Again, the circumstances and confusion leading to some media, forces us to speak out in relation to legal proceedings against the spraying carried out in the Municipality of San Jorge, Province of Santa Fe in that locality, through an injunction, the judge ruled in February Tristan Martinez This year, the prohibition of spraying in fields owned by two soybean, identified in the resolution and Mr. Gaillard and Facino Durando, a distance of less than 800 meters for ground spraying and 1,500 meters for aerial spraying to have these measures from the edge of the urban area (Barrio Urquiza), as read from the statement of Judge. To be clear then, the sentence reaches only to the fields of the said property and the distance indicated, as requested by the covered, not as some suppose, the whole radius of the city or the Barrio San Jorge Urquiza.
We have already stated above as the Rural Reflection Group our position on certain actions that focus the fight on partial situations and engage in a short production model of soybean production, established in Argentina since the mid-90's. In July 2009 we expressed it to the judges: "Will justice in Argentina, its perceptual system healthy enough to realize that vague or incomplete evidence should trigger the precautionary principle? If this does not happen, without wishing to create a "collective psychosis", it is time that judges of the Court, together with all citizens of the country from Argentina, begin to ask how much poison we are determined to carry on blood? Of course our answer as GRR is anything at all ... "
Now, faced with certain expectations among some committed journalism and environmental activism for the failure of San Jorge, we have to remember that it is necessary to persist in the need real change in the soybean production model, while reflecting on how little actions that benefit us as San Jorge. Also clarified that with the exception of these considerations to local victims who chose to defend against attacks, sectors with whom we sympathize, both victims of San Jorge, as with all other Argentine families, throughout the territory of the Soybean, suffer daily the same conditions and we support their just claims as possible away from their homes, agricultural landline. Further still, we risk to express that, so we would understand that at some time these victims appealed to the extreme position to take justice into their own hands, as the impunity with which soy have been moved so far and despite countless protests, has been scandalous.
We must remember that several years ago we did get a report to the highest officials of the Republic and members of the Supreme Court, in which we finished by saying: "Industrial farming of soybeans is synonymous with clearing, land degradation, widespread pollution, environmental degradation, destruction of biodiversity and expulsion of rural populations. However, there may be even more dire consequences. We have discovered from the case of mothers in the neighborhood Ituzaingó the evidence needed to confirm an operative extensive pollution over thousands of small and medium towns in Argentina. It is setting up a health catastrophe of such magnitude, that motivates us to imagine a policy-driven genocide of large corporations and only the huge interests at stake and the astonishing ignorance of the political class manage to keep muted. Cancer has become a massive and widespread epidemic in hundreds of locations in Argentina and the head is without doubt the rural model. "
Specifically, we consider absolutely positive that the victims to defend themselves in how they can best , and we are pleased by the Peralta family, to whom we express our respect and support for defending against attacks, but as GRR can not at once, leaving to think and fight for all those who live beyond the 1,500 meters and denounce the consequences that such actions would if installed as policies or objectives more or less exclusive of struggles on the part of organizations. And we say this at a time when some social organizations picketing, have dared to put into words an alleged right that many others share but dare not express: we refer to the alleged right to live in the city. What better service could make to corporations and soy groups with the flag, when they need a deserted field to extend beyond 1500 meters ensures the failure of San Jorge, their industrial farming systems with pesticides?
We must say also that we support either partial struggles, field by field, and fragment minimizing struggles amid a sea of \u200b\u200bsoybeans more than 20 million hectares, unless those struggles are like in many localities, the point defenses by the victims themselves, in defense of their lives, but never as proposed actions or policies to flourish. Think we should not give battle to "control the fumigations," otherwise we would not ever coined the slogan "Stop the Spraying", which actually provided a thorough critique locked to a model, rather we have become more comfortable as a slogan "fumigating away from the city or leave to spray us," and this is not a simple irony, this is not to legitimize our actions the plans of the Corporation. Pretender
install this type of action in defense of the city and as political strife is nonsense showing that they are designed and diagrammed in the best case, for urbanites citizens, citizens who do not know about rural life or the Argentina's own history. Follow this road condemns us to stop fighting to repopulate the field or trying to keep the traditions of our peoples, mestizos, in short, to desist from changing the future of our America and the objective of achieving food sovereignty. Even more so, we can state that these actions can not even be real opposition to the policies of the Governor of Santa Fe, Hermes Binner, who said repeatedly that "you have to demystify the issues of this toxic product" and that glyphosate "Used properly, regulated according to what you want to perform, is a product that can coexist perfectly with the wise use and protection of health" .. "We must see clearly what is the benefit and the harm it causes, and the least harm to health to justify not using the greatest economic benefit that can produce the product ... "In fact, trying to continue the thread of thought socialist governor of Santa Fe, imagine that the non-application of pesticides within the range of 1,500 meters, it could be presented as a "responsible" or "rational" in the spraying to be carried out in mentioned fields of St George. After being sprayed, yes, but at 1,500 meters in the cities, simulation in which the soybean production could perhaps become certified as "responsible" ..
