Globalisation, Food and Freedom

By Hilde F. Johnson, Minister for International Development, Norway

Introduction

Let me first of all take you to Tanzania, to one of the poorest countries in the world and to introduce you to two of my friends, Jacob and Agatha in Mwazye village. Out there in the maize fields, they stand, Jacob and Agatha. They are leaning on to their hoes, looking up, and watching the clouds passing by. They are waiting for the rains. Everything is ready for cultivation, except for the crucial, but missing link, the rains. There, far up in the sky, - they see a plane coming. In kiswahili, a plane is called "ndege". "Ndege" is the term for birds as well, and for those who only have seen planes at a distance, the only difference is the size and the sound.

Today, millions and millions of people are standing out there in their maize fields - around the world. Many of them are staring at the sky, just like Jacob and Agatha, waiting - with desperate questions on their mind: Why aren’t the rains coming? When might the drops come? What’s wrong? In Africa, 38 million people are in exactly this situation at the moment. They are desperately searching for solutions to their crises.

While the rich few are seated comfortably in the small jet, passing by, being served in abundance. This is symbolic. We – at this conference – are seated in that plane, far above the heads of the world’s poor, whilst the poor billions of the world are out there, are struggling for survival and for a small surplus. This is linked to food, to power and to politics.

The reality of poverty – the right to food.

1,2 billion people in the world today live in extreme poverty. They are balancing on a tight- rope, where just marginal changes in their situation, in climatic conditions, whether no rains or rain in abundance through floods, whether new policy decisions or changes in the market prices, whether actions by land lords or by the police may dramatically change their lives. Such developments may all lead to devastation. Devastation for themselves, devastation for their families. Among them are 700 million people. They live without food security. They are constantly at risk, at risk of malnourishment, undernourishment and starvation.

The UNDP has defined development as "a process of expanding people’s choices." It is a good definition. Because if there is one characteristic which is common for every one of these 700 million individuals, it is the experience of being left without choice, without any alternative. They are constantly forced by circumstance. There is no freedom, no freedom of choice.

The main characteristic of the poorest people of the world is that they live from the land. More and more are becoming urban dwellers. But still, poor peasants constitute the majority of the poor in the poorest countries of the world. If we are to lift millions of people out of poverty, the situation of the rural poor have to be addressed. There is no way we can achieve poverty reduction and - eradication unless we take food security and agricultural development seriously.

This also has a normative aspect. It is closely linked to human rights. Every individual is to be granted the same rights, both the right to life itself, the political and civilian rights as well as social and economic rights. Among the latter is the right to food. The right to food has been established as fundamental by several international bodies, and was latest confirmed at the World Food Summit in Rome last year. The right to food is being violated for millions of poor people every day. Focusing on food security and agricultural development is therefore important also in a human rights context.

Developments

What has happened the last 15 years? Well, there is sufficient food for everyone on this planet. What is wrong is the distribution. It is not just. Starvation is primarily a poverty issue, not an issue of problems related to soil fertility and yields. This is illustrated by the fact that agricultural production in total per capita, also in the developing countries has increased by 40% during the period 1980-2001. This is significant. Only in Africa, where we find the most severe problems of food security and starvation, do we find that the production levels have dropped by 5% during the same period.

The right to food has not only been an illusion for far too many people. The poor peasants have also to a large extent been neglected, neglected by their own politicians and authorities, and neglected by the international community. They have been marginalized. They have lived through dramatic policy changes, but have continued to cultivate their land – in most countries under ever more unpredictable and difficult circumstances.

There are of course complex causes and a magnitude of reasons behind this situation, and it differs from country to country. Only case studies will provide us with sufficient answers. What we do know, however, is the linkage to poverty. And that poverty itself also is complex.

Still, let me offer one possible explanation, relevant at least for a number of African countries.

In many African countries, state control with totally regulated markets was the predominant system of the 70’s and part of the 80’s. Many peasants were not allowed to sell to local or regional markets, any private marketing was forbidden, and they were poorly paid by their state cooperatives. Delivery was slow, both of input incentives and payments, and often corruption was abundant. The peasants were suffering from inefficiency and neglect by the authorities and the state.

With the liberalization of the production and marketing system following structural adjustment programmes with the World Bank and the IMF in the 80’s and first half of the 90’s, marketing the products became free. There was freedom of choice as many wanted. The delivery systems in terms of inputs and incentives through subsidies and counselling for the peasants were, however, abandoned or privatised. This again, left the peasants with higher expenses and new difficulties. The policy changes solved some problems, but created new ones.

