While women play a critical role in the day-to-day operation of Canadian farms and the Canadian government have committed to achieving gender equality at all levels of decision making, there has been no explicit effort to identify farm women’s policy needs or their vision of an inclusive Canadian agricultural policy. This research project documents critical issues that rural women and girls believe need to be fully integrated into Canadian agricultural policy. In five regional workshops across Canada, during the winter of 2003-2004, farm women expressed deep connections with their farms and communities despite overwhelming social and economic pressures. Farm women established that the major stress in their lives and the lives of their families is the farm financial crisis created primarily by current government policy directions and corporatization of agriculture. Women confirmed that if these root causes of the financial crisis were solved, the quality of life in rural communities, and their health and environment would improve. Women’s vision for agricultural policy rests on four pillars: financial stability, domestic food policy, safe, healthy food and environment, and strengthening the social and community infrastructure. The agricultural policy that farm women envision is grounded in their daily life experiences. It responds to the needs of their families and their communities, and addresses social, cultural and environmental aspects of life and community, as well as economic well-being. To make those changes, women must be present at all levels of policy making, and their concerns and needs given equal weight to those of others. To address this need, the research outlines policy recommendations that will enhance the inclusion of farm women’s concerns, and their participation in developing Canadian agricultural policy.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Abstract of "Farm Women and Agricultural Policy"
by Carla Roppel, Annette Aurélie Desmarais and Diane Martz
While women play a critical role in the day-to-day operation of Canadian farms and the Canadian government have committed to achieving gender equality at all levels of decision making, there has been no explicit effort to identify farm women’s policy needs or their vision of an inclusive Canadian agricultural policy. This research project documents critical issues that rural women and girls believe need to be fully integrated into Canadian agricultural policy. In five regional workshops across Canada, during the winter of 2003-2004, farm women expressed deep connections with their farms and communities despite overwhelming social and economic pressures. Farm women established that the major stress in their lives and the lives of their families is the farm financial crisis created primarily by current government policy directions and corporatization of agriculture. Women confirmed that if these root causes of the financial crisis were solved, the quality of life in rural communities, and their health and environment would improve. Women’s vision for agricultural policy rests on four pillars: financial stability, domestic food policy, safe, healthy food and environment, and strengthening the social and community infrastructure. The agricultural policy that farm women envision is grounded in their daily life experiences. It responds to the needs of their families and their communities, and addresses social, cultural and environmental aspects of life and community, as well as economic well-being. To make those changes, women must be present at all levels of policy making, and their concerns and needs given equal weight to those of others. To address this need, the research outlines policy recommendations that will enhance the inclusion of farm women’s concerns, and their participation in developing Canadian agricultural policy.
While women play a critical role in the day-to-day operation of Canadian farms and the Canadian government have committed to achieving gender equality at all levels of decision making, there has been no explicit effort to identify farm women’s policy needs or their vision of an inclusive Canadian agricultural policy. This research project documents critical issues that rural women and girls believe need to be fully integrated into Canadian agricultural policy. In five regional workshops across Canada, during the winter of 2003-2004, farm women expressed deep connections with their farms and communities despite overwhelming social and economic pressures. Farm women established that the major stress in their lives and the lives of their families is the farm financial crisis created primarily by current government policy directions and corporatization of agriculture. Women confirmed that if these root causes of the financial crisis were solved, the quality of life in rural communities, and their health and environment would improve. Women’s vision for agricultural policy rests on four pillars: financial stability, domestic food policy, safe, healthy food and environment, and strengthening the social and community infrastructure. The agricultural policy that farm women envision is grounded in their daily life experiences. It responds to the needs of their families and their communities, and addresses social, cultural and environmental aspects of life and community, as well as economic well-being. To make those changes, women must be present at all levels of policy making, and their concerns and needs given equal weight to those of others. To address this need, the research outlines policy recommendations that will enhance the inclusion of farm women’s concerns, and their participation in developing Canadian agricultural policy.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Sunday, August 06, 2006
From Evangeline by Longfellow
Alike were they free from
Fear, that reigns with the tyrant, and envy, the vice of republics.
