From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec
From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec From poverty to power - Oxfam-Québec
3 POVERTY AND WEALTH LIVING OFF THE LANDRecent and incipient waves of technological change pose additionalthreats and opportunities. For example, nanotechnology (the manipulationof matter on the scale of atoms or molecules) could produce apetroleum-based, stain-resistant substitute for cotton, which wouldhave cataclysmic implications for the ten million small farmers inWest Africa who grow cotton for a living. 48 On the other hand, theUniversity of Stavanger,Norway,has developed a nanoporous membranethat can prevent water loss from soil and regulate soil temperature inthe face of extreme weather. 49Biotechnology, and in particular the introduction of geneticallymodified seeds for crops such as maize, canola, soybean, and cotton,has attracted the most controversy. Supporters of GM technologyclaim it will create seeds geared to poor people’s needs. ‘Golden Rice’,a GM variety engineered to remedy the vitamin A deficiency thatafflicts hundreds of thousands of children with blindness, is perhapsthe best-known example. GM also promises crops appropriate fordifficult geographies and climates, for example drought-resistantvarieties that could play a role in adapting to climate change.These optimistic claims are disputed, not least because suchwarm words are not matched by deeds: the vast majority of GM cropshave been genetically engineered to meet the needs of large-scalefarms, for instance in reducing herbicide or insectide use andminimising the need for labour. The only major exception to date isinsect-resistant Bt cotton, grown by some nine million small farmersin China and India. 50 Although transgenic maize is being grown inSouth Africa and the Philippines, there is no serious investment in thefive most important semi-arid tropical crops – sorghum, pearl millet,pigeon pea, chickpea, and groundnut – which are grown mainly bysmall farmers.An alternative route to technological adaptation could be throughsustainable agriculture (see Box 3.2). Attempting to marry the best ofold and new farming technologies, the sustainable approach seeks tointegrate natural biological and ecological processes, minimise theuse of non-renewable inputs, and make productive use of farmers’knowledge and skills and their capacity to work together. The mostcomprehensive survey to date puts the number of farmers involved intransitions towards sustainable agriculture at 12.6 million, between129
FROM POVERTY TO POWERthem farming over 1m hectares – 3 per cent of the total cultivated areain developing countries. These farms show a mean increase in yields of79 per cent, contravening the widespread supposition that sustainableagriculture necessarily sacrifices high yields. Over half of the projectsinvolving integrated pest management have reduced pesticide use andincreased yields. 51Sustainable agriculture may be more compatible with climatechange and other environmental constraints than a new GreenRevolution. For example, maintaining organic soil cover to minimiseerosion, a practice known as ‘zero tillage’, which has been hailed by theWorld Bank as ‘one of agriculture’s major success stories in the pasttwo decades’ 52 also sequesters significant amounts of carbon. Carbonconstraints, whether through higher prices or government regulation,may work to the benefit of sustainable agriculture and small farmersrelative to industrial and large-scale agriculture, which tend to bemore avid carbon users.To date, sustainable agriculture has received relatively little backingfrom governments, but political pressure from organised farmers andtheir allies could turn that around. That said, many sustainable practicesrely on highly specific knowledge of local ecosystems that it is hard toreplicate.THE BIOFUEL BOOMFarmers everywhere try to cash in when demand for a particular productrises, whether through shifts in consumption patterns (such as thetransition to meat-based diets in Asia) or technological change. Thelatest boom commodity, biofuels, uses plant-based ‘biomass’ to generateenergy, for example replacing oil-based fuels in transport or electricitygeneration. Driven by a combination of rising oil prices, fears overenergy security, technological innovation, and concern over climatechange, farmers the world over are now growing crops to be made intofuel. The main crops grown for biofuels are sugar, grain, palm oil, andwood.The impact of such fuels on carbon emissions and the ecosystemis highly disputed (especially in the case of maize-based ethanol).130
- Page 96 and 97: I VOTE, THEREFORE I AMWhether in Fl
- Page 98 and 99: 2 POWER AND POLITICS I VOTE, THEREF
- Page 100 and 101: 2 POWER AND POLITICS I VOTE, THEREF
- Page 102 and 103: 2 POWER AND POLITICS I VOTE, THEREF
- Page 104 and 105: 2 POWER AND POLITICS I STEAL, THERE
- Page 106 and 107: 2 POWER AND POLITICS I STEAL, THERE
- Page 108 and 109: 2 POWER AND POLITICS I RULE, THEREF
- Page 110 and 111: 2 POWER AND POLITICS I RULE, THEREF
- Page 112 and 113: 2 POWER AND POLITICS I RULE, THEREF
- Page 114 and 115: 2 POWER AND POLITICS I RULE, THEREF
- Page 116 and 117: 2 POWER AND POLITICS I RULE, THEREF
- Page 118 and 119: 2 POWER AND POLITICS I RULE, THEREF
- Page 120 and 121: 2 POWER AND POLITICS I RULE, THEREF
- Page 122 and 123: 2 POWER AND POLITICS FROM POVERTY T
- Page 124 and 125: PART THREEAn economics for the twen
- Page 126 and 127: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH A TWENTY-FIRST