In both periods there was more taxation of the peasants than other citizens in many countries. And in both periods one might say that party officials and national elites were – relatively speaking - protected from the consequences.

Such policy shifts have had major impacts on food production and on the situation of poor peasants. Since then, the agricultural sector has had low priority, both among local authorities, in the governments of developing countries, as well as in the donor community. Internationally, assistance to the agricultural sector has dropped significantly from 15 – 20 % in the 70’s to 5 – 6 % in the 90’s. In other words, neglect.

One might say that there is a kind of "policy vacuum" in the agricultural area and in food production. This situation has to be addressed upfront, with a new emphasis on policy development and on agriculture and food security. I will return to this later. What are we then seeing? Instead of addressing the root causes and structural reasons for this situation, a number of international companies and to some extent also parts of the donor community seem to turn to rather simplistic answers. They look to the so-called "green revolution" of Asia and to new technologies, not least biotechnology and GMOs, gene modified organisms. These new developments are provided as the answer to the food security problems of the poor of the world.

In my view greater yields through new technologies or sophisticated production methods is not the answer to our problems. The world is so much more complicated than that, and in the poorest countries 100 times more so. All the other factors affecting the agricultural sector are much more important, being it macro-economic conditions, taxation, institutional capacity, competence, provision of inputs and incentives, prices and market factors, etc. An isolated intervention in increased food production, for instance per hectare – which doesn’t address these complex problems and reasons, will never succeed. We have to make a major effort in addressing these issues first, and before we consider new interventions. Food security and agricultural development must be part of a broadbased and holistic strategy to eradicate poverty, a strategy that addresses all these factors simultaneously. Let me outline that strategy for you first.

Fighting poverty first

In our Action Plan "Fighting Poverty in the South towards 2015" the Norwegian government is addressing the complexity of poverty. The basis of our plan is the Millenium Development Goals, the MDGs. Food security and agricultural development is part and parcel of this action plan.

In the Plan we are outlining how we, from the Norwegian side will contribute in achieving the MDGs. About 1.2 billion people are living in absolute poverty. One of the Millennium Development Goals is to halve the proportion of people living in absolute poverty by 2015. Other goals are related to education, gender equality, health, HIV/AIDS and the environment. We know that we will not achieve these goals by taking them one at a time.

We must combat poverty on four fronts at once. Reorganization and the mobilisation of resources will be needed in all four areas. They are

• The international framework conditions
• National policies in developing countries
• International development assistance/ODA
• The private sector and grassroot-NGOs

We must remember the need for a comprehensive approach when we discuss how various elements fit into a strategy for combating poverty.

Therefore, Jacob and Agatha will never experience improved living conditions unless the macroeconomic situation of their country improves, being it conditions of trade, debt burden or investments. When Tanzania looses it’s income because the world market prices on their commodities suddenly drop by 50%, or is used to service the debt rather than providing schools and health clinics, the consequences are felt – out there in the fields in Mwazye. There will be lesser funding for interventions for the poor. When national policies lead to galloping inflation and skyrocketing interest rates, when they allow corruption to flourish and service delivery to fragment, Jacob and Agatha are left with the consequences. When international assistance is cut, - or gets lost on the way to Mwazye, the villagers are left alone. This illustrates that poverty cannot be reduced without addressing all these factors simultaneously.

That is why we have granted market access, with zero tariffs and no quotas to the Norwegian market, and want to assist Tanzania in diversifying its production and increasing its exports to our markets. That is why we have cancelled all debt to Norway, and are working internationally for more beneficial debt relief arrangements. That is why we have addressed corruption up front and requested better governance. And the Tanzanian government has on their side improved policies significantly. There is macroeconomic stability and good growth rate projections. Institutions are in place to tackle a number of governance problems. And the donor community is increasing its assistance to this country quite significantly, with large investments in education for all – free for all and in health. This in turn, may have a positive impact on the situation of Jacob and Agatha. All factors must be addressed at the same time.

The World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg underlined the need for coherence in development cooperation. One of the conclusions was that to combat poverty we must increase our efforts in five sectors. These are known as the WEHAB sectors – water, energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity. Put in this way, the links are obvious: there can be no agriculture without water, no health without water, no progress in agriculture when people are falling victim to AIDS, no health without food, no agriculture without biodiversity. We will increase our resources and efforts in most of these areas. The reality of poverty is complex. And has to be addressed accordingly.

