les plus importants du secteur.

“The per capita volume of grabbed water often exceeds the water requirements for a balanced diet and would be sufficient to improve food security and abate malnourishment in the grabbed countries.” (Rulli M.C. et al, Global land and water grabbing, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), Washington, Janvier 2013, abstract.). L’article suggère que les superficies accaparées forment une partie importante des territoires des pays intéressés. On y cite, par exemple, le 20% en Uruguay, le 17% en Philippines, et le 7% en Serra Léone.

“The areas where land grabbing is concentrated in Africa and coincide closely with the continent's largest river and lake systems, and in most of these areas irrigation is a prerequisite of commercial production.” (Squeezing Africa Dry : Behind every land grab is a water grab, GRAIN, Barcelona, 12 Juin, 2012, p. 12.) Cette référence fournit en plus des informations sur les effets de l’irrigation et utilisation des eaux souterraines non durables. Parfois s’agit-il de ressources en eau minérale pas remplaçables. Exemples en sont le Bassin de l’Indus, la mer Aral, le bassin du fleuve Nile, et le bassin du fleuve Niger.

Quelques produits agricoles demandent beaucoup d’eau. On a besoin par exemple de 5,500 litres d’eau par kilo de viande, 20.000 litres d’eau par kilo de café, 1.000 litres par kilo de grain. Voir la «gallérie des produits » (Water Footprint Product Gallery) auprès du site web de la Water Footprint Net (www.waterfootprint.org), Université de Twente, Enschede, Pays Bas).

Pour des informations sur la situation actuelle en rapport aux water footprints, accompagné d’une bibliographie détaillée, voir Chapagain A.K and Tickner A, Water Footprint : Help or Hindrance?, Water Alternatives Vol.5 no.3, Octobre 2012. www.water-alternatives.org .

Le journal on-line Water Alternatives Journal, Volume 5, Issue 2, June 2012 publié par l’organisation Water Alternatives at www.water-alternatives.org a dédié 15 articles à la question de l’accaparement de l’eau.

See the on-line magazine Water Alternatives Journal, Volume 5, Issue 2, June 2012 published by Water Alternatives at www.water-alternatives.org for 15 articles dedicated to the issue of water-grabbing.

Les articles individuels y comprennent :

Mehta, L. et al : Watergrabbing? Focus on the (re)appropriaton of finte water resources. (pp. 193-207).

“water grabbing is a particular form of accumulation by dispossession under neo-liberalisation leading to the commodification and privatisation of resources, the eviction of certain groups and the conversion of various forms of property rights into exclusive private property rights…[leading to] …the financialisation of the resource itself whereby water is transformed as a commodity tradable on large-scale global markets through water trading schemes.” (p. 198).

“Census data often do not capture non-monetised goods and services that sustain millions.” (p.200)

Woodhouse, P. : Foreign Agricultural Land Acquisition and the Visibility of Water Resource Impacts in Sub-Saharan Africa. (pp. 208-222).

Williams, T.O. et al : Water Implications of Large-scale Land Acquisitions in Ghana. (pp. 243-265).

“Apparent neglect [ to consider the multiple uses and users of water in the land deals] were shown to include a land acquisition process devoid of involvement of regulatory agencies, land transaction practices that reflect power and information asymmetries between investors and traditional councils, on the one hand, and between the traditional councils and their subjects, on the other, as well as fuzziness in the statutes of the statutory agency, the Lands Commission, that is charged with the responsibility of approving land acquisition deals.” (p. 258).

Houdret, A. The water connection : Irrigation, water-grabbing and politics in southern Morocco. (pp. 284-303).

“The initiative [analysed] is promoted as a technical, financial and managerial innovation by local and international actors but is, in fact, no more than a new form of political control over the allocation of natural resources and related profits.” (p. 299).

Sosa, M, Zwarteveen, M.: Exploring the politics of water-grabbing : The case of large mining operations in the Peruvian Andes. (pp. 360-375).

“Changes in how water is used “involve long-winding, fuzzy and opaque processes of negotiation and sometimes struggle on a playing field that is far from level, with the political and financial powers of mining companies far outweighing those of the local peasant and indigenous communities. The net effect nevertheless is a thorough reconfiguration of water governance, with the mining company controlling water in the region and local communities being effectively dispossessed by losing their water rights…..these shifts in water use and tenure relations imply an irreversible transfer over the control of water from local communities and government agencies to a large and wealthy private transnational corporation….the impacts of these changes in water use and control are potentially devastating for local livelihoods and for future water availability. Water previously used for irrigating pastures and growing subsistence crops is now increasingly used for producing gold for export, an activity the local gains of which are likely to be short-lived,.”(p. 372)

Islar, M. : Privatised hydropower development in Turkey : A case of water-grabbing? (pp. 376-391).

