quinta-feira, 11 de junho de 2009

Costos dos biocombustíveis

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8084735.stm

Colombia's government proudly claims that it is the biggest producer of biodiesel and ethanol in Latin America after Brazil, but human rights groups do not share that enthusiasm.

Critics warn that the cultivation of palm trees to produce biodiesel is a threat to Colombia's indigenous groups and other minorities, including Afro-Colombians.

In rural areas, there is evidence that some people have been forcibly displaced to make way for biofuel production.

Last year, the United Nations stopped its investment in the sector in Colombia.

But while ethanol production in Brazil has been pored over by experts and activists, the challenges faced by Colombia remain relatively unexamined.

Colombia's agriculture minister, Andres Fernandez, stresses that one of the main aims of President Alvaro Uribe's administration is to keep the production of biofuels "on a growing path".

Mr Fernandez argues that this is "not one government's policy, but State policy".

He dismisses accusations that the production of biofuels squeezes food output.

"There are 4.5 million hectares of cultivated land and another 4.5 million of hectares of uncultivated land, [but] that land would not be used for food production - it would stay just as it is," he says.

Fuel or food?

Last year, UN food chiefs warned that governments had to review urgently their policies on growing crops for biofuels.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) said biofuels were of "limited use" for solving the planet's energy needs.

At the same time, they pushed up food prices by diverting valuable crops such as sugar maize and oilseed from food use to energy use.

A boy from Choco
Families and children from Choco have been forced off their land

Mr Fernandez says he respects the UN viewpoint and its decision to suspend investment in biofuels in Colombia, but he says his country has its own perspective.

He argues that bio-fuels have had a "wonderful effect" and have led to investment in deprived areas of the country benefiting peasants and minority groups.

But this effect is not viewed quite as wonderfully by many rural workers in the Choco province, in north-west Colombia.

They complain of being forced off their land to make way for palm trees - and accuse the government of being deaf to their pleas for help.

One of the workers, Eustaquio Polo Rivera, told BBC Mundo that he lost his land after an incursion by right-wing paramilitaries in 1996.

"We used to produce what we needed for ourselves: bananas, corn, rice. But one day, soldiers just arrived and took our land. They destroyed everything in the community," he says.

"They told me they needed the land to fight the guerrillas, but we soon realized that the point was to take our land.

"We tried to resist, but the armed men warned us they would take no responsibility for the families who decided to stay."

Violations denounced

According to Mr Polo, more than 500 people fled immediately.

"When we tried to go back, our land was planted with palm trees," he says.

"In my own community, there are between 30 and 40 hectares of palm trees.

"The government hasn't shown any interest in returning our land because the paramilitaries carry on moving from one location to another and the big companies have powerful allies."

Fidel Mingorance is chairman of Human Rights Everywhere (HRE), one of several NGOs denouncing the forced displacement of communities, often of African descent, to make way for palm trees.

"It all started in Tumaco, in South Colombia, and now there are all sorts of violations - forced displacement, assassinations, property invasion," he says.

Leonidas Tobon, the director of technological development at the Ministry of Agriculture, accepts there was a case of forced displacement in Choco, but says it was a one-off.

"The cultivation of palm trees is concentrated in four regions. Only 10% of it is in areas occupied by Afro-Colombians and 30% of land used to grow the trees belongs to small farmers in any case," he says.

segunda-feira, 8 de junho de 2009

"School of Americas" Generals Charged in Colombia

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/8637/
By

Two Colombian generals, both of whom received training at the U.S. Army's "School of The Americas" (SOA) at Ft. Benning, Ga., have been accused by Colombian authorities of crimes involving narcotics and collaborating with criminal paramilitary groups, according to a report in the June 15th issue of The Nation magazine.

Brig. Gen. Pauxelino Latorre has been charged "with laundering millions of dollars for a paramilitary drug ring, and prosecutors say they are looking into his activities as head of the Seventeenth Brigade," investigative journalist Teo Ballve reports. He notes that criminal probes repeatedly linked his unit "to illegal paramilitary groups that had brutally killed thousands" of Colombian farmers in an effort to seize their land for palm oil production.