Agricultural development – the need for a broadbased approach

We find this complexity also in agriculture.

As part of our Action Plan, we emphasized the need to address food security and agricultural development upfront. There was a need to address the situation of neglect both in quantity and quality. As regards Africa, the bottom line seems to be that agriculture as a motor for development has been neglected, by the countries themselves as well as by the donor community. We should be careful not to draw hasty conclusions, but we need to ask whether the current crisis of food security and starvation in Southern Africa and on the Horn of Africa is linked not only to climatic conditions, but also structural causes in relation to the developments in the agricultural sector.

The Norwegian government therefore commissioned a study on how Norwegian development cooperation can focus better on agricultural development in our development policy. The study was carried out by a group of the most prominent experts on agriculture and development in Norway. The group’s report, which was delivered last Monday, contains a very interesting analysis and a number of specific proposals.

We know that the largest numbers of poor people are found in rural areas. The report cites recent studies that show that growth in the agricultural sector in developing countries does more to reduce poverty than economic growth in urban areas. If farmers earn more, this creates a greater demand for goods and services in rural areas. And these are often produced locally, which creates more jobs locally for craftsmen and small businesses.

But how can we help farmers to earn more? The report shows that this too is a complex process. If economic growth in rural areas is to reduce poverty, several factors are important.

• Assistance to increase productivity must be mainly directed towards small and medium-sized farms. General growth in productivity or more profits for larger farms will have a limited impact on poverty.
• Increasing productivity will not result in greater production unless farmers can sell their produce to a market. This means there must be a demand for the produce, opportunities for processing and a properly functioning market. It also requires appropriate factor inputs.
• Poverty does not just mean a lack of land or seed or food, it also means a lack of social security, health care, education and so on. A general lack of security means that investments are not made and there is no room for innovation. This has to be addressed.

On this basis, the report makes the case for a broadbased initiative, where income generation for the poor, better nutrition and health figure is regarded as a precondition for development. A number of clear recommendations are made as to how Norway can help to reduce poverty in rural areas:

• Agriculture as market activity and income-generating work must be given better framework conditions. Better input incentives, better market access locally, nationally and globally, and suitable training for producers, distributors and processing companies are of key importance for stabilising markets.

• Secondly, there is a need to safeguard people’s rights and ensure equitable distribution. Small farmers, fishermen, herders, both men and women, both with and without land, must be given user rights and access to production resources such as land, water, pasture and seed corn.

• The third recommendation I would mention is to give greater priority to institutional cooperation and capacity-building
  
• Finally, Norwegian allocations to agricultural development must be increased; the proposal is to increase this assistance from its current level of 3.2 per cent to 15 per cent of Norwegian development assistance. Expertise in this sector must be enhanced in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the Agency for Development Cooperation.

We will consider all these proposals.

The ambitious objective of the Millennium Development Goals is to eradicate poverty. In order to succeed, we must fight on many different fronts. This applies not least to the development of a sustainable economy in rural areas in the poorest countries and to increasing agricultural productivity. But I am not convinced that genetically modified food or GMOs is the right tool in this connection. Other steps are much more important. If we take these other steps, this will have a much greater effect than any introduction of the use of GM seed. And it remains unproven that such introduction will yield positive results for poor peasants.

One remark on research in this respect. A critical factor in the development of agriculture, is the issue of priorities in research. Almost all research is conducted in the North – very little in the South. And very little is conducted near and with the peasants, with a view to their real needs. To take knowledge and decision power about research to the local areas where production is needed is a great challenge. Products developed by the industry in the North are more often than not poorly adapted to the complexities of the South. But again, this is not a specifically GMO-related problem. Rather it is a horizontal problem pertinent to the challenge of poverty itself. It is dealt with to some extent in the report on agriculture we just received.

Biotechnology and GMOs

Biotechnology can be a useful tool under specific circumstances. Progress in biotechnology has the potential to deliver progress in our lives – in the field of medicine as in the field of agriculture. But there is a need for caution when we deal with a number of the tools of modern biotechnology – and I believe it is the duty of government to set the rules. One of them is genetically modified food.