The recent privatised hydropower development in Turkey “represents an act of dispossession, by changing the regimes of entitlements to the use and access to rivers... new alliances between state and climate change community and the involvement of transnational companies imply "a more diffuse, opaque form of governance, with important political and technical consequences, namely a loss of transparency and accountability, and an incomplete assessment of the future economic returns and the environmental and social impacts of proposed projects…..the modern idea of water as objective, homogenous, ahistorical and 'devoid of cultural content' is complemented by its physical containment and isolation from people."

Wagle, S. et al : Exploiting policy obscurity for legalising water grabbing in the era of economic reform : The case of Maharashtra, India. (pp. 412-430)

“…the current conflicts around water resources have emerged due to the following three phenomena which are rooted in the economic and sectoral reform: a) the uncritical acceptance of a pro-industry, pro-market as well as anti-agricultural and anti-farmer bias and policy prescriptions by a large section of society; b) the increasing demands for water (and other resources such as land and minerals) by metropolitan centres, big industries and power plants; c) the new nexus of powerful interests driving the political economy of the water sector in industrialised Indian states…” (p. 428)

Vélez Torres, I. : Water Grabbing in the Cauca Basin : The Capitalist Exploitation of Water and Dispossession of Afro-Descendent Communities. (pp. 431-449)

“..today’s dispossession – characterised by privatisations and the global market – derives from trends of exclusion in which ethnicised and racialised water and land grabbing have historically shaped a particular form of environmental racism in the Alto Cauca. This discriminatory action has been in favour of the property interests of political and economic elites, both national (represented by hacendados and industrialists) and international (represented by various multinationals) ……communities have faced numerous life threats for having opposed the elitist development model, and they have defended their access to and traditional use of the Cauca river. Despite their protests, however, the silent complicity of the majority of the state’s institutions has meant that the local population has had to migrate to protect themselves and to seek new ways to subsist, or else remain in their traditional territory under blatant threat.” (p.446)

L’accaparement de l’eau peut avoir des connotations encore plus directes. L’opérateur le plus important au monde du secteur de l’eau mise en bouteille est la Nestlé. Sur les activités de la Nestlé relatives à la mise en bouteilles de l’eau lisez: Barlow, M. Challenging Nestlé in Switzerland, Le Conseil des Canadiens, blog item, Ottawa, 21 Septembre, 2012.

L’accaparement de l’eau ne se limite pas aux pays pauvres.

“In areas ranging from the Ogallala aquifer to the Great Lakes in North America, water has been referred to as liquid gold. Billionaires such as T. Boone Pickens have been buying up land overlying the Ogallala aquifer, acquiring water rights; companies such as Dow Chemicals, with a long history of water pollution, are investing in the business of water purification, making pollution itself a cash-cow.” (S. Varghese, Water grabbing to follow food speculation? Where are the checks and balances?, Think Forward Blog of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), Minneapolis et Washiington, 18 Janvier, 2013.)

Sur le rôle joué par la Banque Mondiale dans l’accaparement des terres voir : Geary, K. Our Land, Our Lives : Time out on the global land rush, Oxfam International, Oxfam Briefing Note, Oxford, Octobre 2012. ISBN 978-167077-180-9.

L’élevage intensif de porcs dans les pays industrialisés fournit un exemple typique du “green-washing”. La viande de porc y est présenté comme “produit local”, mais l’alimentation y nécessaire est produite à l’étranger, dans la plupart des cas sur la pas de soja et maïs génétiquement manipulé de l’Amérique du Nord et de l’Amérique du Sud. On a besoin de terres et de l’eau pour telles cultures. En Amérique du Sud ces ressources sont souvent accompagnées par la destruction de forêts et à coût de l’environnement et de la santé des populations tribales locales qui sont littéralement arrosées par avion de pesticides et fongicides tels le glyphosate, le component principal actif du produit “Round-up” ® de la Monsanto..

Le vol des terres, aussi connu sous le terme «green-grabbing ».

La question de l’accaparement des terres est devenue l’une des plus importantes de nos temps.