Another general, Rito Alejo Del Rio, former 17th Brigade leader, is in jail on charges of collaborating with paramilitaries, gangs that have been responsible for widespread atrocities. He also received training at SOA.

Various firms currently engaged in palm oil development since 2002 apparently have received $75 million in US Agency for International Development money under "Plan Colombia," Ballve writes. And some of the firms appear to be tied to narco-traffickers, "in possible violation of federal law." The writer notes Colombia's paramilitaries are on the State Department's list of foreign "terrorist" organizations.

"Plan Colombia is fighting against drugs militarily at the same time it gives money to support palm, which is used by paramilitary mafias to launder money," The Nation quotes Colombian Senator Gustavo Petro, as saying. "The United States is implicitly subsidizing drug traffickers."

President Alvaro Uribe has urged Colombians to increase palm production from 750,000 to 15 million acres to cash in on the expected boom in biofuels. "Oil palm, or African palm, is one of the few aid-funded crops whose profits can match coca profits," Ballve notes. But human rights groups have long accused palm companies, notably Urapalma, of cultivating stolen lands, he adds.

Senator Patrick Leahy has attached an amendment to this year's Plan Colombia funding (for 2010) to ban palm projects that "cause the forced displacement of local people" but in the bill's current draft, Ballve says, Leahy's amendment is marked for deletion.

Urapalma submitted a grant application to the Bogota, Colombia, offices of ARD Inc., a rural development contractor based in Burlington, Vt., which The Nation reports does business in 43 countries and has received $330 million in revenue from USAID. In January, 2003, ARD began administering $41.5 million for USAID's Colombia Agribusiness Partnership Program and Urapalma was one of its beneficiaries. Urapalma has been accused of taking land illegally from Colombian peasants.

In July, 2003, just before Urapalma's USAID application, Colombia's national daily El Tiempo reported that "the African palm projects in the southern banana region of Uraba are dripping with blood, misery, and corruption." The region is where Urapalma is active.

The Nation article goes on to report that in 2003, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights singled out Urapalma for collusion with paramilitaries in these words: "Since 2001, the company Urapalma SA has initiated cultivation of the oil palm on approximately 1,500 hectares of the collective land of these communities, with the help of 'the perimetric and concentric armed protection of the Army's Seventeenth Brigade and armed civilians'", i.e., paras. One might ask, what is SOA going to do next with US taxpayers' dollars?

--Sherwood Ross formerly reported for major dailies and wire services and currently runs a public relations firm in Florida. Reach him at sherwoodr1@yahoo.com.

A Fama é poder? Cinema e Poder (Inglês)

http://awfj.org/2009/06/05/awfj-women-on-film-the-week-in-women-june-5-2009-maryann-johanson/

Artigo da crítica de cinema Maryann Johanson.

Women get pushed to the sidelines, unless they’re the most powerful celebs in the world. But even that ain’t as good as it sounds…

IS FAME POWER? It sounds better than it actually is: Forbes magazine has dubbed Angelina Jolie the most powerful celebrity on the planet, and Nos. 2, 3, and 4 on Forbes’ most-powerful list are also women: Oprah Winfrey, Madonna, and Beyoncé Knowles. But how does Forbes define power?

The Celebrity 100, which includes film and television actors, models, chefs, athletes, authors and musicians, is a measure of entertainment-related earnings and media visibility (exposure in print, television, radio and online).

The Celebrity 100 is a measure of power based on money and fame. Earnings estimates, which include income from films, television shows, endorsements, books and other entertainment ventures, are calculated between June 2008 and June 2009. … Fame is calculated using Web hits on Google Blog Search, TV/radio mentions on LexisNexis, overall press mentions on Factiva and the number of times a celebrity’s image appeared on the cover of 25 consumer magazines.

Is the ability to make millions of people talk about you “power?” How powerful are “powerful” women if they don’t have the power to change the system in which they’re working? Angelina Jolie’s name may bring audiences into movies, but it seems unlikely that even her involvement would get a greenlight for a project that didn’t already conform to basic notions about what Hollywood wants to sell us… which does not tyypically include movies about women in other than stereotypical roles.

