UNDP's HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2001:
Pro-Multinational Corporations and Anti-Poor
July 9, 2001
The undersigned civil society organisations strongly disagree with
the main messages contained in the UNDP Human Development Report 2001.
The report taken in its entirety forms an unabashed pat on the back
for the hi-tech bandwagon on which a minority of powerful elites are
galloping to even greater riches, even more power. The verdict of
the report is clear: the hi-tech world of information technology and
biotechnology is the savior of millions of poor, starving, desperate
people in the "developing" countries.
Such a stark conclusion flies in the face of the conclusions reached
by the UNDP itself in its Human Development Reports of 1999 and 2000.
Last year's report, for example, made a strong argument in favour
of global policies that are human rights based and favour fundamental
rights of the world's poor and vulnerable to food, housing, health
and self-determination to name a few. Apparently, going by the conclusions
of the HDR 2001 report, this was a one-off plea. So much for consistency
and mainstreaming of human rights and environmental concerns across
the UN system!
In brief, we present the following commentary on the main points made
by the HDR 2001:
1. Though the HDR admits that modern technologies should not be viewed
as "silver bullets" that can by themselves bring meaningful
development to people, it nevertheless focuses predominantly on promoting
such technologies.
2. It claims that the benefits of such technologies will reach the
poor if they are rooted in a "pro-poor development strategy",
but does not lay much stress on what such a strategy will need to
have.
3. At various points, it talks of how the "savage" inequalities
existing in the world could stop the benefits of new technologies
reaching the poor, but does not take this further to its logical conclusion:
that the realization of the human rights of the underprivileged and
oppressed sections of human societies will require economic and social
policies that emanate from people themselves, technologies that build
on their own capacities and knowledge rather than bringing in alien
ones, community and people's control over the natural and economic
resources necessary for life and livelihoods, and sincere political
decentralisation. Yet, none of these get central focus in the HDR,
which is shocking given that the implementation of human rights was
the central focus in the HDR 2000 report.
4. Though at times advocating the need to ensure that people have
a choice and are not saddled with one global formula, the biases towards
only one model of technology are clear in some revealing sentences.
It exhorts, for instance, 'developing' countries to take action for
"bridging the technological divide and becoming full participants
in the modern world". The report advocates that "farmers
and firms need to master new technologies developed elsewhere to stay
competitive in global markets". In so doing, it completely and
amazingly ignores the scores of technological alternatives to hi-tech
and biotech that have been developed by people, ordinary people, around
the world, including in agriculture, medicine, industry, and energy.
5. Such biases are seen in its advocacy of biotechnology, for instance.
It commends Bt cotton technology for reducing the amount of pesticide
spraysfrom 30 (for conventional cotton) to three, and enabling greater
production in countries like China. This completely ignores the fact
that hundreds of farmers in India alone, have developed organic cotton
production techniques that use no pesticides at all, and yet produce
high quantities, and in ways that are economically more profitable
since input costs are very low. Advocating modern biotechnology by
citing a few (dubious) success stories, while ignoring natural and
organic agricultural techniques that are being used by thousands of
farmers around the world, is a clear case of bias.
6. The report honestly describes the enormous risks associated with
genetic engineering, and even suggests that it is wrong to posit only
a choice between conventional technologies and biotechnologies, since
organic farming is also available...yet does not anywhere even examine,
let alone advocate, organic or natural farming technologies.
7. In its advocacy of strong policy measures to contain the risks
of the new technologies, and ensure that their benefits reach the
poor, the HDR is on strong ground. Unfortunately, it does not take
this analysis far enough, in asking: who will push for these measures?
Surely not governments, who have so far ignored them? It will have
to be very strong ground-level mobilisation of affected people and
communities, truly bottom-up pressure, that would assure such policy
changes. Yet the technologies that can facilitate such community empowerment,
such as organic farming and decentralised energy sources, are ignored
in this report, and the technologies that can only further alienate
people, such as complex biotechnology, are pushed! This is double-speak
of a sophisticated, but nevertheless transparent, nature.
8. It mentions the need to be "fair" in implementing Intellectual
Property Regimes, and even admits that many communities do not favour
such regimes at all. Yet strongly advocates the continuation of universal
regimes that will provide protection to formal knowledge systems.
It does mention that informal systems exist, that indigenous knowledge
systems are found,but does not place these at the centre of its recommendations.
9. Its Technology Achievement Index (on which India places a lowly
63), is based entirely on modern technologies developed in the formal
sector. This completely ignores the thousands of diffused technological
innovations that take place in countries like India.
The above conclusions are lent weight by the sugar-coated but clear
bias in the HDR towards private capital, corporations, and the profit-motive.
Listen to this: "The broader challenge for public, private and
non-profit decision-makers is to agree on ways to segment the global
market so that key technology products can be sold at low cost in
developing countries without destroying markets --- and industry incentives
--- in industrial countries". So now, public good has to bend
itself to suit private profit!
This year's HDR is a huge, huge disappointment. But what more can
one expect from a report, whose only mention of Monsanto Corporation,
universally criticised for its unethical and destructive practices,
is a citation of its agreement to transfer patented genes to the Kenyan
Agricultural Research Institute for virus-resistant potato varieties.
Never mind how much Monsanto has stolen from countries like Kenya.
Over the last couple of years, the HDR had become a welcome ally of
those fighting for greater justice and freedom, for greater equity
amongst and within nations and for a greater stress on the implementation
of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the world's poor and
marginalized. Last year, for instance, it has explicitly highlighted
the role of globalisation and global forces, including the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) and its many agreements, in the violation of basic
human rights and ecological sustainability. The 2001 report's conclusions
are a clear and devastating
turnaround and indicate the UNDP can no longer be relied upon to stand
on the side of the very people from whome it derives its credibility
- the disprivileged millions across the world.
Signed:
•Kalpavriksh, Environmental Action Group, Pune
•Lokayan,
Delhi
•Forum
for Biotechnology and Food Security, New Delhi
•Habitat
International Coalition, New Delhi
•Deccan
Development Society
•Andhra
Pradesh Coalition in Defense of Diversity, Hyderabad
•International
Group for Grassroots Initiatives, New Delhi.
Contact Addresses:
Habitat International Coalition
Housing and Land Rights Committee
Tel/Fax: 91-11-4358492
E-mail: hichrc@ndf.vsnl.net.in
Kalpavriksh
Tel/Fax: 91-20-5654239
E-mail: ashish@nda.vsnl.net.in
