> >http://news2.thls.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith%5F2000/lecture5.s tm > > ======================== >> BBC REITH LECTURE: POVERTY AND GLOBALISATION > <>snip> VANDANA SHIVA > >> Recently, I was visiting Bhatinda in Punjab because of an epidemic of > farmer suicides. Punjab used to be the most prosperous agricultural region> in India. Today every farmer is in debt and despair. Vast stretches of > land have become water-logged desert. And as an old farmer pointed out, > even the trees have stopped bearing fruit because heavy use of pesticides > have killed the pollinators - the bees and butterflies. > > And Punjab is not alone in experiencing this ecological and social > disaster. Last year I was in Warangal, Andhra Pradesh where farmers have > also been committing suicide. Farmers who traditionally grew pulses and > millets and paddy have been lured by seed companies to buy hybrid cotton > seeds referred to by the seed merchants as "white gold", which were > supposed to make them millionaires. Instead they became paupers. > > Their native seeds have been displaced with new hybrids which cannot be > saved and need to be purchased every year at high cost. Hybrids are also > very vulnerable to pest attacks. Spending on pesticides in Warangal has > shot up 2000 per cent from $2.5 million in the 1980s to $50 million in > 1997. Now farmers are consuming the same pesticides as a way of killing > themselves so that they can escape permanently from unpayable debt. > > The corporations are now trying to introduce genetically engineered seed > which will further increase costs and ecological risks. That is why > farmers like Malla Reddy of the Andhra Pradesh Farmers' Union had uprooted > Monsanto's genetically engineered Bollgard cotton in Warangal. > > On March 27th, 25 year old Betavati Ratan took his life because he could > not pay pack debts for drilling a deep tube well on his two-acre farm. The> wells are now dry, as are the wells in Gujarat and Rajasthan where more > than 50 million people face a water famine. > > The drought is not a "natural disaster". It is "man-made". It is the > result of mining of scarce ground water in arid regions to grow thirsty > cash crops for exports instead of water prudent food crops for local > needs. > > It is experiences such as these which tell me that we are so wrong to be > smug about the new global economy. I will argue in this lecture that it is> time to stop and think about the impact of globalisation on the lives of > ordinary people. This is vital to achieve sustainability. > > Seattle and the World Trade Organisation protests last year have forced > everyone to think again. Throughout this lecture series people have > referred to different aspects of sustainable development taking > globalisation for granted. For me it is now time radically to re-evaluate > what we are doing. For what we are doing in the name of globalisation to > the poor is brutal and unforgivable. This is specially evident in India as > we witness the unfolding disasters of globalisation, especially in food > and agriculture. > > Who feeds the world? My answer is very different to that given by most > people. > > It is women and small farmers working with biodiversity who are the > primary food providers in the Third World, and contrary to the dominant > assumption, their biodiversity based small farms are more productive than > industrial monocultures. > > The rich diversity and sustainable systems of food production are being > destroyed in the name of increasing food production. However, with the > destruction of diversity, rich sources of nutrition disappear. When > measured in terms of nutrition per acre, and from the perspective > biodiversity, the so called "high yields" of industrial agriculture or > industrial fisheries do not imply more production of food and nutrition. > > Yields usually refers to production per unit area of a single crop. Output > refers to the total production of diverse crops and products. Planting > only one crop in the entire field as a monoculture will of course increase > its individual yield. Planting multiple crops in a mixture will have low > yields of individual crops, but will have high total output of food. > Yields have been defined in such a way as to make the food production on > small farms by small farmers disappear. This hides the production by > millions of women farmers in the Third World - farmers like those in my > native Himalaya who fought against logging in the Chipko movement, who in > their terraced fields even today grow Jhangora (barnyard millet), Marsha > (Amaranth), Tur (Pigeon Pea), Urad (Black gram), Gahat (horse gram), Soya > Bean (Glycine Max), Bhat (Glycine Soya) - endless diversity in their > fields. From the biodiversity perspective, biodiversity based productivity > is higher than monoculture productivity. I call this blindness to the high > productivity of diversity a "Monoculture of the Mind", which creates > monocultures in our fields and in our world. > > The Mayan peasants in the Chiapas are characterised as unproductive > because they produce only 2 tons of corn per acre. However, the overall > food output is 20 tons per acre when the diversity of their beans and > squashes, their vegetables their fruit trees are taken into account. > > In Java, small farmers cultivate 607 species in their