|By Devinder Sharma|
Biotechnology only aims to force peasants and marginal farmers off their meagre land holdings. Biotechnology only aims to bring in an era of novel foods and functional foods so as to provide the hungry with a choice. But what it forgets is that, given a choice, all that the hungry needs is simple food.
They came, they spoke and they lost. The Heads of State, who had assembled for the recently concluded World Food Summit "five years later" at Rome, spoke eloquently about the scandalous "scourge" of prevailing hunger. Yet they provided only a diet of verbosity to the millions of hungry and malnourished.
They spoke about the urgent need to remove global hunger. Yet they could not look beyond depressing figures that simply need to be juggled around in the fight against hunger. They came to draw global attention to mankind's greatest shame. In reality they came to promote biotechnology under the garb of hunger and food insecurity. In an era of market economy, where contesting the next elections is the biggest challenge that confronts political leaders all over the world and without exception, the Heads of State did not think even once before unabashedly promoting the commercial interests of the corporations.
The hungry will, therefore, have to wait. And they will wait endlessly for another Mahatma Gandhi to emerge on the horizon, to single-handedly lead the march against hunger, poverty and inequality.
If only the Heads of State, who came for the growing ritual of meaningless summits, had read Mahatma Gandhi's talisman, there would have been hope and optimism emerging from the dark clouds of hunger and malnutrition.
For days before the leaders started arriving, the drafting committees were locked in the debate over defining a code of conduct for the "right to food". As if the right to food is a magical stick that makes the Supermen of the political hierarchy deliver food to those hungry and in desperate need, the G-77 countries, the European Union and the United States fought relentlessly for and against it.
Finally, the world's only superpower succeeded in fostering its will over the rest of the world. The code of conduct was replaced by the word "guidelines", as the U.S. had initially wanted, and the final draft was ready for the signatures of the Heads of State.
The right-based approach to hunger and malnutrition was expected to challenge unwilling governments to change policies. It also aimed at giving the victims of violations the means to seek redress and claim "good governance" by giving them the power of political and economic participation. In addition, a code of conduct was expected to allow civil society and the national judiciary to guarantee the right to food.
Laudable intentions, indeed. But what the promoters of the right-based approach (and that included the German government and the German NGOs) did not seem to realise is that the "right to food", in most of the developing countries where hunger persists, is enshrined in their constitutions. The code of conduct becomes meaningless when the governments all over the world (including the United States) are more interested in pushing the commercial interests of the industry and the corporate empire than addressing the problems of hunger and inequity everywhere.
Take the case of India, where the shameful paradox of plenty fails to move the government to wage a war against hunger and malnutrition. That in a country which, alone, has a third of the world's estimated 800 million hungry -- and, tragically, more than 65 million tonnes of food stocks rotting in the open. The country's Supreme Court had last year directed the government to "devise a scheme where no person goes hungry when the granaries are full and lots being wasted due to non-availability of storage space." At the same time, the Court had asked the government to open the public distribution shops in the worst-affected States so as to make the food available to the poor and hungry.
The Supreme Court's directive came in 2001. A year later, all that the government has done is to play around with figures and statistics in an effort to provide a neat cover for its undoing.
Another document, in the form of a code of conduct for the "right to food", is certainly not going to move the government into action. Nor will it provide the much-needed weapon for the victims of apathy and neglect to fight for their rights. If only the poor and hungry had a voice, no government could have dared to ignore their plight.
The monumental task, therefore, cannot be achieved by yet another carefully worded document that comes from the FAO. It requires an instrument more powerful than the lack of political will referred to by the Director General of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), Mr Jacques Diouf.
Diouf said that "the main underlying reason for the persistence of hunger is due to the lack of a political will, and as a result of this, the resources to fight hunger have not been mobilised to the extent required." In saying this, he brushes aside the real causes for persistent hunger and abject poverty. What he needs to acknowledge is that it is the prevailing political will all over that is causing hunger to multiply. Because the political will is in resonance with the forces that aim at exploiting the hungry and the poor, the entire global system is directed towards extracting its "pound of flesh" from even the starving masses.
Such a disgraceful system has its roots firmly embedded in the FAO and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Over the past few years, both respected global institutions, have deviated from their paths of global good to global greed.
At the first World Food Summit, also held in Rome in 1996, the Heads of State had pledged to achieve the objective to halve the number of hungry by the year 2015. This meant an annual reduction in the number of hungry by about 22 million. Even this has not been achieved, the FAO regrettably observed.
