close
DW Documentary
China has headed the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) since 2019. During this time, the country has restructured the organization’s personnel. Critics complain that China is advancing its own interests, using the UN's largest specialized agency. The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), headquartered in Rome, is responsible for food and agriculture worldwide. It is the UN's largest specialized agency. It collects data on the agricultural sector and develops projects to help people access better nutrition - something that is more important than ever, with climate change and the growing world population. Qu Dongyu, from China, has been Director-General of the FAO since 2019. After taking office, he restructured the organization. He appointed Chinese directors to central departments. Before Qu's election, two director positions were occupied by Chinese nationals. Now, that number is six. One of these directors is responsible for crop protection - which includes the handling of pesticides. A research team was able to view internal documents that show that dozens of shipments of problematic pesticides to countries in Asia and Africa have been approved since 2020. Approvals were granted not only for insecticides used in emergencies -- for example, to combat a locust plague -- but for herbicides and fungicides, as well. These are used against weeds and fungal infestations. Many of the pesticides approved for delivery by the FAO contain active ingredients that are no longer allowed in the EU due to their toxicity. When asked, the FAO replied that it does not supply pesticides that qualify as ‘highly hazardous’ and only sends those that are approved in the recipient country. But the FAO left questions about specific pesticide approvals unanswered. An insider who has worked at the FAO for many years also made serious accusations against the Chinese leadership, claiming that it was instrumentalizing the UN organization for geopolitical purposes. Further research shed light on the role of Chinese officers in the FAO. These Chinese nationals are employed by the FAO -- but their salaries are paid by China. Other countries also pay officers from their home countries. However, the regime in Beijing puts a premium on "political ideology" - as Chinese tender documents show. According to these documents, the officers must regularly report on their work at the FAO to the Chinese embassy in Rome. And none of this is set to change anytime soon: in July 2023, Qu Dongyu was re-elected as Director-General for another four years.
It started as just a cloud. Then the sky grew dark. They had arrived.
Between 2019 and 2021 billions of locusts spread in great waves
over parts of Africa, very quickly eating the fields bare.
The farmers tried everything they could to save their crops.
Then came insecticides from, among others, a UN organisation.
They helped to subdue the plague.
But we have learned that the same UN organisation approved the delivery of other chemicals to Africa.
Pesticides not to be used for combating locusts or other natural disasters.
Did you see this during your term? No, no, no! This is absolutely shocking!
We are seeing a huge number of cases, resulting from pesticide use.
In the past 3 years, we have had one quarter of our cases die.
This film shows how the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation has changed.
How do we know? An insider has given us the details.
I believe that China is using the organisation for its own purposes.
For me, that was the lowest point.
Months of research took us to 4 continents, to countries like Panama, Laos, Malawi and Zambia.
The story begins in Rome at the FAO, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation.
An employee wanted to expose how the organisation was increasingly serving the interests of one of its member states: China.
After much disscussion, the whistleblower agreed to meet with us - on condition of anonymity.
This is why we did not film them at home, but at another location. We wondered if they would really come to this meeting.
What have they written? Just that they are on their way. Speaking with us meant they were risking their job.
I hope they still want to do this. And then they arrived.
To protect them, we’re having a voice actor repeat what they told us. Why are you speaking with us?
A lot has changed in the last 4 years. I believe that China is using the organisation for its own purposes.
Mainly for geopolitical purposes and interests.
The FAO has several core mandates, but first and foremost it combats hunger.
To this end it carries out analyses for efficient and sustainable agriculture.
It develops crop protection and food quality standards,
as well as agriculture and nutrition strategies. The organisation primarily advises countries in the Global South.
I first started working for the FAO because I wanted to play a positive role in aiding development and cooperation.
I’ve always been very interested in agriculture, but also in nutrition and food policy,
and thought I could contribute a little to improving the global situation.
The insider is one of 3,000 FAO employees, part of one of the largest specialized United Nation agencies
comprising 194 nations and the European Union, with its funding coming from member states.
A considerable share comes from Germany, who contributed more than 100 million dollars in 2021 alone.
This makes Germany one of the largest donor countries.
Our insider has had concerns for some time.
I’ve had this sense from the first day Qu arrived. Something didn’t feel right, which added up over time
until it all didn’t make sense any more. Something here is definitely off.
Qu Dongyu is the current Director-General of the FAO and the main character in this story.
