On poverty reduction, economic growth and global warming

He argued that industrialization is essential for development but inevitably leads to an increase in emissions. However, development has the potential to lead the Third World towards greater concern for the environment as only when people are rich enough to feed themselves do they worry about the environment and future generations.

Giving priority to tackling global poverty has some validity. The fact that people worldwide have been dying of hunger and poverty is not new and the situation is not improving.  Attention given to the reduction of hunger and poverty has obviously been insufficient and ineffective. But whether the path of industrialization with its consequent contribution to global warming is the only option is another question.

When the world community responded to the Tsunami as a disaster and an emergency, there was such a massive response that in many countries there was too much money available. In Sri Lanka, for instance, policy makers consequently saw it as an opportunity for accelerating economic growth through the building of infrastructure for the expansion of tourism, modernizing townships and large industrial fishing harbors and so on. They presumably thought that the assistance available was greater than the needs of the disaster victims.

Poverty and hunger, however, are not treated as disasters needing  an emergency  response. The current UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were designed by world leaders who were content to commit themselves to try and reduce hunger and poverty by only half, and only by the year 2015. These issues were not presented to the world community as a disaster and an emergency. World leaders failed to recognize that over 840 million people who go to bed hungry every day will all be dead by the time this target is achieved. So, it is essential to look at poverty as needing urgent attention globally.

The BOI Chairman argued that industrialization is necessary to alleviate poverty and that this inevitably leads to greater emissions. He took the example of the US having a per capita income of USD 45,596 compared to Sri Lanka’s USD 1,558 to say that countries such as Sri Lanka should try to achieve that level of industrialization and pursue rapid economic growth as the way to reduce poverty, even if it means increased industrialization and emissions in the process.

Assuming that higher per capita income automatically contributes to poverty reduction is incorrect. In many countries, including the US, higher economic growth is achieved through increased disparities. Economic growth “trickling down” to reduce poverty is a theory that has failed in many countries. One needs to examine whether in the US itself this process of growth is reducing poverty or not. In many countries it has not, although some institutions such as the World Bank and  proponents of globalization and global market expansion stubbornly hold to the theory ignoring evidence to the contrary.

For the last 30 years Sri Lanka has tried to follow the path of rapid economic growth, industrialization and the expansion of exports by inviting foreign investment for industry and export agriculture.  Private sector big business has also been promoted as the "engine of economic growth". However, the results have been tragic. Poverty and economic disparities have increased, domestic food production has gone down. The huge expenditure to provide infrastructure, tax concessions and other incentives to foreign and local capital has made the country seriously indebted and these debts increasingly impact on poorer people through an increased cost of living. Growth has been far below expected levels. The breakdown in domestic agriculture and the privatization of trade and essential services such as health and education has added more burdens on the poor. 

The assumption that faster growth and industrialization is the only way to reduce poverty therefore needs to be questioned, not only in Sri Lanka but throughout the world.  The wealth of a limited group of rich people in rich countries worldwide is achieved only through the massive exploitation of  human potential and of nature's resources. The failure of the world and global institutions such as the World Bank and G-8 to develop effective strategies to reduce hunger and poverty is because their strategies have tried to combine two contradictory processes. The increased plunder of human beings and of nature cannot be combined with the reduction of poverty and hunger.

Hunger, poverty and environmental destruction demand a radical change in the way the world looks at the needs of humans as well as nature. A large proportion of the human population is now facing a threat  to their very survival. Continued expansion of the global market is excluding many poor people, small scale producers and poorer consumers from the market. Access to resources for life and livelihood are being denied. The global market expects such people to " disappear" since they are not needed in that market. This situation is true in Sri Lanka too if one looks at the alarming figures for rural poverty, malnutrition and anaemia, and take into consideration the fact that food prices have increased tremendously and are predicted to continue to do so.

Eradicate poverty and fight global warming simultaneously

If the issue of poverty reduction and the eradication of hunger are approached in the right way, it could simultaneously contribute to a reduction in global warming.

The Government of Sri Lanka has begun to recognize that much greater emphasis needs to be given to domestic food production by small-scale farmers. This is the thinking behind the program initiated in September 2007, "Let us grow and build the nation" ( Api Wawamu Rata Nagamu ), through which the building of 4 million small-scale home gardens is envisaged. If this approach is looked at more comprehensively, then what is needed and what is possible is to make full use of the potential of small-scale farmers and of nature's contribution to ecological agriculture. Small-scale farmers and rural communities can effectively adopt methods of ecological agriculture. Using this approach it is possible to produce food at very low cost, eliminate the use of expensive and harmful chemical inputs, revive nature’s ability to regenerate itself, improve the natural fertility and water retention ability of the soil, avoid chemical pollution of food, soil, water and air and increase biodiversity. The protection and propagation of indigenous seeds and planting material can be pursued, making better use of indigenous knowledge.  The potential contribution to such a process by small farmers is much higher than in large-scale industrialized agriculture. It needs to be recognized that the poor people can be much more effective in developing strategies for the eradication of their own poverty. 

A transformation in the way agriculture is practiced is required and ecological agriculture is increasingly recognized as the best way. "Via Campasena", the world's largest movement of small-scale farmers and peasants, has declared the concept of "food sovereignty" which says that people, the poor and small scale farmers in particular, have the right not only to have food, but also the right to decide what kind of food should be produced and by whom. Large farmers’ movements such as the Movimento dos Trabhaladores Rurais Sem Terra (MST – Landless Workers’ Movement) in Brazil have decided that they will promote small-scale ecological agriculture as a means of achieving food sovereignty.

As is well known, there is a serious crisis in agriculture all over the world. In many industrialized countries there is a crisis of over-production and a need to give very rich, large-scale farmers  big subsidies to make their products competitive in the international market. Such agricultural marketing can only survive by limiting or destroying the possibility of millions of small farmers both in developing countries and developed countries for engaging in agriculture.

It is estimated that if the present trend of global market expansion and conversion into larger scale farming continue it will result in about half the world’s population of small farmers being reduced to destitution within the next few decades. In India alone it is estimated that about 400 million small farmers will suffer this fate.

It is therefore necessary and useful to look at the potential of such small-scale, ecological agriculture by millions of small farmers as a way of eradicating hunger and poverty whilst simultaneously fighting against global warming. The future of the world, the survival of all forms of life and  particularly the poor who are excluded and destined  to "disappear" lies not in a process that further destroys nature's  potential, but in a process that can recover and restore the already destroyed capacity of nature to regenerate itself.