Norway has internationally been on the restrictive side when it comes to biotechnology, both with regards to medicine and environmental aspects. We have a pretty strict national legislation in both areas. This attitude is reflected also in terms of the use of biotechnology and gene modified organisms in agricultural development in poor countries. When there is a rather restrictive regulatory framework on the Norwegian side, there is all the more reason for caution in developing countries. Most developing countries, and not the least the poorest among them, do not have the competence and capacity to handle the complex issues that arise with the use of biotechnology and GMOs. This is an important argument in the case we have made regarding GMO-food in food aid. And it is among the reasons why we do not wish to contribute to the increase of GMO-food in food aid.

Lack of legislative frameworks may also easily lead to commercial utilization and experiments in this area without safeguards and caution. We should be careful not to allow poor countries to become the new area of experiments in this field.

Genetically modified organisms and the food crisis in Africa

One of the issues that have been most hotly debated is the question of GMOs in food aid. This has not least been the case with regard to the delivery of GMO-maize to the hunger-stricken African population in Southern Africa.

This is an extremely difficult issue, ethically and politically. The most important thing for us in this situation must be to save lives, to save the lives of millions and millions of Africans, for the time being 38 million on the continent. At the same time it is important – from an ethical standpoint – to realize that the situation on the ground in a starving Africa is rather different from the situation prevailing in well functioning markets in Europe. There is a need for other cautionary measures when food aid is delivered into a market with no safeguarding institutions. There should be no experiments. And there should be no industry taking advantage of the absence of safeguarding institutions.

On the Norwegian and European side we have a restrictive attitude in terms of allowing GMOs in products on our own food market. We have operated with a very strict policy, as the minister of agriculture just said, no application has been granted, and labelling arrangements that give Norwegian consumers informed choice whether to buy products with GMOs or not. In the context of a food crisis, as the case is for Africa, the consumers, - the starving people, are left with no choice. They have to consume whatever is provided, and most probably without the knowledge of any implications.

Last summer, a number of countries in Southern Africa announced that they would not accept emergency relief in the form of genetically modified maize. The official UN position on this issue, emphasized in a joint press release from the WHO, WFP and FAO, is that there is no evidence indicating that genetically-modified food poses environmental or health risks. It stated that it nevertheless should be up to each recipient country to decide whether or not it wishes to receive emergency aid in the form of GM-food. Some donors, offering deliveries of food in this case, were highly critical of these countries’ refusal to accept GM food aid. Some comments by leading UN organisations were also understood to be criticizing the stand the African countries had taken. After some time, only Zambia was still refusing to accept this food.

From the Norwegian side, we see equal access to information and to alternatives as imperative. Whether you are a Norwegian consumer or an African in need of food aid, one should have the same right to information and choice. For Africans labelling GMOs in this context is an illusion, as is the competence to understand what GMOs is all about. With the current situation of food supplies to the African continent, there is a need for donors financing "clean" maize alternatives. This is why Norway has made a decision to finance clean maize in food aid in this situation, and not GMO-maize. And we have decided to offer to finance the milling of GMO-maize, when the recipient country makes an explicit demand and where there seems to be no alternative, i.e. non-GMO delivery possible. Belgium has made the same decision.

The possibility of milling the maize would take care of the risk for possible gene-contamination of crops, but of course, does nothing for the food safety aspect. Because there might also be a probability of higher risk when one is in a food crisis situation, consuming only one GMO-product over time.

All international donors underline the principle of freedom of choice for countries. Both donors and UN-organizations underline that it must be entirely up to each and every country to make the choice whether to accept food supplies with GMOs or not. This principle should, however, be real and not illusive. The current situation does not seem to provide countries with sufficient choice. In fact, if GM-food is offered in an emergency situation, and no other competitive alternatives are provided, neither in quantity nor in price, significant pressure will be the result when there is food scarcity. This is the background for the Norwegian decision.

There is an additional concern here. Companies and other actors might have a second agenda. There are heavy commercial interests in the production of GMO-maize. If GMO-maize is used without being milled there is a risk that people may use the grain as seeds later in their own production. This can not only lead to unwanted gene contamination, but also, in some instances, particularly if patent rights are being applied, lead to dependency on new supplies of GMO-seeds. An underlying strategy for expanding the market for GMOs in agricultural production may also be a factor behind this. My opinion is that it is unjust to exploit food shortages as a spearhead to obtain access to markets for GM food. This may also be regarded as a feature of globalisation. As I stated in the introduction - there is enough food, when shortages occur locally, it is our duty to make sure that the food which is made available from the global stocks are beyond doubt – and perceived to be so by those who are on the recipient side.