He began his career in Beijing’s Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in the 80s.
In 2015, he became Deputy Minister of Agriculture in the Chinese government.
In 2019, China nominated Qu for the post of Director-General of the FAO,
and he was elected to the position by delegates from its member states. Julia Klöckner represented Germany at the time.
Briefly, why is the FAO relevant at all as a global player?
Why? Because food, nutrition is what we need most in life. That is what the FAO is about and why it is internationally relevant.
In Spring 2019 there were 5 candidates in the running for the post of Director-General of the FAO
- from China, India, Cameroon, Georgia and France.
Then the candidates from Cameroon and India withdrew from the race.
Just prior to the election, China had forgiven nearly 80 million dollars of Cameroon’s debt.
June 22, 2019. One day before the election. Julia Klöckner was there.
And then there was this rather bizarre situation in Rome. Why? Because it was so clear who the favorite had to be:
The French candidate! Three candidates were left:
Those from France, Georgia, and Qu Dongyu from China.
During the Chinese candidate's presentation I came to the conclusion that either he didn’t care about winning
or he didn’t expect to win. Or that it would be decided behind the scenes.
I get the feeling we Europeans only dimly recognized later on
that we had been playing by different rules.
Some delegates were uneasy. Julia Klöckner remembers:
It became clear how much money had been spent in the run-up to the trip,
what great trips had been provided for the ambassadors and their families. And they didn’t fly Economy.
Other rumors also made the rounds.
Before the vote, it came out that African countries in particular
had been politely asked to take photos of their ballots in the voting booth.
As a result, telephones were banned from the voting booths.
The FAO member states voted, and the ballots were counted after the first round.
Qu Dongyu, China!
China garnered 108 votes. Qu became Director-General of the FAO.
I am very grateful to my motherland, as I would not be who I am
without her 40 years of successful reform and open-door policy.
For me, that was the lowest point. The organisation seemed important to China. But why?
We asked Mareike Ohlberg, an expert on Chinese foreign policy.
Why is China interested in the FAO?
First and foremost, food supply is central to the Chinese government's domestic security.
China itself has known very, very severe famine first-hand.
In the 1950s and 60s, China experienced one of the worst famines in history.
Millions of citizens died. The Chinese government has prioritized food security ever since.
The government provided economically for the people and in return were able to stay in power. They ensured an economic upturn, that the people thrived,
that children were better off than their parents. That was all part of the deal.
And our whistle-blower thinks the Chinese government is using the FAO for this too.
Countries are not actually allowed to decide exactly what money should be spent on, or in which country.
But in China’s case, this is different for certain projects.
The Chinese Ministry of Agriculture gives direct instructions for both project planning and implementation.
If you ask colleagues or superiors about it, they say that’s just how it is in China.
Is this true? During our research we came across a project on the FAO website. In northern Laos, 40,000 head of cattle
were to be vaccinated before they could be exported to China.
The program was financed by the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture.
We were sent data from the FAO and spent months analyzing it.
We found the cattle vaccination project in Laos with an interesting note:
The project "is in keeping with the One Belt One Road initiative",
that is, the New Silk Road. China’s massive initiative launched in 2013.
The aim is to realign international relations, trade routes and connectivity. And ultimately to reshape the world
so that China occupies a more central and more powerful position.
The most important countries are those surrounding China, because it has to go through them. If it can't go through them, China will face a major obstacle.
Thanks to a major Belt and Road project, tiny Laos is now connected with China via the new railroad line
built by its neighbor. Opened in 2021, it takes just under 4 hours
to get from the capital Vientiane to the Chinese border, some 400 kilometers away.
The new rail connection allows the simple transport, not only of people, but also grain, raw materials or cattle
from neighboring countries into China. But the rail line was expensive.
Laos is now deeply in debt to China and is on the verge of national bankruptcy.
Meanwhile, China is aggressively promoting the rail line.
China is trying to expand its influence in the world, including within UN organisations.
The data contained information on specific people in the FAO.
At work we’ve nicknamed them spies.
That officers are paid by the respective FAO member states is not unusual in itself.
But there was something striking about the Chinese officers.
Some are paid by what is known as the "China Scholarship Council". We looked at the website and found a job posting for the FAO.
It said that the political ideology of applicants was "strictly monitored".
