|
I wasn't going to post this before because it's pretty big and it wasn't completely relevenant to the post at the time. But now I think it is. Its about a lecture but the issues cover the kinda stuff we've been talking about. It's a essay I did for a environmental engineering management class.
| quote: |
This critical analysis covers topics raised in Vandana Shiva’s BBC Reith 2000 lecture on Poverty & Globalisation. This lecture explored issues such as biodiversity, effects of globalisation and the sustainability of globalisation.
When examined from a layman westerners perspective the lecture appears to be fairly subjective and it’s easy to pick out statements which would appear to be either un-politically correct or very general such as “women's indigenous knowledge of biodiversity”. To a westerner this seems very politically incorrect to single out women in this way, to state their role, and the lecture seems to lose some credence as a result. But when considered in more depth, this statement that women are the specialists or managers and have the knowledge of biodiversity and management, is actually true it is their role, politically incorrect or not. To the vast majority of the world this is true but to the westerner is seems un-politically correct. So this gives rise to the thought that perhaps it is not Vandana Shiva who has the flawed view of the world but the general western view. That is not to say
that western views on political correctness are wrong simply that a world view must take into account all parts of the world and not apply experience from one area in a uniform manner. It is with this thought in mind that the rest of the lecture should be examined.
The Cambridge Dictionary definition of globalisation:
“globalization
noun [U]
1 (UK USUALLY -isation) the increase of trade around the world, especially by large companies producing and trading goods in many different countries:
‘We must take advantage of the increased globalization of the commodity trading business.’
2 when available goods and services, or social and cultural influences, gradually become similar in all parts of the world:
‘the globalization of fashion/American youth culture’
In the context of the lecture globalisation mainly takes the form of biological technology companies supplying seeds to Indian farmers. The lecture focuses on the effects of this globalisation and the motivation behind the globalisation and the paradigms of the parties involved.
Dr Shiva raises many issues related to the development seen in India. These are almost exclusively related to agriculture as this is the level most development is taking place, also agriculture is the foundation of civilisation and as such is very important. The effects of development and the sources of these effects are explored. Effects range from debt traps to starvation to suicides. The causes range from dependence creation to restricted biodiversity and dietary interference.
Dependence creation is formed by bio-tech companies in a diverse number of ways, the most obvious being through the replacement of standard seeds with hybrid or genetically modified seeds. These seeds have been used to replace traditional seeds firstly due to promises of increased yields, but also through promises of increased nutrients and lower maintenance. An adverse effect of using these seeds is that they need to be purchased at a price every year. Traditionally this was not necessary as seeds could be harvested and kept, even exchanged with neighbours. This is not possible with GM crops. This of course creates a dependence on the bio-tech company supplying the seeds. Other perhaps unforeseen effects are that these crops require more water to survive and upset the naturally bio-diverse balance created over centuries of farming. These bio-diverse methods involve the planting of one crop to support the other. An example from another area which illustrates this perhaps most simply is the Chinese rice paddy. In reality a highly intensive form of farming with many harvests from the same patch of land, with no need for leaving fields fallow or fertilisers. How is this sustained? The rice paddies are flooded with water and in the water are fish. These fish are fed and the waste products provide a completely predictable and high purity source of nutrients. Additionally the fish are eaten providing more nutrients. Although this example is not in the area of interest, and could never be applied in the area of interest, it shows the kind of balance created. In India exactly the same type of balance has been found for generations.
But as much as the Chinese method should not be applied to India the western method should not. The western method being one field one crop, in some cases basically one state one crop, such as corn in Iowa! The western method is always used for creating a product to be sold on, not used. Being a farmer is a job not a way of supplying food. And as such it is mechanised and highly intensive to maximise profits and minimise costs. But this can’t be applied to small farms. When is an Indian farmer with 0.8 hectares going to be able to afford a several hundred thousand dollar harvester? Especially when he gets no subsidy and practically nothing for anything he sells. Of course the most fundamental problem is that there would be no need for a harvester as it would take one less than a day to hoover up 0.8 hectares of corn, even if the equipment sharing methods used in the west were used! You cannot apply that method. Also any fertiliser used kills off other plants used to keep a natural balance and provide valuable nutrients. The underlying point of all this is a western farm is a business perhaps in the business of corn production or tomatoes, an Indian or any subsistence or near subsistence farm is a source of food. And if you only have one crop how can you get a balanced diet from that? It isn’t a world of capital, investment or profit but survival. And as such the methods from one area cannot be applied to the other. This is what is done with the use of GM crops which are tailored to western methods.
In terms of food the application of monocultures (one field one crop) provides a problem in terms of a balanced diet. How do you get a wide range of nutrients from one crop? The short answer is you don’t. Attempts have been made by the bio-tech companies to cater for certain vitamin deficiencies by supplying products such as GM “protein potatoes”. Unfortunately these “protein potatoes” have less protein than the crops they are meant to be replacing, such as amaranth. More worryingly they contain orders of magnitude less iron and calcium. So in the end instead of relieving one deficiency create two more.
There is possibly a question as to why an Indian farmer would buy these seeds, why bother? To answer this an insight into their way of thinking is required. Above the value 0.8 hectares is stated in reference to an Indian farm the reason for this is that 70% of Indian farmers have that amount of land or less. These farms are called “marginal holdings” and the vast majority have only rain water irrigation. These farms can only just manage a bare subsistence and cannot afford to buy food or irrigation systems. Remember that these farms have to support the whole family and any landless labours, and a bad season means no food, and having no food has its own result. It is in this environment that seed companies offer wonder crops that will yield many times as much crops and be hardier, and more reliable. Incidentally these are often marketed heavily after bad seasons. There will be enough to perhaps sell and get money to put away for the bad seasons to buy food. In other words enough to provide security for the farmer’s families. That is why they take the risk with the little money they have. This probably seems a little emotive, but is none the less true.
Primarily it is the application of the west’s development to the third world without thought which causes the problems. It could be said that the bio-tech companies should know better than to look to exploit people and are heartless. But as business their responsibility is to their shareholders who want return on their investments. India as an example has a population of over 1 billion and so is a hard market to overlook, in those terms. Ultimately though governments, and other world political organisations should create a framework of legislation which restricts the ability of these companies to exploit people unfairly. Some nations actively try to evade or negate these frameworks such as the United States, which ratified neither the Cartagena Protocol, unlike 100 other nations, nor the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and as such has no obligation to follow either. It is worth noting perhaps that if everyone on the earth was an American, eight more earths would be required to support us. Which with reference to sustainability this conceivably backs up Dr Shiva’s conclusion which was a quote by Gandhi “The earth has enough for everyone's needs, but not for some people's greed”.
|
___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.
|
.
)
