» WELCOME
» AN INTRODUCTION
» PROFILES
» LM WATCH
» CONTACT
» LOBBYWATCH LINKS
»


Another world is possible - Devinder Sharma in Mumbai (21/1/2004)

Here's an interview with Devinder Sharma that took place during this year's World Social Forum in Mumbai, India.

During the interview Devinder points out that if the vast sums of public money being wasted on GM crop research, regulation and promotion - in the name of eradicating hunger and malnutrition - were actually diverted to feeding the hungry, then the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UN could meet its target of reducing global hunger by half and we wouldn't have to wait until 2015 - the goal the FAO has set itself - for that to be achieved. That would mean saving the lives of some 24,000 people who die from hunger and related ailments every single day.

Devinder says, 'The message that the WSF is trying to convey is... that another world - where peace, equality and food security prevails - is possible.'

---

Q & A - Devinder Sharma
"Cows in Europe More Food-secure than Farmers in Asia"
http://www.ipsnews.net/focus/tv_mumbai/viewstory.asp?idn=243

Devinder Sharma's an internationally acclaimed food security expert based in New Delhi. In an interview with TerraViva, he discussed trends in world food production and consumption.

Q: In a fast changing world, efforts seem concentrated on bridging the gap between civilisation or what is popularly termed as the clash of civilisations…

A: The real clash of civilisations, as I see it, is the way a dairy cow in America, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and for that matter in the rest of the OECD countries are reared with showers, fans, lights and heating when all of these are luxuries for the majority of the farmers in the developing countries. These days, the cow has an electronic chip attached to it to decide how much protein it needs for automatic feeding. In other words the cow is more food-secure than most farmers in this part of the world. It is ridiculous that a cow in Europe gets a subsidy of three dollars a day when most farmers in Asia survive on less than a dollar.

Q: What about the inequalities in economic growth?

A: Let us face it. Globalisation has become the major factor in widening the gap between rich and the poor countries, and also within each country into two distinct classes. Every country, and that includes the United States and India, have a miniscule class of rich and elite called the North, and the rest of the population that lives on their crumbs called the South.  The World Trade Organisation promises to remove these inequalities and make agriculture profitable for farmers everywhere. In reality, it has done just the opposite. The WTO - what I call as the Wrong Trade Organisation --- has exacerbated the crisis on the farm front. With one billion U.S. dollar subsidies to protect its agriculture - these subsidies have in fact grown since the WTO came into effect on Jan 1, 1995 -- and with almost all other forms of protective ring thrown around - whether it is through sanitary and phytosanitary measures, tariff cuts, stringent intellectual property rights - the West has actually used the special safeguards to keep its agriculture intact.

With their own agriculture protected, the rest of the world is being forced to open up its trade barriers, become a dumping ground for unwanted agricultural commodities and food products. The more food the developing countries import, the more unemployment there is. Whether it is Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Jamaica, Zimbabwe, Uganda, South Africa, the Philippines, Indonesia, South Korea, China, and India, farmers are being pushed out of agriculture. Millions are left with no choice but to move to the urban centres in search of menial jobs.

Q: In that case, where do you think the process of economic liberalisation and free trade in agriculture is headed?

A: To me, the basic objective of the entire globalisation process - and the WTO is part of it - is to destroy the inherent capability of the poor and developing countries, which as you know constitutes the majority world, to produce food from within the country. It aims at taking away food security and letting the markets dictate who should eat what, if at all.

The Agreement on Agriculture, coupled with TRIPs, sanitary measures, and foreign direct investment, are all aimed at limiting the role of developing countries in food production. With the Third World forced to remove trade barriers and QRs (quantitative restrictions), and with the OECD multiplying agricultural subsidies for its own farmers, the game is very clear. The developing countries should refrain from producing food and that can be only done if they are made to diversify to cash crops - thereby destroy the natural farming systems. And in turn, these countries should import cheaper and high-quality food from the west.

Q: You mean the OECD will be the world's only food bowl?

A: Yes, you got it right. The world is being very conveniently divided into two parts: the OECD countries as the food providers and the rest of the world as food receiver.

The process to ensure that staple foods are produced only in North America and Europe (and to some extent in Australia) was actually initiated more than a decade ago. The World Bank/IMF have always, as part of the loan conditionalities, asked the developing countries to diversify the cropping pattern from staple foods to cash crops - crops like strawberries, cut flowers, melons, tomato, saying that such a shift will bring more income to farmers.

Q: Genetic engineering is being promoted as the answer to hunger. Will that not rescue the developing countries?

A: Scientists and the multinational seed industry (and politicians joined them later) used emotional arguments of eradicating hunger and malnutrition as a justification for introducing modified crops, which actually have nothing to do with hunger. The developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, have been very cleverly forced by the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Bank to accept agricultural biotechnology as "the tool for eradicating hunger".

If the public money being incurred on GM crops research, regulation and promotion and that too in the name of eradicating hunger and malnutrition, were to be diverted to feed the hungry, the FAO can meet its target of reducing global hunger by half and that too at least 12 years before the internationally accepted deadline of year 2015. That would mean saving the lives of some 24,000 people who die from hunger and related ailments everyday.

Q: What is the message that the World Social Forum is trying to convey?

A: The message that the WSF is trying to convey is that the globe is not a football to be tossed around by a few multinational conglomerates and that another world - where peace, equality and food security prevails - is possible.  

Go to a Print friendly Page


Email this Article to a Friend


Back to the Archive