home gardens. In > sub-Saharan Africa, women cultivate 120 different plants. A single home > garden in Thailand has 230 species, and African home gardens have more > than 60 species of trees. > > Rural families in the Congo eat leaves from more than 50 species of their > farm trees. > > A study in eastern Nigeria found that home gardens occupying only 2 per > cent of a household's farmland accounted for half of the farm's total > output. In Indonesia 20 per cent of household income and 40 per cent of > domestic food supplies come from the home gardens managed by women. > > Research done by FAO has shown that small biodiverse farms can produce > thousands of times more food than large, industrial monocultures. > > And diversity in addition to giving more food is the best strategy for > preventing drought and desertification. > > What the world needs to feed a growing population sustainably is > biodiversity intensification, not the chemical intensification or the > intensification of genetic engineering. While women and small peasants > feed the world through biodiversity we are repeatedly told that without > genetic engineering and globalisation of agriculture the world will > starve. In spite of all empirical evidence showing that genetic > engineering does not produce more food and in fact often leads to a yield > decline, it is constantly promoted as the only alternative available for > feeding the hungry. > > That is why I ask, who feeds the world? > > This deliberate blindness to diversity, the blindness to nature's > production, production by women, production by Third World farmers allows > destruction and appropriation to be projected as creation. > > Take the case of the much flouted "golden rice" or genetically engineered > Vitamin A rice as a cure for blindness. It is assumed that without genetic > engineering we cannot remove Vitamin A deficiency. However, nature gives > us abundant and diverse sources of vitamin A. If rice was not polished, > rice itself would provide Vitamin A. If herbicides were not sprayed on our > wheat fields, we would have bathua, amaranth, mustard leaves as delicious > and nutritious greens that provide Vitamin A. > > Women in Bengal use more than 150 plants as greens - Hinche sak (Enhydra > fluctuans), Palang sak (Spinacea oleracea), Tak palang (Rumex > vesicarious), Lal Sak (Amaranthus gangeticus) - to name but a few. > > But the myth of creation presents biotechnologists as the creators of > Vitamin A, negating nature's diverse gifts and women's knowledge of how to > use this diversity to feed their children and families. > > The most efficient means of rendering the destruction of nature, local > economies and small autonomous producers is by rendering their production > invisible. > > Women who produce for their families and communities are treated as > `non-productive' and `economically' inactive. The devaluation of women's > work, and of work done in sustainable economies, is the natural outcome of > a system constructed by capitalist patriarchy. This is how globalisation > destroys local economies and destruction itself is counted as growth. > <snip>> > The globalisation of non-sustainable industrial agriculture is literally > evaporating the incomes of Third World farmers through a combination of > devaluation of currencies, increase in costs of production and a collapse > in commodity prices. > > Farmers everywhere are being paid a fraction of what they received for the > same commodity a decade ago. The Canadian National Farmers Union put it > like this in a report to the senate this year: > > "While the farmers growing cereal grains - wheat, oats, corn - earn > negative returns and are pushed close to bankruptcy, the companies that > make breakfast cereals reap huge profits. In 1998, cereal companies > Kellogg's, Quaker Oats, and General Mills enjoyed return on equity rates > of 56%, 165% and 222% respectively. While a bushel of corn sold for less > than $4, a bushel of corn flakes sold for $133 ... Maybe farmers are > making too little because others are taking too much." > > And a World Bank report has admitted that "behind the polarisation of > domestic consumer prices and world prices is the presence of large trading> companies in international commodity markets." > > While farmers earn less, consumers pay more. In India, food prices have > doubled between 1999 and 2000. The consumption of food grains in rural > areas has dropped by 12%. Increased economic growth through global > commerce is based on pseudo surpluses. More food is being traded while the> poor are consuming less. When growth increases poverty, when real > production becomes a negative economy, and speculators are defined as > "wealth creators", something has gone wrong with the concepts and > categories of wealth and wealth creation. Pushing the real production by > nature and people into a negative economy implies that production of real > goods and services is declining, creating deeper poverty for the millions > who are not part of the dot.com route to instant wealth creation. > > Women - as I have said - are the primary food producers and food > processors in the world. However, their work in production and processing > is now becoming invisible. > > Recently, the McKinsey corporation said: "American food giants recognise > that Indian agro-business has lots of room to grow, especially in food > processing. India processes a minuscule 1 per cent of the food it grows > compared with 70 per cent for the U.S...". > > It is not that we Indians eat our food raw. Global consultants fail to see > the 99 per cent food processing done by women at household level, or by > the small cottage industry because it is not controlled by global > agribusiness. 