Others argue the palm plantations have not provided the jobs—nor quality of life—promised or anticipated at the time that the land transfers were executed. "The palm company pays them eight [U.S. dollars] for one day of labor," says Ernesto Tzi, manager of SANK, an NGO working with Maya rural communities to preserve their land and their traditional family agriculture. "The work is getting harder and harder all the time, and if we can't make it, they bring in outside workers. Is that the benefit to the community they promised?
At the root of the problem—outside of forced evictions and other pressure—is a lack of clear land laws or policy at the federal, regional and local levels. "We want a state of law to apply," Widmann says of these land conflicts. "We don't want to live like savages, according to the law of the strongest. We wish to live in peace."
Sales negotiations, if they occur at all, are usually one-sided, peasants and their advocates say. "Negotiations for land acquisition often take place behind closed doors, quickly and in a context of unequal power," explains Lorenzo Cotula, a legal researcher at the International Institute for Environment and Development in London, an independent international research organization specializing in sustainable development.
Many such sales in Guatemala occurred after local rural families were granted rights to a parcel of land as part of a post–civil war governmental program known today as Fontierras and supported by The World Bank. Each family received land rights to a parcel, but large landowners and agribusiness typically moved in to purchase the land from peasants, who wound up with little in the way of recompense and no land then to feed their families.
"These policies have created a market of access rights to land," says Oliver De Schutter, U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food. "Over time, they are in favor of great landowners who have the means and the power to acquire those lands from the hands of little peasants once he has a formal title. We therefore witness a process of agrarian reconcentration into a few elite hands."
Despite this array of challenges, some Guatemalan peasants have held on to their land. Amalia Luc from Semuy village in Alta Verapaz still farms 10 hectares in the traditional way—small parcels of various tree and plant crops, such as bananas, pineapples, cardamom, avocados, coffee and cacao as well as a handful of medicinal plants and beehives. "I will never give up my land for palm," she says. "After I feed my family, I still have enough surplus for those landless and poor families who have nothing and come to me. The excess is sold on the local market."
See what we're tweeting about
25 Comments
Add CommentPredictable...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wrote about this in 2007:
Against Bio-fuels:
http://rationalrevolution.net/blog/index.blog?entry_id=1662046
@Nag nostic: the way you write reminds me of the captions from this site: http://unhappyhipsters.com/ (not a porn site)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, I recognize the dead give-away - my liberal use of hyphens - oh, geez! there I go again!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI really like the pre-fab "modern" architecture pictured at that site. Much, much better than the over-sized and McMansion-styled foreclosure sale fodder crap prevalent in today's suburbia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...McMansion-styled foreclosure fodder..." was my intended phrase, sans "crap", which I neglected to delete.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPardon me for my hastiness.
About the Green desire to preserve farm land for food production, rather than fuel...
When have Greens ever supported farm land over woodlands or natural meadows abundant with Bambis and paw-cleansing racoons?
Great more dead weight headed to America and these get to claim Refugee stadias.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen they Steal American Jobs.
In fact, Scientific American itself published a critique of gasohol 32 years ago about the food/fuel conflict and other problems. As a college student then, I was impressed by the article and wrote a letter to the local newspaper, not knowing that a gasohol plant had just opened locally and the letter to the editor and the article about the new plant appeared in the same paper. Got a knock on my door from some angry farmers! Anyway, very forward thinking, Sci Am!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are certainly some bad bio-fuels that eat into the food supply, but not all bio-fuels have this nasty byproduct. I mean it is one thing to pat yourself on the back about the failures of alternative technologies, but another thing to be realistic about the hardships that petroleum is increasingly causing. This article really seems to give me mixed messages about energy independence. It seems to me that there is a strong need to find alternatives, but this article presents the idea of alternatives as costly and devastating to the lives of many. I do not like the fact that some bio-fuel technologies eat into the food supply just as much as the next person, but I hope that we would be able to learn from these mistakes just as much as we would learn from the hardships of petroleum. Let us find something different and let us find it fast, rather than just pointing our finger and patting ourselves on the back for our preconceived opinions of so called 'do gooders.' Are we really supposed to assume that "Energy Independence" is a bad thing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand that people need to be aware of these kinds of hardships when they may escape the notice of interested investors, but where are the reports about the other alternative bio-fuels that do not eat into the food supply like algae. I try to keep myself up to date on alternative technologies but people need to remain hopeful about alternatives because I think everyone knows that oil will run out some day and that more oil sites won't prevent this from happening. With this being said, I think it is wrong to give the impression that all alternative technologies are bad (such a thing may have not been the intent of this article though), but we need to remain realistic about our situation.