Neither locks had they to their doors, nor bars to their windows;
But their dwellings were open as day and the hearts of the owners;
There the richest was poor, and the poorest lived in abundance.
Fear, that reigns with the tyrant, and envy, the vice of republics.
Neither locks had they to their doors, nor bars to their windows;
But their dwellings were open as day and the hearts of the owners;
There the richest was poor, and the poorest lived in abundance.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Temagami Callout
Your comments are needed by August 28th, 2006. Several years ago, Earthroots lobbied for the initiation of a planning process related to Temagami’s unique recreational, cultural and ecological resources. This process addresses the present and future management of these values – such as motorized access, the canoe route network, park zoning, visitor management, etc. This process is now in the “Management Options” stage, and we need you to take a stand and send a strong message to the government. There is a current posting on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) and comments are being accepted until August 28th, 2006. To view the posting please visit: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envregistry/023198ep.htm. You will find a PDF version of the Management Options Workbook by visiting www.ontarioparks.com/english/tema_planning.html. Please fill this out and submit it to the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) by August 28th (be sure to include the EBR registry number PB04E2003 on the front of the document to ensure that your submission is officially counted). You can also visit www.earthroots.org and click on the “Take Action for Temagami” button where you will find a template letter that you can copy and paste into a new document. You will then have the option of personalizing your submission before signing it and sending it via fax or regular mail. Please consider: Motorized access (especially via ATV) has been steadily expanding in the Temagami backcountry and must be curtailed and regulated to protect the region’s unique features. A road has no place whatsoever in a Wilderness Class Provincial Park such as Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater. MNR is considering an option whereby the management of crown lands and conservation reserves is put into the hands of private contractors. Don’t allow our public lands and forests to be further privatized! If you have any questions or would like more information, please visit www.earthroots.org or contact victor@earthroots.org 416.599.0152x13. Make sure your comments are directed to both MNR and Earthroots:
Rick Calhoun, District Planner
MNR North Bay District
3301 Trout Lake Road
North Bay ON P1B 4L7
Phone: 705-475-5546
Fax: 705-475-5500
Victor Lorentz
Earthroots
401 Richmond St. W. Suite 410
Toronto ON M5V 3A8
Phone: 416-599-0152 x13
Fax: 416-340-2429
victor@earthroots.org
Rick Calhoun, District Planner
MNR North Bay District
3301 Trout Lake Road
North Bay ON P1B 4L7
Phone: 705-475-5546
Fax: 705-475-5500
Victor Lorentz
Earthroots
401 Richmond St. W. Suite 410
Toronto ON M5V 3A8
Phone: 416-599-0152 x13
Fax: 416-340-2429
victor@earthroots.org
Friday, August 04, 2006
Why genetic engineering is dangerous
by Pat Howard and Arne Hansen
“The Canadian GM risk assessment process is so simplistic that not a single submission has ever been rejected in Canada. Everything submitted, almost wholly by industry, has been accepted,” according to Ann Clark PhD [E. Ann Clark from the University of Guelph Department of Plant Agriculture] one of this country’s leading experts on the dangers of genetically modified organisms. “The Canadian GM regulatory process is a ruse, claiming to safeguard human and environmental health, but actually intended to facilitate commercialization of GM crops,” according to Dr. Clark. In a 2005 brief to Parliament regarding its controversial Bill C-27, Clark warned that if the federal government passes the pending Canadian Food Inspection Agency Enforcement Act, it will have voted to, “Facilitate international trade primarily by streamlining inspections, replacing Canadian assessment with those by foreign powers, and harmonizing regulations with the US and other countries, all of which challenge, rather than safeguard, the health and safety of Canadians.” Clark is an outspoken critic of Canada’s regulatory policies and the processes related to field trials and commercial production of genetically modified crops, whether modified to produce pesticides in every cell of the plant, to resist spraying by soil-sterilizing herbicides, or to produce proteins for medicinal or industrial uses. She provided expert advice to the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on Food Biotechnology in 2001. The panel, the most influential and respected group of scientists in the country, concluded that the “regulatory process was severely flawed,” despite the government’s claim that ours is the best regulatory system in the world. Beth Burrows, president and director of the Edmonds Institute, a public interest organization working on ecology, technology and social justice, tells us that “Genetic engineering increasingly means agribusiness and pharmaceuticals, two industries already important as sources of funding for science, higher education and those who run for office. Talking biosafety can mean putting one’s job and financial security at risk. “Even diplomats charged by their governments to discuss biosafety balk at doing so, perhaps because they are also charged to protect their countries’ industrial interests. The discussions that took place during the biosafety protocol negotiations begun in 1995 under the aegis of the UN Convention on Biodiversity were almost surreal in their avoidance of the topic [of bio-safety],” she stated recently. Burrows ought to know. She has spent more than a decade attending UN biodiversity meetings and continues to provide vital background information on biosafety issues to Third World [i.e., Majority World] delegates negotiating these international agreements. Beth Burrows is founder of the non-profit public interest think tank, the Edmonds Institute, a “group of smart, passionate people working flat-out for environmental and social justice.”