If women truly are as powerful as Forbes seems to suggest, why aren’t there more women in positions of true power — say, as the head of a studio or a TV network? Why aren’t women better reflected in the entertainment Hollywood gives us?

Just because the ‘Mona Lisa’ is the most famous painting in history doesn’t mean the fine arts haven’t been dominated by men. And just because Angelina Jolie is the person best at being famous doesn’t mean it isn’t men who continue to control Hollywood.

FAR OUT. Where do we find powerful women? In the realms of complete fantasy, like science fiction. Total Sci-Fi offers its rundown of “The 25 Women Who Shook Sci-Fi,” and it is, indeed, a list of some of the most compelling, most complicated women to be found in popular entertainment. Sigourney Weaver’s Ellen Ripley, from the Alien series of films, tops the list, and I don’t think it’s any coincidence at all that both Ripley and the No. 3 character on the list, Kara “Starbuck” Thrace from Battlestar Galactica (as played by Katee Sackhoff), both started out as male characters. If that’s what it takes to get intriguing female characters on the screen, I’m fine with that: let’s write every character as male, and then cast half of them with female actors, and see what happens.

BANISHED TO THE SIDELINES. The Hangover, opening today, offers a splendid example of how women are sidelined as characters in many mainstream films. The only female characters with any significant story or screen time are the nagging bitch of a girlfriend (played by Rachael Harris) to the character played by Ed Helms, and the stripper/hooker-with-a-hea
rt-of-gold (played by Heather Graham) he marries in a drunken stupor while on a Vegas bachelor party trip with three friends. Neither woman is a character in the sense that she learns anything or grows or changes, even in the slightest degree, and that’s fine, to a point: the story is not about them. The Hangover is a “guy” movie, supposedly, so it’s about the guys, and the unchangeably bitchy or unalterably perfect women are present only as a motivation for the Ed Helms character to change and grow.

But it isn’t just “guy” movies that sideline women. Almost any movie considered of general interest to mainstream audiences does the same:

* The lovely animated Up gives us a hero in Carl, who changes and learns and grows as a person… with his deceased wife, Ellie, as his motivation.
* Last year’s Oscar-winning Best Picture, Slumdog Millionaire, dangles the beautiful girl before the male protagonist: she’s to be his real prize, not the money he could win on the game show.
* Last year’s Oscar-winning Best Animated Film, Wall-E, was about genderless machines overlain with gendered qualities, and of course it was the genderless machine deemed male who was permitted a journey of self-discovery while the genderless machine deemed female who was perfect and beautiful and goddesslike and hence unrequiring of change.
* Which performance did Kate Winslet win her Oscar for last year? It wasn’t Revolutionary Road, in which her character is a person who undergoes a personal crisis and a transformation — it was The Reader, in which her static character is the impetus for the male protagonist to come to a new understanding about himself.

Oh, sure, there are movies in which a women character is the centerpiece and the male characters around her may not change: they’re derided as “chick flicks.” Because the experiences of men are considered universal and of interest to everyone, while the experiences of women are niche and of interest only to women.

Imagine if almost every movie we saw — including those lauded as the best of the best — forced men onto the sidelines, cast them as either irredeemable bad or inhumanly good, and never allowed them a journey of self-discovery. Imagine if almost every movie we saw said, in its subtext, that men were only good for what they could do for women. Wouldn’t that be expected to eventually piss off half the audience, no matter how good each of those individual stories might be?

AVERAGE GIRL GETS SUPERHOT GUY. Speaking of “chick flicks,” My Big Fat Greek Wedding’s Nia Vardalos is back on the big screen this weekend with My Life in Ruins, which will not, alas, do anything to change the ghettoization of movies about women. I do like, however, something that Vardalos told the Los Angeles Times this week about why women like her are necessary in Hollywood:

In the movies, you often see the average-looking guy with the incredibly attractive woman. In my movies you see the average-looking woman with the super hot John Corbett. I’m happy to make those movies for all of us women. Guess what? We need people like me on screen. That’s what movies are. You go and escape for a sec.