Unfortunately, it is considered probable that GM food has been shipped as food aid without proper notification. This would, in my opinion, be unethical and in breach of the Cartagena Protocol.

The protocol, established under the Convention on Biological Diversity, addresses the need for safety and informed choice. According to the protocol, the exporting country has an obligation to inform on the imports that contain GMOs. The importing country has a right to know the contents of GMOs in order to be able to evaluate the possible impacts on health and the environment. But, as long as developing countries lack the capacity to foresee possible long-term effects on health and the environment, the informed choice might be an illusion. The Cartagena protocol represents a stride forward in the fight for safer biotechnology, – and I might add that the Norwegian Government did its’ utmost to see its completion. But, we are a long way from seeing the fruits of its aspirations. In the case of Zambia, the government frankly stated that it did not have the capacity, locally, to make the proper risk assessments. The Norwegian Government, therefore, decided to donate funds to a local institute to increase local capacity for risk assessment. Much more needs to be done in this respect.

The need for capacity building

I have argued that there is a case for caution related to the use of genetically modified products – be it in agriculture or as food. There is need for caution in the developed world – and the rather strict regulations and procedures we have adopted in Norway is witness to our belief in this regard.

There is, however a need to build capacity in poor countries to handle this new situation. They must be provided with the capacity to:

- Assess better the risks in food safety. GMOs do not necessarily lead to new diseases, but there is scientifically based suspicion that GMOs can accelerate the development of chronic diseases (allergies, metabolic diseases, cancer) in individuals who are already genetically or environmentally predisposed.

There is a shortage of independent knowledge. We need to remind ourselves that scientifically, genetically modified food has been on the market for a rather shorter time than it takes to develop certain diseases. There has been no time for long-term studies as to the health effect. I am tempted to insert a rather humorous anecdote at this point. A long time ago, before TV was the universal medium for news, the safety of the pesticide DDT was being debated. The scientific community claimed there was no risk – DDT was much less toxic than other pesticides on the market. But people were sceptical. In order to convince the public that there was no danger in DDT, a well known public TV-figure, appeared on the Filmatic Newsreel, Filmavisen, and ate a spoonful of DDT. Not to compare GMOs with DDT, far from it. They are utterly different! But I think you get my point.

The arguments pertaining to food safety are the same all over the world. But, we need to remind ourselves that the populations of the South might be exposed to environments and nutritional patterns which may provide a different risk profile than the one we see in the areas where most research is undertaken. And again – it might be argued that those who might be exposed have less capacity to find out about the probable risks. I am tempted to remind us all about the additional risk related to bottle feeding in poor areas. My argument is; there is a need to build capacity to assess the risks locally. This is related to the precautionary principle.

- A similar argument will be pertinent to the risk of genetic contamination. Independent knowledge about the risks of genetic contamination is not sufficiently developed. When we turn our attention to developing countries – this issue is even more pertinent. When conditions differ in soil, in climate, organisms that are deemed safe given certain conditions in the developed north might easily have other effects in developing countries. There is, no doubt, a case to be made for local capacity building and independent research.

I could expand on the issue of the need for capacity building and local knowledge for quite some time. My core argument is this: Before we even consider letting ourselves be induced to believe that genetically engineered food or agricultural input will be a tool in the fight against poverty; we have a similar job to do. And this job needs to be implemented with a firm decision to do the necessary risk assessments both in a global context, and locally applied. There is a need to strengthen local capacity and knowledge, and more robust local competence.

Patenting of living material and GMOs

One of the most contested developments regarding GMOs in recent years, is the issue of intellectual property rights. This is an issue debated also in relation to globalisation. Norway has, until now, followed a restrictive practice with regard to GMOs, and not allowed for the significant patenting of genetic and living material proposed by the EU. The Government decided, however, last week to include the EU-directive which regulates the legal protection of biotechnological inventions in Norwegian legislation. This decision implies that Norway must allow for patents, which includes inventions relating to living plants and animals. Prior to the decision to include the decision in Norwegian law, there was extensive debate – a debate that led to a minority in Government voting against the inclusion.

I would like to mention the main arguments tabled by the majority and the minority in this issue.

The majority of the government pointed out, as the prime argument, the advantages of granting Norwegian industry being granted by establishing the same framework for competition as the rest of European industry. Political implications for the relations within the EEA were another main argument forwarded. The decision was not taken before the European Court had given verdict in the case raised by the Dutch government – in which the Netherlands claimed that the directive was in breach of decisions in the convention on biodiversity – a claim which was rejected by the court. In addition, only two of the total number of EU member-states have as yet not accepted the directive or passed it through parliament in a rather short period of time.