These critical remarks should be read in light of growing evidence of extremely serious impacts on health, environment and the livelihoods of Third World [er, Majority World] farmers. A European regulatory requirement for genetic safety testing, which is not required in Canada or the US, has revealed genetic instability in many GM crop varieties. Scientists are finding harmful impacts on soil micro-organisms, beneficial insects and laboratory animals exposed to genetically modified crops and GE food. Farmers in India are committing suicide by the hundreds in Andra Pradesh and other states because of GM crop failures. (www.navdanya.org/articles/seeds_suicide.htm)
“The Canadian GM risk assessment process is so simplistic that not a single submission has ever been rejected in Canada. Everything submitted, almost wholly by industry, has been accepted,” according to Ann Clark PhD [E. Ann Clark from the University of Guelph Department of Plant Agriculture] one of this country’s leading experts on the dangers of genetically modified organisms. “The Canadian GM regulatory process is a ruse, claiming to safeguard human and environmental health, but actually intended to facilitate commercialization of GM crops,” according to Dr. Clark. In a 2005 brief to Parliament regarding its controversial Bill C-27, Clark warned that if the federal government passes the pending Canadian Food Inspection Agency Enforcement Act, it will have voted to, “Facilitate international trade primarily by streamlining inspections, replacing Canadian assessment with those by foreign powers, and harmonizing regulations with the US and other countries, all of which challenge, rather than safeguard, the health and safety of Canadians.” Clark is an outspoken critic of Canada’s regulatory policies and the processes related to field trials and commercial production of genetically modified crops, whether modified to produce pesticides in every cell of the plant, to resist spraying by soil-sterilizing herbicides, or to produce proteins for medicinal or industrial uses. She provided expert advice to the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on Food Biotechnology in 2001. The panel, the most influential and respected group of scientists in the country, concluded that the “regulatory process was severely flawed,” despite the government’s claim that ours is the best regulatory system in the world. Beth Burrows, president and director of the Edmonds Institute, a public interest organization working on ecology, technology and social justice, tells us that “Genetic engineering increasingly means agribusiness and pharmaceuticals, two industries already important as sources of funding for science, higher education and those who run for office. Talking biosafety can mean putting one’s job and financial security at risk. “Even diplomats charged by their governments to discuss biosafety balk at doing so, perhaps because they are also charged to protect their countries’ industrial interests. The discussions that took place during the biosafety protocol negotiations begun in 1995 under the aegis of the UN Convention on Biodiversity were almost surreal in their avoidance of the topic [of bio-safety],” she stated recently. Burrows ought to know. She has spent more than a decade attending UN biodiversity meetings and continues to provide vital background information on biosafety issues to Third World [i.e., Majority World] delegates negotiating these international agreements. Beth Burrows is founder of the non-profit public interest think tank, the Edmonds Institute, a “group of smart, passionate people working flat-out for environmental and social justice.”