- Page 128 and 129: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH A TWENTY-FIRST
- Page 130 and 131: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH A TWENTY-FIRST
- Page 132 and 133: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH A TWENTY-FIRST
- Page 134 and 135: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH A TWENTY-FIRST
- Page 136 and 137: LIVING OFF THE LANDThe smoky, cold
- Page 138 and 139: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH LIVING OFF THE
- Page 140 and 141: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH LIVING OFF THE
- Page 142 and 143: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH LIVING OFF THE
- Page 144 and 145: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH LIVING OFF THE
- Page 148 and 149: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH LIVING OFF THE
- Page 150 and 151: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH LIVING OFF THE
- Page 152 and 153: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH LIVING OFF THE
- Page 154 and 155: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH LIVING OFF THE
- Page 156 and 157: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH LIVING OFF THE
- Page 158 and 159: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH LIVING OFF THE
- Page 160 and 161: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH LIVING OFF THE
- Page 162 and 163: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH LIVING OFF THE
- Page 164 and 165: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH LIVING OFF THE
- Page 166 and 167: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH THE CHANGING W
- Page 168 and 169: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH THE CHANGING W
- Page 170 and 171: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH THE CHANGING W
- Page 172 and 173: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH THE CHANGING W
- Page 174 and 175: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH THE CHANGING W
- Page 176 and 177: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH THE CHANGING W
- Page 178 and 179: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH THE CHANGING W
- Page 180 and 181: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH THE CHANGING W
- Page 182 and 183: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH THE CHANGING W
- Page 184 and 185: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH THE CHANGING W
- Page 186 and 187: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH PRIVATE SECTOR
- Page 188 and 189: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH PRIVATE SECTOR
- Page 190 and 191: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH PRIVATE SECTOR
- Page 192 and 193: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH PRIVATE SECTOR
- Page 194 and 195: 3 POVERTY AND WEALTH PRIVATE SECTOR
3 POVERTY AND WEALTH LIVING OFF THE LANDRecent and incipient waves of technological change pose additionalthreats and opportunities. For example, nanotechnology (the manipulationof matter on the scale of a<strong>to</strong>ms or molecules) could produce apetroleum-based, stain-resistant substitute for cot<strong>to</strong>n, which wouldhave cataclysmic implications for the ten million small farmers inWest Africa who grow cot<strong>to</strong>n for a living. 48 On the other hand, theUniversity of Stavanger,Norway,has developed a nanoporous membranethat can prevent water loss from soil and regulate soil temperature inthe face of extreme weather. 49Biotechnology, and in particular the introduction of geneticallymodified seeds for crops such as maize, canola, soybean, and cot<strong>to</strong>n,has attracted the most controversy. Supporters of GM technologyclaim it will create seeds geared <strong>to</strong> poor people’s needs. ‘Golden Rice’,a GM variety engineered <strong>to</strong> remedy the vitamin A deficiency thatafflicts hundreds of thousands of children with blindness, is perhapsthe best-known example. GM also promises crops appropriate fordifficult geographies and climates, for example drought-resistantvarieties that could play a role in adapting <strong>to</strong> climate change.These optimistic claims are disputed, not least because suchwarm words are not matched by deeds: the vast majority of GM cropshave been genetically engineered <strong>to</strong> meet the needs of large-scalefarms, for instance in reducing herbicide or insectide use andminimising the need for labour. The only major exception <strong>to</strong> date isinsect-resistant Bt cot<strong>to</strong>n, grown by some nine million small farmersin China and India. 50 Although transgenic maize is being grown inSouth Africa and the Philippines, there is no serious investment in thefive most important semi-arid tropical crops – sorghum, pearl millet,pigeon pea, chickpea, and groundnut – which are grown mainly bysmall farmers.An alternative route <strong>to</strong> technological adaptation could be throughsustainable agriculture (see Box 3.2). Attempting <strong>to</strong> marry the best ofold and new farming technologies, the sustainable approach seeks <strong>to</strong>integrate natural biological and ecological processes, minimise theuse of non-renewable inputs, and make productive use of farmers’knowledge and skills and their capacity <strong>to</strong> work <strong>to</strong>gether. The mostcomprehensive survey <strong>to</strong> date puts the number of farmers involved intransitions <strong>to</strong>wards sustainable agriculture at 12.6 million, between129