She’s speaking not only of Ruins but of her upcoming film, I Hate Valentine’s Day, which she also wrote and directed. (It opens July 3.) It’s about, as the Times explains, “a snappy, commitment-phobic florist who will date men only five times before a mandated breakup, a plan that goes awry when John Corbett (her ‘Greek Wedding’ costar) opens a restaurant on her street.” I’ll reserve judgment till I see the film, but this doesn’t sound any more promising than Ruins…

ALSO OPENING THIS WEEK: Sam Mendes’s latest, Away We Go, features one of the loveliest romantic couples I’ve ever seen onscreen in the about-to-be-parental John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph. Neither of them is perfect, both have an opportunity to grow, and all without the film ever needing to dangle the loss of their relationship in front of them. Bravo!

There’s also Downloading Nancy, in which the always powerful Maria Bello takes a dangerous journey of self-discovery via a walk on the dark side with a man she meets on the Internet. That probably can’t end well…

La contrarreforma agraria

http://elespectador.com/columna144627-contrarreforma-agraria
Por: Salomón Kalmanovitz


LA ÉLITE TERRATENIENTE COLOMbiana se venía debilitando históricamente hasta los años ochenta del siglo pasado.

Venía perdiendo participación en el producto nacional y los mejores negocios eran para los empresarios modernos que les arrendaban sus tierras o para los ingenios mejor estructurados en el caso de la caña de azúcar. En política había tenido que confrontar un movimiento campesino alentado desde el mismo Estado que se radicalizó en los setenta y que fuera reprimido con cierta violencia y con la cancelación de la reforma agraria en curso.

En la siguiente década ocurrieron dos hechos que marcaron profundamente la cuestión agraria en el país: los movimientos insurgentes se propagaron en muchas regiones, aprovechando el descabezamiento del movimiento campesino legal, y el narcotráfico se consolidó como uno de los negocios más prósperos que había aparecido en toda la historia de Colombia.

Los narcotraficantes adquirieron grandes globos de tierra para adquirir una raigambre en lo que ha sido tradicionalmente la base fundamental del poder político en Colombia y, al mismo tiempo, tomaron la iniciativa de enfrentar directamente a los movimientos guerrilleros, organizando grupos militares privados. La defensa de la propiedad en general les sirvió de vehículo de entrada a los círculos regionales de poder y a establecer alianzas con las brigadas militares de las zonas azotadas por la insurgencia. Los territorios que liberaban se valorizaban doblemente por superar la amenaza a la seguridad de los derechos de propiedad de los terratenientes y por la demanda que ejercían los ‘narcos’ sobre un mercado de tierras que por definición es rígido (de eso ya no hacen, dicen los campesinos).

Algo que ha pasado inadvertido y que ha traído a cuenta el investigador Francisco Gutiérrez Sanín, es que dentro de los ganaderos en particular, cuya actividad estaba especialmente azotada por las Farc y el Eln, hubo importantes líderes que se criminalizaron: se metieron al negocio del narcotráfico y asumieron la dirección de varias asociaciones de grupos paramilitares. Las Farc a su vez desplazaba población que había caído anteriormente bajo el control territorial de los ‘paras’ y en donde ejercía dominio se quedaba con las propiedades que incautaba a los colonos más prósperos o que sospechaba de enemigos.

Se despeñó entonces una radical contrarreforma agraria que se apoyó en el desplazamiento masivo de vastos territorios del país. El 8% de la población fue aterrorizada para abandonar sus parcelas, casas, herramientas, muebles y otras pertenencias. Los predios pasaron a ser ocupados por los lugartenientes de los ‘paras’, por los mismos jefes en el caso de las propiedades más valiosas o por los jefes de las Farc, que es identificada por la mitad de los desplazados como la que motivó su salida del territorio afectado.

La contrarreforma agraria afectó tres veces más área poseída que la reforma agraria que se inició en 1961. De una de las más agudas concentraciones de tierra en América Latina se pasó al primer lugar de iniquidad en el más desigual de los continentes del mundo.

La contrarreforma está pronta a legalizarse gracias a que el Ejecutivo ha sido conquistado por un Presidente que se identifica como hacendado y quien aspira a controlar la política nacional por varias décadas. El Congreso, entre tanto, cuenta con una desproporcionada representación de la élite terrateniente que viene legislando sistemáticamente a su favor, para legalizar el despojo.