Still, the 182 member countries, represented by some 81 Heads of State and high-level delegations, once again reiterated the commitment to reduce half the world's hunger -- in other words, pulling out 400 million people from the hunger trap -- by 2015.
Even if the FAO and the international community fails to set the hunger agenda into motion, more than 122 million hungry would have perished by then anyway. Perhaps that is what the Heads of State are hoping for, as a face- saving grace!
Here global greed came into focus. While the boring speeches continued in the main plenary, the United States was busy pushing its own commercial interests. The U.S. secretary of agriculture, Ann Veneman, made no secret of her intentions when she said: "Biotechnology has tremendous potential to develop products that can be more suited to areas of the world where there is persistent hunger." She added, "There is no food safety issue whatsoever."
It was primarily for this reason that the U.S. had all along wanted strong language in the final declaration in favour of genetically modified food as the key to solving hunger and malnutrition. No wonder, the U.S. announced a US $ 100 million programme to develop genetically modified crops and products -- tailored specifically for the needs of the developing countries.
Before you ponder over the real motive behind this benevolence, what clearly emerges is that, having attained the unique status as the world's only super power, the focus is now to emerge as the world's only food basket. The entire research and aid development programmes, ably backed by the World Bank, IMF and the World Trade Organisation (WTO), are aimed at building the U.S. into a food power -- so that the rest of the world becomes completely dependent upon America for its food needs. This can only be achieved by ensuring first, that the trade rules are so framed that the benefits should mainly percolate to the American farm sector; and secondly, by gradual destruction of the capacity of the developing countries -- the majority of the world would go in for food self-sufficiency.
Biotechnology is the only tool that can usher in the great hunger divide - between the rich industrialised countries and the poor developing economies, between the heavily subsidised OECD agriculture and the subsistence farming of the Third World, and between the seed rich countries of the north and the gene rich nations of the south.
The stage has been clearly set for a The stage has been clearly set for a major confrontation on the food front. With the political leadership in the developing countries lured by the green bucks and succumbing to arm-twisting and pressures, biotechnology is certainly set on a smooth path to destroy livelihoods in the south. By the time the negative impact is felt, the damage will have been done.
Biotechnology only aims to force peasants and marginal farmers off their meagre land holdings. Biotechnology only aims to bring in an era of novel foods and functional foods so as to provide the hungry with a choice.
But what it forgets is that, given a choice, all that the hungry needs is simple food.
By refusing to address the immediate crisis on the hunger front, the
Summit failed -- and failed miserably. Except for the decorative part
of the final declaration, the Summit failed to spell out the initiatives
on how to immediately tackle prevailing hunger and
The onus doesn't only rest with the Heads of State.
The FAO and CGIAR are equally responsible for the food debacle. If the FAO/CGIAR would refuse to chant the biotechnology mantra, if the two global farm research and development organisations would refuse to toe the research agenda line of the western countries, and if only these institutions were to reiterate their commitment to the farming communities and sustainable farming practices in the developing countries, the onerous task of feeding the world without destroying the resource lifeline could be easily achieved.
With good science now being replaced with "sound science", as advocated by the industry, the poor and the hungry will have to wait as, alas, they cannot add to the corporate profits.
If only the political leadership, the industry, agricultural scientists and the civil society had followed Mahatma Gandhi's talisman, the world would not have been a witness to mankind's greatest shame -- hunger, particularly in times of plenty.
It is time the FAO/CGIAR adopted the talisman as their principal directive. It is time the Heads of State understood the meaning of the talisman. The world would then see the beginning of a bright future.
There is no need to wait for another Mahatma. The need is to follow what the Mahatma said. There would then be no need for another World Food Summit.
We have had enough.
|Devinder Sharma is a New Delhi-based food and trade policy analyst. Trained as an agricultural scientist, Sharma was Development Editor of The Indian Express. He now researches policy issues concerning sustainable agriculture, biodiversity and intellectual property rights, environment and development, food security and poverty, and the implications of the free trade paradigm. He is a visiting fellow to several universities abroad. He has written GATT and India: The Politics of Agriculture; GATT to WTO: Seeds of Despair and In the Famine Trap. He is the winner of the 2001 Chaudhary Charan Singh Award for Excellence in Journalism, instituted by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.|