By API

Photo: Kamila Hyat/IRIN

Families of miners who die have to struggle to make ends meet (file photo)

QUETTA,  – Two years ago, Abdul Ghaffar, 35, died when a section of the coalmine he was working in near Quetta, in Pakistan’s Balochistan Province, collapsed.

“His chest was completely crushed. He died before he could be taken to hospital,” his wife Sonam Bibi told IRIN. Today she struggles, working as a washerwoman, to raise their three children. “We were poor before, since my husband earned barely Rs. 4,000 [US$46] a month. We are poorer now,” said Sonam who is unable to send her children to school.

Last week, five miners died after an underground explosion at a coalmine in the Zarkhu area of Balochistan’s Mastung District, some 50km south of Quetta.

“This was a methane gas explosion,” Bakht Nawab Yousufzai of the Pakistan Mine Workers Federation told IRIN. He said the workers were about 500m below the surface when an explosion occurred and a fire broke out, preventing escape. Balochistan minister for mines and minerals Mir Abdul Rehman Mengal told the media in Quetta that he had ordered an inquiry and that the mine had been closed indefinitely.

Such accidents are not uncommon. In March this year at least 43 miners were killed following a series of explosions at a coalmine at Sorang near Quetta.

Like most miners in Balochistan, according to a 2010 study, by researcher Zia Ur Rehman who specializes in labour issues, the victims were migrant workers from Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa Province (KP). Rehman found workers from Shangla District were driven by “immense poverty” to work in mines outside their home areas. A previous 2004 study by the Islamabad-based Sustainable Policy Development Institute (SPDI) also noted migrant labour was common in Balochistan’s mines.

“Horrendous working conditions”

“Miners in Pakistan are working in the most horrendous working conditions. They have virtually no safety equipment and safety measures are never taken care of by the bosses of the mines which are mainly in private hands,” Farooq Tariq, spokesperson for the Labour Party of Pakistan, told IRIN. He said this held true for miners across the country and demanded action against mine owners who failed to maintain safety standards.

According to Ministry of Labour from 2010, of a total employed workforce of 51.88 million in the country, 50,000 worked in the mining sector.

There is little data on safety issues in Balochistan, where the country’s largest coalfields are located, but according to the SDPI study, “on average more than 100 people lose their lives annually and a similar number are disabled.”

A 2007 study by the Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research said: “Working conditions of mine workers, particularly [in] coal mines, are very poor. The severe lack of safety measures in these mines causes widespread deaths every year. Government agencies have not been able to stop accidents because of very poor physical and technical standards observed by small and medium mines. Added to which the equipment is considered obsolete by modern standards.”

“There is a great dearth of reliable data,” Mehboob Ahmed Khan, in charge of labour issues for the autonomous Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, based in Lahore, told IRIN.

“Archaic” safety procedures

Balochistan, where most deaths occur, has some 2,300 mines, according to a recent article in Foreign Policy, which said safety standards were extremely poor:

“There are laws, rules and regulations governing the granting of mining concessions and prescribing safety procedures. However, these are archaic and, in any event, have been observed loosely at best for so long that violations of the law are the norm, not the exception. Additionally, the working conditions in the mines are medieval. Miners, like the ones that were killed in Sorang travel as far down as 6,000m with nothing but hard-hats with lights attached, and picks to chip away at the coal,” the article said.

“We work here, because we have no choice. The air inside the mine is suffocating. We work up to 12 hours a day. Boys as young as 14 toil away too, and no one listens to us if we report a portion of a mine tunnel is crumbling, or that we cannot breathe well,” Rahim Dad Khan, a coalminer from the Shangla District of KP employed at a mine near Quetta, told IRIN.

A manager at the same mine, who asked not to be named, said: “I can see the workers face a risk. I sympathize with them. But the employers just want profits. If I make a complaint I will be fired,” he said.

“My husband earned a pittance, but he had no choice. The tough labour in the mine was miserable. Only death ended that misery for him, but added to that which I and the children suffer,” said Sonam Bibi, who wonders if one day her two sons, too, will have no choice but to go down a mine, as their father did for 10 years.

kh/eo/cb
source www.irinnews.org

By API

Photo: Jaspreet Kindra/IRIN

Most food destined for Africa is maize-based

JOHANNESBURG,  – Genetically modified (GM) food aid bound for Africa has long been a bone of contention among governments, scientists, activists, consumers and aid workers.

On 18 August a drought-affected Kenyan government fired the head of its National Biosafety Authority for expediting the process to import milled food aid which might have contained genetically modified organisms (GMO). In the weeks preceding and after the incident, public debate on the issue was distorted by extreme positions either for or against GM food.