These critical remarks should be read in light of growing evidence of extremely serious impacts on health, environment and the livelihoods of Third World [er, Majority World] farmers. A European regulatory requirement for genetic safety testing, which is not required in Canada or the US, has revealed genetic instability in many GM crop varieties. Scientists are finding harmful impacts on soil micro-organisms, beneficial insects and laboratory animals exposed to genetically modified crops and GE food. Farmers in India are committing suicide by the hundreds in Andra Pradesh and other states because of GM crop failures. (www.navdanya.org/articles/seeds_suicide.htm)
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Wave of the future
[There are four technologies with which I (and you, perhaps) may address the climatological crises, and here's a story having to do with one of them.]
Serpentine solar boat to set sail
The boat cruises at four miles an hour. A shuttle boat powered entirely by the sun is to be launched on the Serpentine lake in London's Hyde Park. The 14.5m (48ft) Solarshuttle, thought to be the biggest of its kind in the UK, will carry 42 passengers between the north and south of the water. Cruising at 4mph, the boat - driven by two electric engines - is silent and pollution-free, say the makers. The Solarshuttle's launch comes amid a heatwave which has driven temperatures in London up to 32.7C (90.9F). When not in use and docked, any surplus electricity generated by the boat's solar panels will be fed back into the National Grid, they say. Designer Christoph Behling was also behind one of the world's largest solar boats, the Hamburg Solarshuttle, which now ferries passengers across the city's harbour.
His latest design will ferry park visitors every half-hour between the boat house on the north side of the Serpentine and the jetty in the south, near the Princess of Wales memorial fountain. Mr Behling's family and friends will be aboard the Solarshuttle for its maiden voyage on Tuesday while members of the public will have to wait until Saturday for their turn.
Serpentine solar boat to set sail
The boat cruises at four miles an hour. A shuttle boat powered entirely by the sun is to be launched on the Serpentine lake in London's Hyde Park. The 14.5m (48ft) Solarshuttle, thought to be the biggest of its kind in the UK, will carry 42 passengers between the north and south of the water. Cruising at 4mph, the boat - driven by two electric engines - is silent and pollution-free, say the makers. The Solarshuttle's launch comes amid a heatwave which has driven temperatures in London up to 32.7C (90.9F). When not in use and docked, any surplus electricity generated by the boat's solar panels will be fed back into the National Grid, they say. Designer Christoph Behling was also behind one of the world's largest solar boats, the Hamburg Solarshuttle, which now ferries passengers across the city's harbour.
His latest design will ferry park visitors every half-hour between the boat house on the north side of the Serpentine and the jetty in the south, near the Princess of Wales memorial fountain. Mr Behling's family and friends will be aboard the Solarshuttle for its maiden voyage on Tuesday while members of the public will have to wait until Saturday for their turn.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Civil society > civil + society
Civil society refers to the totality of voluntary civic and social organizations and institutions that form the basis of a functioning society as opposed to the force-backed structures of a state (regardless of that state's political system) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society).
Alternatively, civil society refers to the set of institutions, organisations and behaviour situated between the state, the business world, and the family. Specifically, this includes voluntary and non-profit organisations of many different kinds, philanthropic institutions, social and political movements, other forms of social participation and engagement and the values and cultural patterns associated with them (http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/what_is_civil_society.htm).
1594 Richard Hooker Of the lawes of ecclesiasticall politie Book I. §10 (R.) "Ciuill Society doth more content the nature of man then any priuate kind of solitary liuing."
1770 John Jortin Sermons on different subjects VII. i. 14
"Since then infants are subjects of the State and members of civil society."
Alternatively, civil society refers to the set of institutions, organisations and behaviour situated between the state, the business world, and the family. Specifically, this includes voluntary and non-profit organisations of many different kinds, philanthropic institutions, social and political movements, other forms of social participation and engagement and the values and cultural patterns associated with them (http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/what_is_civil_society.htm).
1594 Richard Hooker Of the lawes of ecclesiasticall politie Book I. §10 (R.) "Ciuill Society doth more content the nature of man then any priuate kind of solitary liuing."
1770 John Jortin Sermons on different subjects VII. i. 14
"Since then infants are subjects of the State and members of civil society."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)