Applicants had to undergo further training in "patriotic values".
And had to report regularly to the Chinese embassy.
The primary loyalty is owed to the Chinese state, and that takes precedence over all other obligations
or all other loyalties that you might possibly have.
French economist Jean-Jaques Gabas has long been observing the FAO.
He points to another group of people.
There is the FAO staff, which is funded through the FAO funds from the national budgets, and then there are all the consultants involved,
and many observers, and they’re not really recorded as such. It's not transparent at all.
And a lot of these consultants are, or were, Chinese consultants
or Chinese interns and so on. And all these consultants are building up knowledge, collecting information,
compiling analyses and so they are de facto influencing the discourses
that are taking place. And something else struck us.
This is the organisation chart with Qu at the top.
Qu and his deputies are at the top of the organisation chart, with the directors immediately below.
The 2 Chinese directors at the time of Qu’s election had grown to 6.
One newly-appointed director, Xia Jingyuan, had joined the Chinese government in 2001.
Since 2021, he has led the FAO department responsible for pesticides.
We drove to Bern, Switzerland to meet with Xia’s predecessor, Hans Dreyer,
who now works in public administration.
We showed him documents and data from the FAO.
This is unbelievable! It’s almost beyond comprehension.
These are dangerous substances. These chemicals are really toxic, not just for the environment but to humans too!
Did you see this during your term? No, no, no! Some chemicals were certainly used in my time,
but none that were so dangerous. But this is shocking.
This is absolutely shocking!
The documents showed more than 300 individual pesticide shipments.
According to our analysis, the FAO headquarters in Rome issued permits for these shipments between 2020 and 2023,
to use these pesticides as part of FAO projects in countries of the Global South.
Thiamethoxam, imidacloprid, chlorpyrifos, malathion
- these insecticides have been used to combat locust infestations.
But the data also lists substances that are not used against locusts,
rather pesticides used in everyday agricultural work.
And these herbicides: acetochlor, atrazine, paraquat. These weed killers are all very toxic and have all been banned in the EU.
Thiram is the most frequently delivered substance. It's a fungicide that has also been banned in the EU.
Thiram has been banned in Europe, but the FAO approved its delivery
to numerous countries in the Global South. Most shipments have gone to Africa.
During my term, we conscientiously tried to keep the risks as small as possible.
And to keep the use of such substances to an absolute minimum. But this is really astonishing.
We also showed the data analysis to pesticide expert Keith Tyrell, who sits on several FAO committees.
These chemicals are dangerous! They should not be being used by smallholder farmers in the Global South
with limited training, limited access to personal protective equipment, limited oversight, and, let’s face it - limited access to healthcare as well.
So, I’m quite shocked to see an organisation like FAO
promoting these dangerous chemicals in farming systems.
The industry often argues that the pesticides are not dangerous if the prescribed protective measures are in place.
But in Africa, this is often precisely the problem.
Zambia. In mid-June we met with small farm owners.
To protect their cabbages from insects, they mix up a pesticide cocktail.
At least they wear rubber boots - though not always when it's 35 degrees celsius in the fields.
We learned that many of them don't even understand the safety instructions.
When it comes to the issue of poisoning, yes, we’ve had experiences about poisoning.
Because if we didn’t take the right measures, definitely you have some challenges with the chemicals.
Pesticide poisoning is a major problem in Africa. We traveled to a hospital in Lilongwe in neighboring Malawi.
Head physician Patrick Chisepo described his experiences.
As a hospital we are seeing a huge number of cases resulting from pesticide use.
In the past 3 years, we have had one quarter of our cases die.
Many here are threatened by pesticide poisoning: More than half of the population in Zambia and Malawi work in agriculture.
We went into one of the pesticide shops that appear on every street corner.
Much of what is for sale here - paraquat, for example - is banned in the EU for being too toxic.
So the fact that the FAO approves pesticides like paraquat as part of its own projects is surprising.
The idea that FAO is delivering paraquat is beyond comprehension.
There is no excuse for the FAO to be providing paraquat to smallholder farming systems, where levels of poisoning are 40% plus!
A study published in 2020 found around 1.6 million cases
of pesticide poisoning per year in Europe and 8 million in South America.
But in Africa there were 115 million per year, even though significantly fewer pesticides are used on this continent
than in other parts of the world.
Why does the FAO approve the use of pesticides that are banned in Europe due to their toxicity for its own on-site projects?