La vision de l’industrie de l’aide au développement par rapport à l’accaparement des terres est extrêmement claire:

Comme D. Horan dans son bulletin Understanding food security and land grabs, Devex News, Washington, 05 Septembre, 2013 rapporte :

“Gregory Myers, division chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s land tenure and property rights division, argues that, done right, such large-scale land acquisitions can boost development.

[Question} Are all large-scale land acquisitions by large investors bad for smallholder farmers in developing countries?

[Réponse Myers] Just recently, an article in the Journal of Peasant Studies argued that it is a disservice to make broad statements about land grabbing and that globally, we need a better methodology for capturing data on land that has been acquired. Even with accurate data, we believe that in order to lift the next one billion out of poverty, we cannot rely on public resources alone, and as such, must leverage responsible investment by the private sector. When property rights systems are strong, large investments can be done in ways that benefit smallholder farmers.”

Ainsi, la U.S.Aid confirme la politique officielle des États Unis vis à vis l’aide au développement, soit :

“Foreign assistance is not a giveaway. It's not charity. It is an investment in a strong America and in a free world.” ( U.S. Foreign Secretary John Kerry, Speech University of Virginia, 20 February, 2013, comme rapportéd par Ashad Mohammed de la Reuters, Washington, 20 Février, 2013.)

“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.” Pour un arrêt immédiat de l’accaparement des terres !, GRAIN.org, Barcelone, Avril 2010. Lisez ce manifeste, qui est co-sponsorisé de plus de 120 organisations dans tout le monde. Référez-vous à la Data-base de l’accaparement des terres dans le monde, GRAIN, Barcelona, 23 Février, 2012.

“When you take food from a village by destroying farm lands and cash crops, you are starving its people. If you destroy their grave sites, poison their drinking water, obliterate their cultural heritage, divert their rivers, streams and creeks, there is no doubt you are removing an ethnically defined population from their land.” (Alfred Brownell of Liberia’s Green Advocates, cited in Studies Suggest Week Land Rights Worldwide Promote Land Rush, Rights and Resources, Washington, Press Release 1 February, 2012.)

Aujourd’hui l’accaparement des terres se fait à une allure galopante. Des contrats sont signés, les bulldozers sont déjà au travail, la terre se trouve délimitée de manière brutale et les populations locales sont chassées de leur territoire ; les conséquences sont dévastatrices. Quoiqu’il soit difficile d’obtenir des renseignements précis sur la question, il est clair qu’au moins 50 millions d’hectares de terres fertiles – ce qui suffirait à nourrir 50 millions de familles indiennes – sont, au cours des dernières années, passés des mains des paysans à celles des grandes entreprises et chaque jour, de nouveaux investisseurs se joignent à la ruée. Certains de ces accords sont présentés comme une nouvelle manière de satisfaire les besoins de la sécurité alimentaire de pays qui dépendent des marchés extérieurs pour se nourrir eux mêmes, comme le Qatar, l’Arabie Saoudite, la Corée du Sud ou la Chine. D’autres sont exposés sans détour pour ce qu’ils sont en réalité : des contrats d’affaires et de nouvelles opportunités de bénéfices très intéressantes. Même si certains États jouent un rôle actif, la plupart de ces transactions se font entre les gouvernements hôtes et des entreprises privées. Les sociétés concernées estiment que 25 milliards de dollars US ont déjà été alloués mondialement et elles se targuent de vouloir multiplier ce chiffre par trois dans un très proche avenir. Il est temps de proscrire l’accaparement des terres, pas question de le rendre responsable. , GRAIN, Barcelona (Spain) and Los Baños (Philippines), 17 April, 2011, p. 1.

« L’accaparement des terres prive les paysans, les populations autochtones, les pêcheurs et les nomades de vastes étendues de terres, et leur en interdit l’usage, aujourd’hui et demain, mettant sérieusement en péril leurs droits à l’alimentation et la sécurité de leurs moyens de subsistance. L’accaparement des terres capte aussi toutes les ressources en eau existant sur les terres, en amont et aux alentours, résultant de fait en une forme de privatisation de l’eau. L’accaparement des terres est intrinsèquement lié à la violation de la législation internationale sur les droits humains : évictions forcées, réduction des critiques au silence (ou pire), introduction de modèles fonciers et agricoles non durables qui détruisent les environnements naturels et épuisent les ressources naturelles, flagrant déni d’information, et empêchement des personnes de participer aux décisions politiques qui affectent leur vie. Ce sont des faits et des réalités qu’aucune série de principes non contraignants ne pourra jamais compenser. Et

ces principes ne peuvent en aucune façon être interprétés et présentés comme des mesures d’intérêt public ou de réglementation nationale. » Il est temps de proscrire l’accaparement des terres, pas question de le rendre responsable. , GRAIN, Barcelona (Spain) and Los Baños (Philippines), 17 April, 2011, p. 5.