99% of India's agroprocessing has been intentionally kept at> the small level. Now , under the pressure of globalisation, things are > changing. Pseudo hygiene laws are being uses to shut down local economies > and small scale processing. > > In August 1998, small scale local processing of edible oil was banned in > India through a "packaging order" which made sale of open oil illegal and > required all oil to be packaged in plastic or aluminium. This shut down > tiny "ghanis" or cold pressed mills. It destroyed the market for our > diverse oilseeds - mustard, linseed, sesame, groundnut, coconut. > > And the take-over of the edible oil industry has affected 10 million > livelihoods. The take over of flour or "atta" by packaged branded flour > will cost 100 million livelihoods. And these millions are being pushed > into new poverty. > > The forced use of packaging will increase the environmental burden of > millions of tonnes of waste. > > The globalisation of the food system is destroying the diversity of local > food cultures and local food economies. A global monoculture is being > forced on people by defining everything that is fresh, local and handmade > as a health hazard. Human hands are being defined as the worst > contaminants, and work for human hands is being outlawed, to be replaced > by machines and chemicals bought from global corporations. These are not > recipes for feeding the world, but stealing livelihoods from the poor to > create markets for the powerful. > > People are being perceived as parasites, to be exterminated for the > "health" of the global economy. > > In the process new health and ecological hazards are being forced on Third > World people through dumping of genetically engineered foods and other > hazardous products. > > Recently, because of a W.T.O. ruling, India has been forced to remove > restrictions on all imports. > >** Among the unrestricted imports are carcasses and animal waste parts that > create a threat to our culture and introduce public health hazards such as> the Mad Cow Disease.** > > The US Centre for Disease Prevention in Atlanta has calculated that nearly> 81 million cases of food borne illnesses occur in the US every year. > Deaths from food poisoning have gone up more up more than four times due > to deregulation. Most of these infections are caused by factory farmed > meat. The US slaughters 93 million pigs, thirty seven million cattle, two > million calves, six million horses, goats and sheep and eight billion > chickens and turkeys each year. > > Now the giant meat industry of US wants to dump contaminated meat produced> through violent and cruel methods on Indian consumers. > > The waste of the rich is being dumped on the poor. The wealth of the poor > is being violently appropriated through new and clever means like patents > on biodiversity and indigenous knowledge. > > <snip> > As humans travel further down the road to non-sustainability, they become > intolerant of other species and blind to their vital role in our survival. > > In 1992, when Indian farmers destroyed Cargill's seed plant in Bellary, > Karnataka, to protest against seed failure, the Cargill Chief Executive > stated, "We bring Indian farmers smart technologies which prevent bees > from usurping the pollen". When I was participating in the United Nations > Biosafety Negotiations, Monsanto circulated literature to defend its > herbicide resistant Roundup ready crops on grounds that they prevent > "weeds from stealing the sunshine". But what Monsanto calls weeds are the > green fields that provide Vitamin A rice and prevent blindness in children> and anaemia in women. > > A worldview that defines pollination as "theft by bees" and claims > biodiversity "steals" sunshine is a worldview which itself aims at > stealing nature's harvest by replacing open, pollinated varieties with > hybrids and sterile seeds, and destroying biodiverse flora with herbicides> such as Roundup. The threat posed to the Monarch butterfly by genetically > engineered bt crops is just one example of the ecological poverty created > by the new biotechnologies. As butterflies and bees disappear, production > is undermined. As biodiversity disappears, with it go sources of nutrition > and food. > ><snip> > The world can be fed only by feeding all beings that make the world. > > In giving food to other beings and species we maintain conditions for our > own food security. In feeding earthworms we feed ourselves. In feeding > cows, we feed the soil, and in providing food for the soil, we provide > food for humans. This worldview of abundance is based on sharing and on a > deep awareness of humans as members of the earth family. This awareness > that in impoverishing other beings, we impoverish ourselves and in > nourishing other beings, we nourish ourselves is the real basis of > sustainability. > > The sustainability challenge for the new millennium is whether global > economic man can move out of the worldview based on fear and scarcity, > monocultures