My comments do not concern the author of this article as much as they do the commenters on this article. Some people may be unaware of the difficulties that surround some bio-fuels but, along these lines, it is also important to note that there are bio-fuels do NOT cut into the food supply. I am just in hopes that criticisms can be made in constructive ways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt`s my first time to register an American web,for improving my English level.Well,you know,in China,we almost all use QQ,only a few of people use MSN.So,I don`t know how to make friend with you,for this puepose,I register a MSN,next time I will give you my NO..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPls recommend me some American BBS,and so on.I want to know more aboult US,help me and thank you!
U can also write me,my email:hn_ll@126.com.My Chinse name is 王亮亮。
Land grab for biofuels? Phosphorous fertilisers will be necessary...and world supplies are already dwindling. Catch 22!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskdonald :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...people need to remain hopeful about alternatives..."
Engineers do not make their planning on the basis of hope: none of us would be here if they did.
And politicians shouldn't make their decisions on that basis either. Unfortunately they have to respond to an electorate with unrealistic expectations nourished by the irresponsible and self-serving media.
Kdonald: This article is not so much about biofuels as it is about land grab. It's true that in this case, biofuels is the drivig force but as it says also, in other cases, rich contries, powerful companies and speculators do take control over lands in developing countries for food commodities and financial benefits at the expense of local needs. So question is about the socio-environmental price of it and how to prevent it. How green would it be to drive cars when people have been thrown out of their lands for that ? Do we want to wear shoes that are the result of child working and abuse in developing countries ? So in a sense it questions product ethics consuming. If those biofuels were produced only in western countries or at least under western standards that would be another thing. The only questions then would remain whether biofuels are a good alternative to fossil fuel, and since it doesn't only emits CO2 during combustion but also fixes carbon during growth and it's renewable, it is of course better that fossil fuels even if it still may not be the ultimate solution. So there is hope and yes hope is part of progress, although not the only factor, benefit, power etc are also part of the story, and hope also concerns those rural populations depossed from any future. As for the media, they are not supposed to work as public relation agency for anyone's interest and not show how pinky is the world but inform and sometimes take a stand on different facets of problems. Knowing the facts, also the disturbing ones is necessary to progress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsider the arguments for biofuels:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Energy Independence, not funding terrorists and oppressive regimes. The facts: biofuels simply empower a new set of terrorists and oppressors. We are IMPORTING biofuels from countries that have less inhibitions about ravaging their natural habitats and exploiting their own people than we do--countries like Brazil and Guatemala.
2. Green and Renewable. The facts: biodiesel and ethanol release MORE harmful emissions per unit energy than conventional fuels, including NOx, particulates and GHG. Thorough life-cycle analyses show that the CO2 from land use change (i.e., burning carbon-sink forests and prairies) has already released so much CO2 that it will take 1-3 centuries for payback, and we are burning more acreage around the world daily in the name of slowing global warming.
3. Biofuels can free us from fossil fuel dependence. Facts, the UKERC just released in December a meta-study of 90 other studies than concluded that, at best, biofuels can supply 20% of the world's energy needs without impacting food production.
4. Biofuels are free energy from the sun. Fact, according to Argonne National Laboratory and their GREET model, it takes 2.6 times as much energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gasoline. The emerging consensus on the net yield of corn ethanol, one of the most productive of fuel crops, is an energy return on investment (EROI = fuel energy output / total energy input) of 1.25 (25% net gain) after all the extra effort, and only if you remove every vestige of biomass from the land and leave it completely eroded of all nutrients, and burn the corn stover waste for heat energy and count the rest as cattle feed. Meanwhile, it is calculated that the Romans needed an EROI of 2.7 to run their empire at its peak, and that the US needs an EROI of 6.0 in its fuels to maintain its standard of living. Corn ethanol's 1.25 is in the dark ages somewhere. A recent lifecycle analysis of best case algae diesel done by UVA in 2010 yielded an EROI of 1.06--positively stone age.
The ultimate knife in the chest to this whole foolish scheme is a look at water use. Rapeseed biodiesel, the most common biofuel in Europe, uses up to 500 cubic meters of water for 1 liter of diesel. Meanwhile, countries that depend upon desalination for their water (1/3 of the world and growing), spend a liter of fuel to desalinate 2 or less cubic meters of water. The coming global commoditization of water (like oil and grain before it), blows away the illusion that is biofuel viability.
Hire the locals, they know their dirt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight...........................................(not)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBless Amalia Luc for thinking of others .......she is TRULY AN OUTSTANDING HUMAN ......!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe loss of land to small users happens in England too. There were lots of small holders and small farmers. They were told no one wanted there fruit or crops as supermarkets wanted large suppliers. Small was not economic. Large farmers bought them up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen no one wanted English crops, supermarkets preferred to import. Farmers told to diversify. Grew caravans and tents on fields instead. Then land prices rose so sold to developers and houses grew there instead.