La pratique va tellement loin qu’elle peut placer les contrats d’accaparement des terres hors de la juridiction des lois nationales.

“The terms of the convention grant the company [ Herakles Farms au Cameroun, liée à la Herakles Capital, à sa fois liée au géant des investissements privés basé à New York Blackstone ] extraordinary privileges, partially exempting it from complying with national law, and stating that in the event of any conflict between the convention and national law – with the exception of the Constitution – the convention will prevail. The terms of the convention would effectively carve out a zone of legal extraterritoriality for the company, and supersede national law.” (Palm Oil’s New Frontier, Greenpeace International, Amsterdam, Octobre 2012, p. 14.)

Anseeuw W. et al, in Land Rights and the Rush for Land : Findings of the Global Commercial Pressures on Land Research Project, International Land Coalition (ILC), Rome, Janvier, 2012. ISBN 978-92-95093-75-1 font les observations suivantes :

À la page 34,

“Despite the rhetoric of targeting marginal lands, acquirers are most interested in lands that are fertile, easily accessed by raods, or rail, and with electricity transmission, market centres, habitation (helpful for employing people) and export servicing centres nearby. These are areas that are likely to be already used relatively intensively by local people, and not just for farming.”

À la page 35,

“The land that forms the prime focus of large-scale acquisition is not land under permanent cultivation, but unfarmed forests, grasslands, and marshlands held and used as commercial assets by communities.”

À la page 60,

“The purported benefits of land acquisition have generally so far not lived up to expectations; either for local populations or host governments. At he moment, poor, resource-dependent communities, the majority in most affected countries, disproportionately bear the costs.”

Pour un rapport à une page sur la situation actuelle relative à l’accaparement des terres, voir Land Grabs in Poor Countries Set to Increase par Hilaire Avril , Inter Press Service, Rome, Septembre 09, 2010.

Lisez: Odeny E. et al (eds), Landgrabbing in Kenya and Mozambique, Food First Information and Action Network (FIAN), Heidelberg, Avril 2010.

Lisez l’article du Olivier de Schutter, rapporteur spécial de l’ONU pour le droit à l’alimentation, Comment détruire la paysannerie mondiale de manière responsable (Project Syndicate , www.project-syndicate.org 2010.

Lisez l’article (en Anglais) Africa up for grabs : the scale and impact of land grabbing for agrofuels, édité par H.Burley et A.Bebb, Friends of the Earth, Bruxelles, Juin, 2010

It is no exaggeration to characterize these forerunners [the East India Company chartered in 1600 and the Dutch East India Company, chartered in 1602 – note Bakens Verzet) ] of contemporary publicly traded limited liability corporations as, in effect, legally sanctioned and protected crime syndicates with private armies and navies backed by a mandate from their home governments to extort tribute, expropriate land and other wealth, monopolize markets, trade slaves, deal drugs, and profit from financial scams.” ( Korten D, On the Origin of Corporations, YES ! Magazine, Mars 07, 2011)

“There are over 2,500 bilateral investment treaties (BITs), which protect investors from changes to host government policy and which may be impairing the ability of countries to regulate investments effectively. The opportunity for investors to challenge public policy through arbitration procedures under these BITs weakens developing countries’ capacity to regulate their food, land, and water sectors, as well as to introduce policies that promote food security and poverty reduction.” (Zagema B., Land and Power : The growing scandal surrounding the new wave of investments in land, Oxfam Briefing Paper 151, Oxfam, Oxford, 22 Septembre, 2011, ISBN 978-1-84814-947-2, p. 38.) Ce document de la Oxfam constitue un dénonciation bien référencée de la pratique de l’accaparement des terres.

Un sommaire bref de l’accaparement des terres en Afrique (avec cartes géographiques) se trouve auprès de Bwa Mwesigire, B., Land Grabbing in Africa, the new colonialism, This is Africa (TIA), Cape Town, 28 Mai, 2014.