Especially when it stresses its commitment to a special program aiming to move away from dependence on pesticides.
The FAO left all our questions about specific pesticides unanswered.
But we found a possible explanation.
New York in September 2019, Qu had just taken office.
On the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, the Director-General held a breakfast meeting with representatives
from major food and agricultural companies.
Here, Qu presented his new program called the Hand-In-Hand Initiative.
Hand-In-Hand is Qu Dongyu’s central initiative, and matchmaking is its most important element.
That is, connecting partners with developing countries.
The FAO’s Hand-In-Hand initiative has the stated aim of helping countries in the global South to develop project investment plans.
And supplies the countries with a platform to search for potential investors.
According to UN expert Max-Otto Baumann, this approach clearly bears Chinese hallmarks.
This mutual benefit is a very interesting central principle of Chinese foreign and development policy.
So development aid is not an obligation, but a mutual benefit calculation, where both sides benefit
- the recipient and the investor. In October 2022, the FAO hosted an investment forum in Rome.
Welcome to the first Hand-in-Hand investment forum.
This is a dream come true. This is something that the Director General of FAO started since the first day he arrived at FAO.
The Hand-In-Hand initiative had become one of Director General Qu’s most important projects.
Thank you, Maximo. Hand-in-Hand supports the implementation
of a national lead and nationally- owned ambitious programs
to accelerate the food systems transformation, by eradicating poverty - SDG 1, ending hunger and malnutrition - SDG 2,
and reducing inequalities. During this event, several countries presented potential investment projects,
among them São Tomé and Príncipe, a small island nation off the west African coast.
We looked at their project, involving the fishing industry, new ports and tourism, for which the FAO could match up potential investors
with the government. But we realized that it could also concern completely different interests.
We decided to take a look.
The Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe is a lush island-nation far removed from the tourist hustle-and-bustle.
But the small west African archipelago is one of the world’s poorest countries and is heavily in debt.
We accompanied a group of FAO employees to a remote fishing village.
They were there to take inventory - to count and measure boats for their eventual replacement
The fishers were just returning from 10 hours at sea in wooden boats like these.
We were curious to see what they had brought in.
The catch was meagre - yet again.
It was better just a few years ago. There were more fish then, but now they’re gone.
Big companies from Europe and Asia come close to the coast here with their big nets. They’re fishing everything out.
This is where the FAO-supported investment project comes in. In the future, the fishermen would be provided with modern fiberglass boats
that could be equipped with motors, allowing them to go further out to sea.
This is where the investors would come into play.
In addition to fishing, the investment paper also contained a completely different idea
for advancing São Tomé and Príncipe. It referred to this commercial from the 1980s:
According to the FAO investment paper, this type of branding could be used to attract investors for tourism.
We drove to the sleepy port town of Neves. According to the investment plan, 1 of 4 new ports was to be built here, including a cruise ship wharf.
If investors could be found. The local residents were skeptical.
There are great plans, but then nothing ever happens. They make big promises that they don't keep.
They’re quick to sign contracts, but then nothing comes of it.
We ordinary people can try as hard as we like, but in the end we end up with nothing.
No one here really believes cruise ships will bring droves of tourists to the island in the foreseeable future.
So who will ultimately benefit from the new ports?
The topic of building ports on São Tomé and Principe is not new for the people here:
In 2015, China announced a new deep-sea port construction project at a cost of 800 million US dollars.
A year later, São Tomé und Príncipe cut its diplomatic relations with Taiwan and established relations with China.
China’s traces are everywhere. At the end of 2021,
São Tomé and Principe joined the Chinese Belt and Road. A glance at the map shows why the small island nation
is so attractive for China. It lies in a region where China’s influence is still relatively slight.
The Belt and Road project does not consider - not directly at least -
the Atlantic. The Atlantic is quite separated from the Belt and Road. Political analyst Gustavo Plácido dos Santos
focuses on Portuguese-speaking countries in Africa. He is carefully watching China’s strategic interest
in nations like São Tomé and Príncipe. He believes the FAO investment paper
is actually about something else entirely. This FAO project, where they have five or six chapters like infrastructure,
foods, fisheries as well included, it resembles a Belt and Road,
an internationally sponsored belt route through which they can channel influence and resources
to projects that can actually benefit China’s global logistics ambitions.