and monopolies, appropriation and dispossession and shift to > a view based on abundance and sharing, diversity and decentralisation, and> respect and dignity for all beings. > > Sustainability demands that we move out of the economic trap that is > leaving no space for other species and other people. Economic > Globalisation has become a war against nature and the poor. But the rules > of globalisation are not god - given. They can be changed. They must be > changed. We must bring this war to an end. ><snip> > As Gandhi had reminded us: "The earth has enough for everyone's needs, but > not for some people's greed". > > QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR > > **Sujata Gupta, the Tata Energy Research Institute: > I'd like to hear your views on sustainable use of scarce inputs > like water for agriculture. What I gathered from your lecture was total > condemnation of the market system. > Vandana Shiva: > Let me first respond by saying - I love markets. I love my local > market where local "subgees" are sold, and one can chat with the women. > The tragedy really is that the market is being turned into the only > organising principle for life, and Wall St is being turned into the only > source of value, and it's the disappearance of other markets, other values> that I am condemning. In terms of water, the solution to water > conservation and scarce water management is not putting it in the hands of> those who can afford to buy the last drop, but to put it in the hands of > the community, to use it sustainably within the limits of renewal. The > water must be returned to the communities and managed as a commons - it > has to be taken beyond the marketplace. > > **Professor Marva, University of Delhi: > Can there be sustainable development without sustainable > population? > Vandana Shiva: > I think non-sustainable population growth is a symptom and product> of non-sustainable development. It's not that population grows by itself > as a separate phenomena - you look at the data - Indian population had > stability till 1800 - colonisation, dispossession of land started to make > our population grow. Highest growth rates of population in England is > after the enclosures of the commons. It's the loss of resources of the > people that generate livelihood and the replacement of resources by labour> to be sold on markets in an uncertain daily wage market that triggers > population growth. Population growth is a result of non-sustainable > development. > ><snip> > Gulgit Choudhury, Ram Organics: > I have worked earlier with Monsanto. I have a simple question to > ask you. Suppose you were given the opportunity to develop parameters of a > social governance which ensures sustainability - what would you suggest > for countries like India.? > Vandana Shiva: > We are in fact involved for the last few years - generating the > kind of criteria through participatory democracy building - through > ensuring that people at every level have the information, through ensuring> that communities are organised, to manage collectively the resources that > can only be sustained collectively. If I have the money and power to drill> a deep tube well I can make dry my neighbour's shallow well and she will > usually be a very poor woman. And therefore the only way a village can > conserve its ground water is to do what the "Paani Panchayath" did in > Harash - ensure that water is used within limits. Systems of governance > have to begin with where people feel the impact, and therefore we do > require the rebuilding of decentralised direct democracy. I do not see > growers as isolated individuals because the consequences of their action > are felt by their neighbours. If I am growing b.t. corn on my field I kill> the monarch butterfly of my neighbour's field. Communities, collectives > are cohesiveness of societies are important to talk about not individual > growers, and that is the bottom rung of decision making to which both > which corporations as well as governments need to be accountable - that is> the experiment that started after Seattle and that experiment in > accountable localisation to ensure that decisions are made at appropriate > place and production is carried out at the appropriate level is really the> new enterprise of democracy that societies are involved in around the > world, even while globalisation threatens our lives. > ><snip> > **Finally, we had this from last year's Reith lecturer Anthony Giddens - > addressing you Vandana he says - > "I congratulate you on your challenging presentation. I have to > say though I don't agree with much of it. Isn't it a contradiction in > terms to use the global media to put a case against globalisation?" > > Vandana Shiva: > I don't think BBC is a product of the economic globalisation > regime that the World Trade Organisation gave us or the new recent trade > liberalisation has given us. I think it was created in l922 and > international integration, international communication is not what > economic globalisation is about. Corporate concentration, corporate > control is what recent economic globalisation is about and in fact the BBC> is a counter-example to that because the real example of globalised media > and communication is Time Warner, now bought up by American on Line, > Disney, and the News Corporation. > > **Prof. Vinod Chowdhury, reader