Information détaillée sur l’accaparement des terres en Afrique se trouvent auprès du site web du Oakland Institute. Le rapport Eight myths and facts about Agrisol Energy in Tanzania (Oakland Institute, Oakland, Understanding Land Investment Deals in Africa, Land Deal Brief, Décembre 2011) en constitue un bon exemple. Un autre en est J. Ward, Sacrifier Notre Futur : Comment le Projet Senhuile-Senéthanol Meace l’Environnement et Détruit les Communautés Locales, The Oakland Institute, Oakland, Février, 2014.

Sur l’éviction de 40.000 Masai de leurs terres en Tanzanie, voir Smith, D. Tanzania accused of backtracking over sale of Masai’s ancestral land, The Guardian, Londres, 16 Novembre, 2014. Quelques 1500 km² des terres Masai à Loliondo sont destinées à la création d’un “passage d’animaux sauvages” à côté du parc national Serengeti pour la chasse commerciale et la formation d’une entreprise de safari de luxe liée à la famille royale de Dubai.

Pour voir comment la plus grande entreprises familiale des États Unis, Cargill, à travers sa filière Black River ait réussi à établir 36 sociétés fictives toutes avec la même addresse et les mêmes trois fonctionnaires à acheter 52.000 hectares destinés à la décentralisation de la tenure des terres en Colombie lisez Divide and Purchase : How Land Ownership is being Concentrated in Colombia, (Oxfam Research Paper, Oxfam. Oxford, Septembre 2013). La production entière en est destinée à l’exportation et l’on se sert soit de semences génétiquement modifiées que de l’arrosage aérien à poisons des cultures.

L’accaparement des terres par les industries extractives est décrit dans Sibaud P, Opening Pandora’s Box : The New Wave of Landgrabbing by the Extractive Industries and the Devastating Impact on Earth, Doncation Gaia, Londres, 2012.

L’accaparement des oceans.

“[Ocean-grabbing is]a major process of enclosure of the world’s oceans and fisheries resources, including marine, coastal and inland fisheries. Ocean grabbing is occurring mainly through policies, laws, and practices that are (re)defining and (re)allocating access, use and control of fisheries resources away from small-scale fishers and their communities, and often with little concern for the adverse environmental consequences. Existing customary and communal fisheries’ tenure rights systems and use and management practices are being ignored and ultimately lost in the process. Ocean grabbing thus means the capturing of control by powerful economic actors of crucial decision-making around fisheries, including the power to decide how and for what purposes marine resources are used, conserved and managed now and in the future. As a result, these powerful actors, whose main concern is making profit, are steadily gaining control of both the fisheries’ resources and the benefits of their use……Ocean grabbing is not only about fisheries policy. It is unfolding worldwide across an array of contexts including marine and coastal seawaters, inland waters, rivers and lakes, deltas and wetlands, mangroves and coral reefs. The means by which fishing communities are dispossessed of the resources upon which they have traditionally depended is likewise taking many shapes and forms. It occurs through mechanisms as diverse as (inter)national fisheries governance and trade and investment policies, designated terrestrial, coastal and marine ‘no-take’ conservation areas, (eco)tourism and energy policies, finance speculation, and the expanding operations of the global food and fish industry, including large-scale aquaculture, among others. Meanwhile, ocean grabbing is entering a dramatically new and heightened phase with the emergence in 2012 of the Global Partnership for Oceans, a World Bank-led initiative seeking the privatisation of property rights regimes to aquatic resources and top-down market-based conservation blueprints. ” (Transnational Institute, the (TNI) Agrarian Justice Programme and others, The Global Ocean Grab, The Transnational Institute, Amsterdam, September, 2014, pp. 3-4).

Lisez l'accord conclu entre la Communauté économique européenne et le gouvernement de la République du Sénégal concernant la pêche au large de la côte sénégalaise. Les droits de pêche « achetés » des pays Éuropéens ont porté à la fin des activités traditionnelles de pêche des villages le long de la côte atlantique de l’Afrique de Ouest.