Is the Hand-In-Hand initiative not only concerned with improving the lives of the people on São Tomé and Príncipe?
Is China really exploiting the FAO for its own geo-strategic interests?
Now we’re at the Panama Canal, one of the world’s most important trade routes.
China is its second-largest client after the US.
Here, too, a project idea has been floated that could benefit Chinese interests.
The FAO is looking for investors for a “Panama Food Hub” initiative here:
Grain from Brazil, for example, could be stored here temporarily before being shipped onward to Asia.
China has been investing along the Panama Canal for years. But according to Latin America expert Evan Ellis,
others are leading the way internationally in agricultural product shipping.
The Panama Canal has really never been used as an agricultural distribution hub. It has been used for ships that are carrying agricultural goods
that need to transit from Atlantic ports like those of Brazil and Argentina to Pacific destinations like China.
But the magic of this proposal from a Chinese strategic perspective is it leverages a United Nations organisation
and the government of Panama to create something that would give the Chinese an advantage that they could not get directly in the market
through competition or acquisitions. The experts agree that the FAO’s Hand-In-Hand initiative
could become a driving force behind China’s Belt and Road project.
And there's more. Back in 2020, Qu was already one year into his position at the FAO.
The woman next to him is the then CEO of CropLife International, the largest agrochemical industry interest group,
with members including Bayer and BASF.
The document in the photo shows the new partnership that has just been concluded between FAO and CropLife.
CropLife International has been striving for some time to negotiate a partnership agreement with the FAO.
That was true in my time as well, when they made another effort to get such a partnership agreement going.
But that was an absolute no-go in my day!
The Chairman of the Board of Directors of CropLife is here on the left:
Erik Fyrwald, head of the Chinese state-owned Syngenta agrochemical group.
In the same year, the FAO entered into another partnership with Syngenta itself.
For individual crop protection companies, that was completely unthinkable!
A partnership with Syngenta? Back then that would have been impossible.
Allan Hruska was the FAO official responsible for crop protection in Latin America and the Caribbean for many years.
We asked him what these agreements mean for a UN organisation like the FAO.
So no longer are we in a spot where we can discuss with member countries human health hazards of pesticides, and with the companies,
and play this role of a neutral broker. That is so important for FAO, for the UN, to play.
Now this partnership with CropLife and FAO destroys that completely. Because now, there we are - there is the Director-General smiling
with the head of CropLlife, saying we’re in this strategic partnership together, and we are moving forward together.
Well, to me that sends just the wrong image and message to everybody
that FAO is no longer an honest, neutral broker.
As we went through pesticide shipment data that could be traced to specific companies, one firm stood out:
The Chinese state-owned Syngenta.
How could the FAO change its course on pesticides so drastically?
The frequent answer is that the US also wants more corporate influence.
I think that’s the space that the US and China agreed to within the FAO:
That we can work together because we have common interests here. We asked the FAO for a statement.
Regarding the partnership with CropLife, we were told that there were no legal, financial or other obligations,
and that the FAO is currently reviewing all existing partnerships.
As for pesticide shipments, we were told only that the active ingredients must be approved in the recipient country.
In certain cases, safer alternatives were being explored. We would have liked to interview Qu Dongyu or a representative,
but we were refused. Many of our questions remain unanswered.
To finish, we have a letter with us,
perhaps you could open it and say what comes to mind. About what it is inside?
Yes, about what is written. Thank you. Okay an Experiment!
The next FAO Director-General will be elected starting July 1.
In your opinion, what will happen? China will stay in the driver’s seat.
It isn’t probable, it’s certain. ...Because there are no other candidates. In Spring 2023, 3 candidates were in the running for the next election.
Then the candidates from Tajikistan and Iraq mysteriously withdrew.
And Qu Dongyu was in fact elected for a second term.
For me personally, it is a bitter disappointment that the European Union, even in cooperation with the US, did not manage to put forward
a candidate for the new election. That is incomprehensible to me.
Our request for an interview was refused by the German Ministry of Agriculture.
We were told in writing that any instrumentalization of the FAO for unilateral interests is unacceptable. So what happens now?
What happens now depends on how other countries position themselves. How much they show that FAO policy is important to them
and that they won’t just look away.
If you look at what has happened and what could happen, there could well be an intensification of Chinese influence.
全站熱搜
留言列表