“When you have people starving in your country you don’t simply turn your back on food at your door-step just because it is labelled GM – it is expected that biosafety risk assessments should have been conducted before the importation of the food to see whether it does indeed pose a threat before taking a decision. Taking this decision so late in the day could have serious consequences for the suffering people,” says Diran Makinde, director of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development’s (NEPAD’s) African Biosafety Network of Expertise (ABNE), a pool of scientific experts set up by the African Union.

There have been different degrees of resistance to GM food and GM food aid in Africa.

In 2002 Zambia announced it would not accept GM food aid in any form. Positions were polarized to a great extent after a quote from a US state department official, “Beggars can’t be choosers”,hit the headlines. It prompted the then president, Levy Mwanawasa, to say hunger was no reason for feeding his people “poison”. Since then Zambia has become a poster-child for the anti-GM lobby.

Zimbabwe, Malawi and Mozambique said they could allow imports of GM food aid in its milled form as this eliminated the risk of the germination of whole grains and limited possible contamination of local varieties.

Lesotho and Swaziland allowed the distribution of non-milled GM food/grains, but warned people that it was for consumption not cultivation.

In 2004, Angola and Sudan announced restrictions on GM food aid.

Cautious approach

Most African countries approach GM technology applied to crops with caution.

“Why shouldn’t we be wary of this technology and its possible long-term health impacts, if the EU [European Union] is. If it is not good for them, why should it be good for us?” said Tewolde Egziabher, Ethiopia’s director of the Environmental Protection Agency.

When you have people starving in your country you don’t simply turn your back on food at your door-step just because it is labelled GM – it is expected that biosafety risk assessments should have been conducted before the importation

Egziabher was one of the main architects of the Cartagena Protocol, the international law on biosafety which came into effect in 2003 and which allows countries to impose bans on foods containing GM.

The Protocol’s cornerstone is “precaution”, notes a UN Environment Programme briefing. It gives governments the discretion to impose bans even where there is insufficient scientific evidence about the potential adverse effects of GM crops. The USA has yet to ratify the Protocol.

GM technology injects foreign genes into a crop that can improve its appearance, taste, nutritional quality, drought tolerance, and insect and disease resistance. There has been cautious optimism about the new technology in some quarters.

“As crop yields drop because of weather shocks, GM technology is not the panacea, as Africa will feel the impact of climate change in the long-term. But it is potentially yet another tool in our fight to improve production,” said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, 2001 World Food Prize laureate and the author of a book on the politics of GM food.

Most critics of GM food, however, argue that foreign genes can produce toxic proteins and allergens, even possibly transfer the genes to bacteria in the human gut; or transfer these traits to other crops with unknown consequences.

Global divide

A deep mistrust also prevails in Africa, given the fact that two power blocs – the EU and the USA remain divided over GM.

Only one strain of GM maize, Monsanto 810, and one modified potato, have been approved in the EU, and most countries grow neither commercially. Spain accounts for about 80 percent of GMO grown in the EU in terms of land under cultivation, but Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, Germany and Luxembourg have banned all GMO cultivation.

On the other hand, in the USA, where 70 percent of maize is GM, GM food need not be labelled. Some food experts say both the EU and the USA have vested interests in promoting their respective views in Africa, which is seen as a potential market and supplier of either GM or non-GM products. 

In Africa, the production of GM food is still in its infancy. South Africa (70-80 percent of its maize, soya and cotton production), Egypt (maize) and Burkina Faso (cotton) are the only African countries commercially producing GM crops, according to ABNE.

Traditionally the USA has been the biggest donor in kind to the World Food Programme (WFP). But the aid agency is trying to broaden its source of food aid. In 2010, WFP said 36 percent of its food aid, or two million out of 5.7 million tons disbursed globally, was procured in developing countries.

While wheat accounts for more than 50 percent of WFP’s global cereal component, GM wheat does not figure as it is not grown commercially. According to data from 2006, at least 38 percent of cereal food aid to Africa was wheat and wheat flour, said Christopher Barrett, a food aid expert. Though wheat tends to be a less important part of the African diet than maize, aid agencies sometimes offer wheat instead of GM maize in emergencies.

Possible solutions

Milling the grain is an obvious solution, said Julia Steets, an aid policy expert at the Global Public Policy Institute. “Milling either at source or in the port of arrival or in the prepositioning warehouses – it would of course also help to know in advance which governments take what positions on that, so that the food aid agencies are prepared.”

The stance of recipient countries has to be respected. When a country prohibits GMO, sourcing alternative commodities and routes can “obviously impact delivery times and costs but those are the parameters in which we work,” said David Orr, WFP spokesman. “We always abide by the laws and regulations of recipient countries.”

If a country is not receptive to GM food – “give the country the money for procurement of the food from an African country with a surplus (local procurement is better than shipping food all the way from the US any way),” said Pinstrup-Andersen.