in economics at St. Stephen's College: > It strikes me as very extraordinary that Vandanaji should have > such a one sided approach. And I'm saying that with due respect to the > sheer vivacity of her presentation. Vandanaji seems to believe that there > are two clearly antithetical paradigms. One is a paradigm that essentially> is based on decentralisation, democratisation - all the good things in > life - - women are cared for, poor people are cared for - this, that and > the other. And other is terribly evil. Everything's wrong with it. Now > surely life cannot be like that Vandanaji may I plead with you to please > consider third paradigm, where we take bits and pieces from here and there> and get an eclectic, practical approach, and I support Boopinder Singh > Hooda - the President of the Haryama Congress who asked you - and you > didn't answer that - what is the alternative at a time when no country can> opt out of the WTO - it's not a piece of paper madam - it is a commitment > that countries have to make or they will be paraiah countries and we > cannot afford to be a paraiah country - please react? > Vandana Shiva: > I did react to him. And I said rewriting those rules - rewriting > those rules that are one sided. In fact it's the WTO rules that are > totally one sided because they really only protect the interest of one > sector of the global community which is the global corporations, not in > the local industry, not even local retail business, not small farmers > anywhere, not in the north and not in the south. And those rules can be > rewritten. That is the point I'm trying to make. Do not treat WTO rules in> the Uruguay Round Treaty as the final word on how trade should be carried > out. Those rules are being reviewed. What we have called for in Seattle is> a more democratic input in what sustainable and just rules would look like> for agriculture on intellectual property rights, in the area of services, > in the area of investments, the four new areas which were brought in. > Before that - no-one had problems with the GATT. The old GATT was about > real trade in real products beyond national boundaries. The new GATT with > the Uruguay round - is about invading in every space of our everyday lives> ... and if you are a woman you do have a somewhat different point of view. > That's why we talk of gender. If you are poor, you will have a different > point of view from the rich. To have different points of view because of > differences in location in society is not a problem. It is opportunistic > though to take a little element of the perspective of the rich , a little > element of the perspective of the poor and put it into a little jigsaw of > opportunistic statements. Societies live by coherent principles, > organisational systems, values and world views. And what we are calling > for is to balance out that one sided idea that we live by commerce alone. > > **Rovinder Raki, student: > You seem to eulogise the fairness and efficiency of traditional > agricultures, societies and production patterns. But the reality is that > the farmers were exploited in these societies by moneylenders and feudal > lords. With the market reaching these societies that exploitative social > system certainly declines. Now what I have to ask you is what restrains > you from appreciating this sanitising effect of the market? > Vandana Shiva: > Well the sanitising affect of the market does end up treating > people like germs. Wipe them out. And it is that view of dispensability, > the disappearances of the small that I was trying to draw attention to in > my lecture. There has always been exploitation, and I agree with Mr Hooda, > but no exploitation before this period of current, economic globalisation, > ever organised itself in ways that it could totally dispense with the > exploited. Even the slave system needed the slave. Even the worst of > British rule which created the Bengal famine, and led to the "Faybehaga" > movement to rise against the exploitation, it needed to keep the peasants > alive For the first time we have a system where no-one needs the peasants,> unless we realise as societies we need them, that we've reached a period > where people are actually talking in India, in other countries that you > can get rid of small producers. It's assumed that everything, real growth,> real prosperity is going to come out of cyber space, but as you can see, > you can have the best of IT technologies floating above the carcasses of > people dying in Rajisthan and Gujerat right now -- and it will not help > them out. We have to pay attention to the ecological base of our survival > and the needs of all. I personally am committed to feeling and believing > that the smallest of species and the smallest of people have as much a > right to live on this planet with dignity as the most powerful corporation > and the most powerful individual. > > ====================== > > *** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material > is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest > in receiving the included information for research and educational > purposes. Feel free to distribute widely but PLEASE acknowledge the > source. *** | reply to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to reach every-one | contact <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> for problems