Le cas de la pêche dans le lac Victoria est un autre exemple bien connu. “Parfois, va-t-on à la recherche de poisson pour rentrer à mains vides ” (Charles Kyaba, pêcheur, Uganda 01/08/2008, Lake Victoria degradation threatening livelihood, IRIN Africa News. (Traduction libre : T.E.Manning)

Partant des activités de pêche locales pratiquement sans aucune intervention ou investissements extérieurs, est-on arrivé à la pêche industrielle actuelle, dominée du capital national et international. Trente-cinq entreprises nationales et transnationales, situées aux bords du Lac Victoria, traitent et exportent la plupart de la pêche en Europe, au Japon, et aux États Unis. (Eirik G.Jansen, Rich Fisheries - Poor Fisherfolk: The Effects of Trade and Aid in the Lake Victoria Fisheries, Centre for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo, WP 7-1996, 1996. (Traduction libre : T.E.Manning)

“Chinese fishing boats catch about US$11.5 billion worth of fish from beyond their country’s own waters each year – and most of it goes unreported, according to a new study led by fisheries scientists at the University of British Columbia.

“The paper, recently published in the journal Fish and Fisheries, estimates that China’s foreign catch is 12 times larger than the catch it reports to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, an international agency that keeps track of global fisheries catches.

“Using a new method that analyzes the type of fishing vessels used by Chinese operators around the world and their catch capacity, the UBC-led research team estimates Chinese foreign fishing at 4.6 million tonnes per year, taken from the waters of at least 90 countries – including 3.1 million tonnes from African waters, mainly West Africa. (Chinese foreign fisheries catch 12 times more than reported : UBC Research, University of British Columbia (UBC), Public Affairs, Media Release, Vancouver, 03 April 2013.) Voir la carte illustrant où les Chinois font la pêche et la récolte estimée dans chaque zone. La périodique Fish and Fisheries est contrôlée par la multinationale John Wiley and Sons, qui demande un chachet fort pour le download du document origiinal de recherche. Les concluions des chercheurs et la méthode don’t ils se sont servis a été mis en question par la Food and Agriculture Organisation des Nations Unies (FAO) car les conclusions ridiculisenet les statitstiques officielles sur la pêche mondial publiées par la F.A.O. En Afrique Occidentale les pêcheurs Chinois semblemt avoir remplacé ceux Européens. Les accords entre les Chinois et les gouverments de l’Afrique de l’Ouest qui règlent les droits à la pêche ont ét’’e tenu secrets. L’une des conséquences driectes en est qu’il y reste peu de poisson aux pêcheurs locaux. La plupart de la récolte des Chinois est exportée en Chine.

“The concept of the “freedom of the high seas” guaranteed in the Convention [ the 1982 United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS)]… is now driving a relentless “tragedy of the commons” characterised by the depletion of fish stock and other precious marine resources. The freedom is being exploited by those with the money and ability to do so, with little sense of responsibility or social justice. What regulations do exist rely heavily on the implementation of measures by States that have agreed to them, but do not apply to those who have not; and there is very little capacity for enforcement or for applying sanctions when infringements occur.” (From Decline to Recovery : A Rescue Package for the Global Ocean, Global Ocean Commission, Oxford, Juin 2014, p. 6 ).

Le rapport de la Global Ocean Commission décrit les imperfections très graves de la Convention UNCLOS et les cinq problèmes principaux causes du déclin des océans, et avance huit actions au but de les résoudre.

L’accaparement de l’ivoire.

Le commerce en ivoire constitue encore un autre exemple typique du vol de ressources naturelles.

“A single elephant yields 10kg of ivory worth approximately $30,000; a conservative estimate is that 23,000 elephants were killed in 2013. With the true figure likely much higher, the ivory trade could be worth as much as a billion dollars annually, and will likely increase with the escalating retail price of ivory…. ivory is bush currency for militants, militias, and terrorists, and one of the most valuable pieces of illicit contraband for organized criminals and corrupt elites ” (Vita V., Ewing T., Ivory’s Curse : The Militarization and Professionalization of Poaching in Africa, Born Free USA with C4ADS, Washington, Avril 2014, Sommaire exécutif.) À ce sujet voir aussi : Milliken, T., Illegal Trade in Ivory and Rhino Horn: an Assessment Report to Improve Law Enforcement Under the Wildlife TRAPS Project, Traffic International (with USAID), Cambridge, 2014. ISBN 978-1-85850-373-8.

7. Recherches.

Actuellement, quelle parte des revenus de la vente des ressources renouvelables de votre zone est mise à la disposition des populations locales ?

De combien est-ce qu’il s’agit ?

Comment pensez-vous qu’on puisse mieux exploiter les ressources naturelles renouvelables locales à bénéfice des populations locales?

◄ ►

◄ Premier bloc : Section 1.

◄ Premier bloc : La pauvreté et la qualité de vie.