Food aid agencies in Africa usually turn to South Africa for surplus maize. The country has systems in place to segregate non-GM from GM, says Thom Jayne, professor of international development at Michigan State University.

Farmers in South Africa certify non-GM content by conducting a basic test, which detects specific proteins produced by a GM plant. The non-GM grain is separated from the rest before being shipped.

Another way of separating GM from non-GM crops involves contract-farming schemes first set up in 2004-2005. The process involves the purchaser identifying farmers who buy non-GM seed. Tests are conducted on their field for any traces of GM before they are offered a contract.

But all these measures involve extra costs.

Legislation

In 2001 the African Union drafted the African Biosafety Model Law but taking an even more cautious approach than the Protocol, allowing countries to adopt more stringent measures to assess the safety of GM food.

National biosafety laws exist in 17 of the 54 African countries. In most countries, the legislation is a work-in-progress.

Labelling and verifying the content of a crop on a day-to day basis is an outstanding issue. South Africa, the first country in Africa to put biosafety laws in place (in 1997), has yet to develop a labelling process.

More public education and debate around GM food needs to happen, said Pinstrup-Andersen. “Almost all GM-food varieties have been through stringent testing for health safety, which non-GM food has not undergone ever. People need to engage with the science and not the politics.”

jk/cb
source www.irinnews.org

By International Rivers, USA

Brazilian federal judge votes for indigenous rights; argues Belo Monte Dam violates Constitution and international conventions

Brasília, Brazil―In a landmark decision on Monday, a federal judge in Brazil voted that the environmental licensing of the controversial Belo Monte Dam is illegal given the lack of consultations with affected indigenous communities. The vote is the first step in a long-awaited decision by a federal circuit court regarding a lawsuit filed in 2006 by the Federal Public Prosecutors’ Office that could ultimately bring the case before Brazil’s Supreme Court.

In agreement with Public Prosecutors, federal judge and rapporteur Selene Maria de Almeida concluded that a 2005 legislative decree that authorized construction of Belo Monte is illegal because a consultation process with threatened indigenous communities―guaranteed under Article 231 of the Brazilian Constitution―was not previously carried out by Congress. According to her interpretation, Brazil’s Congress has a special responsibility to weigh the possible benefits of a development project such as Belo Monte against its negative consequences for indigenous peoples.

Almeida’s decision cited the need for Brazil to comply with its commitments to ILO Convention 169 and other international agreements that require free, prior and informed consent among indigenous peoples regarding projects that significantly affect their territories and livelihoods. Almeida’s decision spotlights a major gap between domestic and international legal frameworks regarding indigenous rights and their effective implementation within current practices of dam-planning and licensing in Brazil.

In Monday’s federal court hearing, Almeida’s decision discarded arguments by lawyers representing the Brazilian government that the Belo Monte Dam infrastructure and reservoirs would not be physically located on indigenous lands and, as a result, there was no need for consultations with indigenous peoples. Citing overwhelming evidence from official sources and independent researchers, Almeida concluded that the diversion of 80% of the Xingu River into artificial channels and reservoirs would have devastating impacts downriver for the Arara, Juruna and Xikrin Kayapó indigenous peoples, given inevitable losses to the tribes’ ability to catch fish, raise crops, and navigate freely. As such, prior consultations by the Brazilian Congress with indigenous communities are required before the dam project can be legally authorized.

Judge Almeida concluded that the Brazilian Congress should have also based its decision concerning authorization of Belo Monte on the conclusions of the project’s environmental impact assessment, including anthropological studies on its consequences for indigenous peoples.

Following Almeida’s initial vote, Judge Sebastião Fagundes de Deus interrupted the court hearing, requesting additional time to examine the lawsuit’s documentation. Critics believe the request by Fagundes de Deus, a conservative judge who previously worked as a lawyer with the parastatal energy company Eletronorte, may be seeking to transform the Belo Monte Dam project into a fait acccompli. It is likely that the final vote on the lawsuit will take in the next couple weeks. All signs indicate that no matter how the final votes fall, the case is headed to the Supreme Court. If Almeida’s decision is upheld, the Belo Monte project will be immediately suspended.

“The initial decision by Judge Almeida was a good start,” said Federal Prosecutor Felicio Pontes, co-author of the lawsuit. “She recognized that the licensing process of Belo Monte is invalid and that indigenous communities were not effectively consulted, despite the fact the project will have devastating impacts on their lands and livelihoods. Now it is important the judgment be reinitiated as quickly as possible.”

“I see this as a partial victory,” said Sheyla Juruna, a leader of one of the indigenous communities threatened by Belo Monte. “Now more than ever we need to pressure the government. What I fear most is that the next judgment will allow the government to avoid compliance with its highest laws that guarantee us our right to prior and informed consent. The final decision of this lawsuit will show to the Brazilian and international public whether the Brazilian government truly respects indigenous rights or not.”

End