I just found out about this:
http://www.feedthefuture.gov/model/realizing-new-vision-agriculture
The World Economic Forum's Realizing a New Vision for Agriculture initiative addresses the major challenges of global food and agricultural sustainability based on a vision of agriculture as a positive contributor to food security, environmental sustainability and economic opportunity.
To advance progress toward that vision, the roadmap (see PDF link below) outlines a framework for action to implement business-led and market-based solutions that are explicitly linked to national development priorities.
This initiative directly aligns with the United States' renewed commitment
to agriculture-led development. We proudly support its vision and commit to being a leader in creating synergies between public and private partners to meet the global food security challenge. We also applaud the global companies who are champions of the New Vision Roadmap.
The initiative is led by 17 global companies that are industry partners of the World Economic Forum: Archer Daniels Midland, BASF, Bunge, Cargill, The Coca-Cola Company, DuPont, General Mills, Kraft Foods, Metro, Monsanto Company, Nestlé, PepsiCo, SABMiller, Syngenta, Unilever, Walmart Stores, and Yara International. (bold highlighting is mine)
Surely all of these for-profit conglomerates have not all of a sudden turned all warm & fuzzy and altruistic...or am I just being cynical?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Additionally (and my apologies if this seems scattered and all over the place here...) I ran across these "Controversies & Criticism" about the USAID program as per wiki:
Controversies and criticism
USAID states that "U.S. foreign assistance has always had the twofold purpose of furthering America's foreign policy interests in expanding democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the citizens of the developing world." However, non-government organization watch groups have noted that as much as 40% of aid to Afghanistan has found its way back to donor countries through awarding contracts at inflated costs.[44]
Although USAID officially selects contractors on a competitive and objective basis, watch dog groups, politicians, foreign governments and corporations have occasionally accused the agency of allowing its bidding process to be unduly influenced by the political and financial interests of its current Presidential administration. Under the Bush administration, for instance, it emerged that all five implementing partners selected to bid on a $600 million Iraq reconstruction contract enjoyed close ties to the administration.[45][46]
Some critics[47][48][49][50] say that the US government gives aid to reward political and military partners rather than to advance genuine social or humanitarian causes abroad. Another complaint[51] is that foreign aid is used as a political weapon for the U.S. to elicit desired actions from other nations, an example given in 1990 when the Yemeni Ambassador to the United Nations, Abdullah Saleh al-Ashtal, voted against a resolution for a US-led coalition to use force against Iraq, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Thomas Pickering walked to the seat of the Yemeni Ambassador and retorted: "That was the most expensive No vote you ever cast". Immediately afterwards, USAID ceased operations and funding in Yemen.[52]
William Blum has said that in the 1960s and early 1970s USAID has maintained "a close working relationship with the CIA, and Agency officers often operated abroad under USAID cover."[53] The 1960s-era Office of Public Safety, a now-disbanded division of USAID, has been mentioned as an example of this, having served as a front for training foreign police in counterinsurgency methods.[54]
more at the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development (bottom of the page)
= new reply since forum marked as read