Then large farmers found it more profitable to be even larger and took over others land. Then instead of growing crops, grew EU subsidies for doing nothing.
Now with government subsidies for " green energy" they grow wind turbines and fields of solar panels.
The outcome of this will be no one growing food, it does not make enough money. Many modern farmers now look at it just as a business to make money, they just sit in an office anyway, not "getting their hands dirty".
As more people move to the country from towns, they don't like tractors getting in their way, and want more houses built on fields for their friends from town to move there too.
Then they want to drive their cars but feel good about it. So what farms there are grow maize or elephant grass etc for biofuel ( Why worry about growing food, you get that from the supermarket don't you ? )
And the government supports more houses, more green energy, more growth, more people moving to the country.
Planning laws are changing to make all this easier too.And wild life is being culled to make it better for farmers.
If this is happening ( I live in what was the "countryside", now a building site) in england what hope do peasants in South America have? Only difference here is most people are brainwashed into thinking it's all great.
Another victim of the "alternative fuels" boondoggle. Using food as fuel is monumentally stupid. Why not fuel cars with extra-virgin olive oil?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it possible that the hedonistic pleasure of riding automobiles may drive this civilization to an end? The civilization that has brought into existence The Theory of General Relativity or Quantum Physics or the Internet or ... !? It, truly, does not make any sense. If human species is not able to reorganize socially, than it deserves nothing but such an absurd fate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the situation about sugar cane plantations in the Polochic Valley, the problem occurred when in a time of impasse in which Chabil Utzaj was looking for a way to ensure the continuity of its operations, a group of people invaded the lands owned by the company.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis forced the then controlling shareholders of the Sugar Mill to resort, according to the laws and court orders, to the competent authorities in order to preserve its properties and the continuity of the project.
No peasant community has been expropriated nor has there been any transfer of land belonging to them to the Sugar Mill.
The plots of land of the Sugar Mill that were invaded never belonged to the invaders and it is not true that they were settled there for tens of years.
Currently, Chabil Utzaj has been revitalized with new majority shareholders, which has allowed in a few months of operation to employ more than 600 people, and it is estimated that this figure will increase to more than 1500 when the first Harvest begins at the end of next February.
Between May and December 2011, US$2,132,444.72 has been paid in wages.
In Social Responsibility actions, between June and December 2011, dozens of local families have received food aid, and actions that benefit the communities have been undertaken, such as road repair, refurbishment of schools, construction of bus stops, etc. In 2012 the company is committed to sponsor 50 percent of schools located in its geographical surroundings.
Various sectors in the Polochic Valley have expressed its satisfaction with the resumption of the sugar activities because they represent an important development pole for this impoverished area of Guatemala.
In the article there are a number of assertions that are surprisingly divorced with the veracity of the facts. For example, Mr. Widmann appears as the spokesman of the palm agribusiness, which is quite far from the truth. Mr. Widmann has nothing to do with this productive activity.
Poverty and social exclusion cannot be fought with illegal actions that promote subsistence farming on private lands, affecting the right to property and established productive activities.
Poverty is fought with successful productive projects that are multipliers of economic activity, which in turn are important sources of employment with decent wages to ensure the social inclusion of impoverished communities.
I cannot believe some of the racist and xenophobic comments! How can anyone be so callus about those poor people?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHeadroberta: You say "Mr. Widmann appears as the spokesman of the palm agribusiness, which is quite far from the truth. Mr. Widmann has nothing to do with this productive activity..." What you say here is actually quite far from the truth:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact, in the article Mr Widmann appears as leader of "...agribusiness company chabil Utzah..." at the time of the evictions, which is factually true, it doesn't say that Chabil Utzaj or Mr Widmann deal with palm. The article tells us about biofuels from palm oil and/or sugar cane, as a source of socio-environmental and land grabing problem . The article says "...The land they used to work will soon grow sugarcane or palm oil...". The article is clear about the fact that some cases are associated with palm, some with sugar cane. No one contests the fact that those brutal evictions took place to secure agribusiness interests, palm or sugar cane.
The real question here is: why so much land and power is concentrated into few elite hands and what is the right model to ensure food security with rural populations in developing countries? Agrarian concentration and intensive monoculture obeying market rules for financial benefits of few, is certainly not the answer.
Using food crop land to make biofuels should be made a crime against humanity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI emphatically agree with eco-steve. These poor people occupy the lowest rung of humanity's ladder. They deserve our solidarity and support. Somehow, we humans have to find a way to organize ourselves to empower these poor Mayan peasants. Unfortunately, agribusiness and their stooges in Washington and other world capitals have all the power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this