In embracing the potential of technology in developing countries, The UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report 2001, published this week, has controversially backed the role of genetically modified food crops as a way to alleviate the hunger and poverty of millions in the developing world. GM crops, the report says, can increase yields, significantly reduce the malnutrition that affects 800 million people worldwide, and will be especially valuable to poor farmers working marginal land in sub-Saharan Africa.
The report points to newly developed strains of rice as evidence for such optimism. GM strains of rice have 50% higher yields, mature earlier, are richer in protein and are far more drought and disease resistant than traditional crops. It says there is an urgent need to develop this kind of technology, and to produce genetically modified varieties of millet, sorghum and cassava – the staple diets of millions. Instead of such technology concentrating on the needs of the developed world, the report urges there should be “greater public investment in GM research and development to ensure it meets the needs of the poor”.
The optimism the report displays over the potential of GM crops is not widely shared in the NGO community. The report has been slated by nearly 300 organisations around the world, including Oxfam, Greenpeace International, Actionaid and the Intermediate Technology Development Group, who have called its conclusions simplistic, and have accused the UN of uncritical acceptance of the agenda of the biotechnology industry. These organisations point out that there is a very real concern that in developing GM technology, large companies like Monsanto will effectively control the entire food production chain ‘from farm to fork’, and that poor farmers will become locked into a technology that they can neither afford nor control. This ‘industrialisation’ of agriculture in the developing world will effectively force huge numbers of people off the land into cities, where they are unlikely to have the skills to survive. This exact scenario is currently being touted by the state of Andhra Pradesh in India: the so-called Vision 2020 scheme. GM may offer a huge boost for both biotech companies and for the food export industry of Andhra Pradesh, but it will be of no benefit whatsoever for those forced to the cities in the search for work. Such a scenario will presumably become commonplace in other parts of the developing world if unfettered use of GM technology is allowed to go ahead.
Many commentators also make clear that many hungry people in the world live in countries with food surpluses. The widely touted benefits of GM rice for boosting vitamin A levels, for example, fail to make clear that vitamin A levels are only down among many populations because of the effects of the ‘Green Revolution’ which forced such communities to shift from growing a wide range of diverse crops, towards monoculture production geared towards a commercial market, resulting in a less nutritious diet for themselves and their families. Thus, land and food supply reforms, they argue, and 'traditional' technologies such as seed saving, manuring, intercropping and breeding techniques could in fact raise sustainable productivity to levels far higher than those achievable through the use of GM crops.
Real fears also remain about the effects of GM crops on the environment. While their modified status may mean a reduced need for pesticides and herbicides, their very resistance to pests means there is a greater chance of GM crops dominating the surrounding landscape, forcing out other plants and species, and thus exacerbating the critical threat to biodiversity the planet already faces.
Above all, it seems unclear whether the UNDP has actually listened to what kind of technology farmers in the developing world themselves say they want. As Andrew Scott from ITDG puts it, "This means starting with poor people and what they want technology to do for them - not starting with technologies and 'applying' them to poverty. We have to enable poor women and men to make their own choices about whether they want to surf the information superhighway…or would they prefer to build better homes, have access to electricity, transport or a sustainable food supply? We need to know which works best for them…a better hoe, a plough or rice grinder…or GMOs? What we need is new thinking about all technologies which are of use to poor people".
A "citizen’s jury" of small farmers across Andhra Pradesh has unanimously rejected the introduction of the Vision 2020 scheme, saying they want control over their own land and forests. Traditional agricultural practices in Africa also give people control over their own resources and are directly linked to the level of ‘social capital’ or empowerment they have in their communities. The real issue over GM technology is who gets to control the production of the world’s food: if GM is introduced, food production, and all that goes with it, is unlikely to remain in the hands of local farmers. In naively embracing GM, the UNDP, unfortunately, seems to have completely failed to have understood or to have addressed this fundamental issue.
Further reading:
Human Development Report 2001, UN Development Programme:
Guardian GM debate including coverage of Vision 2020:
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/gmdebate
Greenpeace hits UNDP report for blind biotech bias:
http://www.greenpeace.org/
ITDG: Which technologies most benefit poor women and men?
http://www.itdg.org/home.html
Women are central to the agri-biotech debate in Africa:
http://www.womenspress.com/newspaper/2001/17-5afri.html
FoE: ‘Golden Rice’ and Vitamin A Deficiency
http://www.foe.org/safefood/rice.html
ActionAid: campaigns on food, patents and development:
http://www.actionaid.org/campaigns/index.html