I belong to the minority in government, which voted against the adoption of the new legal framework for the level of patenting of inventions pertaining to human genes, cells and - material, plants and animals. The ethical arguments we all know, and they are relevant to the way we value human dignity, respect for the living nature, respect for the integrity of creation, respect for the integrity of living plants and animals.

The minority also argues that the new legal framework does not harmonize fully with the biodiversity convention and the need to safeguard biological diversity. It may threaten biodiversity because developing countries’ interest in safeguarding biodiversity may be reduced when resources may be taken out of the country, without payment, and patented. The convention on biodiversity states clearly that states have the right to make decisions relevant to their genetic resources. They have the right to demand that those who seek to use the resources ask permission to do so, and that such permission may be given on the condition that revenues from the use of the resources be shared in an equitable way.

When these conditions are not met, we may be dealing with a phenomenon often labelled genetic robbery. Inversely, it is difficult to see how the need to safeguard biodiversity is furthered by the new patent laws in biotechnology. This is because developing countries most often lack the scientific expertise to exploit their own resources. Thus, they may experience that revenue from resources that have been nurtured for generations, is harvested by companies in industrialized countries. There is also the fear that farmers in developing countries be made to pay more for plant or animal material needed in agriculture through patent fees.

In order to counter the unwanted effects of the directive, the Government has suggested to Parliament that a number of measures be taken in order to safeguard environmental, ethical and developmental issues. Among these measures, I would like to mention a few:

1) It is suggested that the directive be implemented in such a way that a restrictive practice regarding the granting of patents be followed,

2) Norway will argue in favour of the same attitude internationally, including in WTO, not least with regard to TRIPS and patenting rights.

3) Farmers should have the right to use patented genetic resources, plants and animals in reproduction of stock, without paying additional patent fees.

4) The seeker of patent rights should give information as to the origins of the genetic raw material of the invention. Non-compliance could be prosecuted, but the application may still be granted.

5) Norway shall work actively to safeguard the interest of developing countries. This means to participate actively to develop measures to achieve an equitable distribution of revenues from genetic material, including the utilisation and safeguard of traditional knowledge.

There is no disagreement in government about these latter measures. We will need to go into each and every one of them to seek the maximum benefit for biodiversity and for the developing world. The issues are complex, but one issue is clear, there is a great need for capacity and knowledge building in the third world.

Where do we go from here?

I have argued for the need for a comprehensive approach, and the need for caution and safety. What should we do?

Firstly, we need to work extensively along all fronts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and to combat poverty. Food shortage is a poverty problem – it is not the other way around.

Secondly; we need to increase emphasis on agriculture. We need to assess closely the reasons behind the African failure to follow the rest of the world into a long-term increase in agricultural production and lack of efficiency. In Norway, we will examine closely the recommendations given by the expert committee on agricultural development and make changes in the way we deal with agriculture in development aid in accordance with the outcome of this process.

Thirdly, in international organisations, we need to

a) increase work on environmental and safety aspects of GMOs

b) we need to continue work for the safeguarding of biodiversity. Our first step here will be the ratification of the Convention on Plant genetic resources.

c) we need to work for restrictive understanding of patent rights – in relation to the TRIPS, and we need to

d) continue to work to achieve the objectives in the biodiversity convention to obtain an equitable distribution of the revenues from genetic resources, and to work to safeguard and protect traditional knowledge about genetic resources.

Conclusion

Poverty is the lack of freedom to meet one’s basic needs and those of one’s family. In the international power play Jacob and Agatha stand to loose. It is our task to ensure that they don’t. Not by quick fixes, but by long term priorities. It is our joint responsibility to assist in addressing the overall poverty problems of their country. It is our joint responsibility to lift the agricultural sector and food security out of the current stalemate, and give the rural poor the attention they deserve. It is our responsibility to address the situation of the peasants. In this regard the debate on GMOs seems rather marginal. But it is not - if their country, or their peasant colleagues - are left without choice. As well as competence, capacity and measures of safety. We have to ensure that they do have a choice. After all, development is about expanding people’s choices. Doing the opposite, overruling them, should never be an option. They deserve freedom, just as we all do. Let me quote one of the voices of the poor, from Guatemala : "At last those above us will hear us." Let us do exactly that. Let us listen. And let us act accordingly.