This rotates the wheel of agribusiness model in Argentina and worldwide. The depopulation of the countryside, an agriculture without farmers and the abolition of rural life, they continue to deepen and as if that were little, it legitimizes the concentration of population. Against the model of rural exclusion, perhaps back off, protecting us in the cities and surrounding areas where we can no longer be producers and creators of our own lives, but consumers only for dependence and the vicissitudes of global markets? Perhaps with resignation we see as the companies and the markets decide what is produced where once grew our vegetables and grazed our animals? "We will fight for urbanization of slums and" the right to live in the city "now increasingly favelizada or slum, and increasing poverty belts?
What we can see daily and for years is that those expelled from their land, social organizations are ready to treat them as if they had always been urban consumers. Assigned as a few square meters housing and an allowance. and passed from the time the new cords to swell suburban poverty. The story itself left behind, they are not farmers, they are not indigenous, they cease to be rural workers or residents of small towns are now just a blank slate on which others rewrite their own history, having to learn a new role as consumers and asistencializados, while treated as a peripheral urban ill, dominated by bands or governed directly by the drug.
If the struggles that compromise our actions were all like that of San Jorge, we run the risk that we cover the forest tree. How can we disarm the colonialism that means the production model, and in which we are immersed to the neck? Is it possible to change a system from this type of bias involving the double reading of regularizing the model while standing? We address these challenges, we must continue to raise from the organizations, where is that we must direct our actions. Be aware that, ahead, and E3N this way, we trap that is planted soybean certified agreements as officers of the Responsible Soy table that in addition to soy, feel social and environmental NGOs, or perhaps in a policy niche certified organic crops by the same corporations, like Cargill, keep the Argentina dependent on global markets.
On the contrary, it is ultimately for the GRR, install a new thought. Our struggles have been framed in a global context, not simply to justify incessant battles that lead to dead ends as we suggest some NGOs such as WWF, who play unmasked for globalization. Go after decontamination of a river, is justified from local struggles and not when we are aware, are increasingly Again, the water that become contaminated. The same when we propose the struggle for the preservation of the puma, or the Southern Right Whale, while we know that industrial civilization has led to a frightening global extinction of biodiversity, in that year we lose more than 200 species. Something similar happens if I will fight to achieve social plans for those who arrive daily driven from their land and their livelihoods. We refuse to refute each of the theses of the agribusiness company, we do not go on and on playing the game that is being proposed, it is not soy teach where they can spray and where not, we can not believe that the battle is against Glyphosate specifically or worse yet, is to get his reclassification in the SENASA. In fact, nothing to distinguish these struggles that we propose from space "environmentalists" of what is usually called "Good Agricultural Practices" and are not the way it shifts responsibility to the producer and is legitimized current model and the use of pesticides.
The reality is that while the global level we must fight with sister organizations who oppose the policies of the Bureau of the Responsible Soy, by considering new green makeup, locally we are faced with the delivery of our territories as in the case of Black River in China, or the Chaco with Saudi Arabia and Qatar. If today we go home happy because we got to 1,500 meters in the urban area not spray, we should at least get up tomorrow to think how we will make this devastating soybean production model is reversed and they can return to his homeland the millions of displaced persons, restrained by the handouts, living in the poverty belts of large cities.
GRR Grupo de Reflexión Rural
March 16, 2011
0 comments:
Post a Comment