Back to Home Page
SimpleWaterFuel


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



 

See also:
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2001: Making New Technology Work For Human Development
Although controversial, GMOs could be breakthrough technology for developing countries [PDF] (from the HDR 2001)

Biotechnology will bypass the Hungry
Saving crop diversity key to winning war on hunger (July 6, 2001)
SAMANVAYA - IndiaTogether Special Report on Golden Rice - A gift we can live without

More News on Agriculture and Biotechnology
More Resources on Genetic Engineering

Take Action:
Read about India's Campaign against Genetically-Modified Crops
Sign Greenpeace India's Petition to Halt the Entry of Genetically Engineered Crops into India

 


Save Around $500 A Month By Going Green

Earth 4 Energy - The #1 renewable energy product

Just Green It!

Electricity4Gas Manual

Power 4 Home


Download the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view files in Portable Document Format (pdf).


Copyright © 2001 Making India Green. All Rights Reserved

Disclaimer: All content on this site is solely for the purpose of information,
and is not an endorsement of products or services provided by external links.

Partner Sites
Natural, Herbal Health Products
Indian Parenting Blog
Beach Holiday Blog