poverty in a different way

"The following content was contributed by a guest blogger. The opinions expressed or implied herein may not be the opinions of Green Communities Consulting."

By Emma Moonlight

In September 2012 I went to teach in one of the nine refugee camps on the Thai-Myanmar border. The last few days before I went to camp I was, I have to admit, incredibly nervous. Not of the people, not of the language barrier, not of the living conditions in general, but mainly about whether I would get drinking water. Whilst I knew that thousands of people lived in the camp and had done for many years, so logically my fears were unfounded, I was still worried.

What strikes me now, though, is how quickly I adapted to my new life. To me, the living conditions weren’t that bad. Or at least, I’d expected worse. But then again, I am one of those people who are perfectly happy trekking through jungle or up mountains and spending three weeks in a tent. That’s just me, though.

No, what I experienced wasn’t people starving, children wailing, or complete destitution. It was poverty in a different way.

While I was there, one of the teachers at my school found out that she was pregnant. When she told me, she had a smile on her face but was struggling to hide the tears in her eyes. I was later told that, as a refugee, she didn’t want to bring a baby up. She wanted to be able to offer her child a future. She wanted knowledge that her child would be able to get a decent education, have the opportunity to find work, and, most importantly, live a life free from persecution. As a refugee, she couldn’t guarantee her child any of that stability.

The majority of refugees I worked with had enough food (don’t get me wrong – it wasn’t necessarily always healthy or varied, but it was food), they had a roof over their heads, and they had access to education. For adults, though, there was a void. There was absolutely nothing to do. People left the camp’s school system (if they’d entered it in the first place) and entered the kind of dull, endless vacuum that comes from years of living in limbo, waiting for something to happen. They had no way of knowing what that something might be, or when it might come; let alone who might make that decision for them.

Some of my English students were working as primary teachers in the camp. The wages were pitiful and they detested the job – they had never had any aspirations to become teachers. One of them had started a law degree at university before having to flee Myanmar. Teaching, however, was pretty much the only thing to do during the day and the only way to guarantee that they would have something on their CVs if and when they can eventually leave camp. 

This wasn’t poverty the way the Western media portray it when running news stories or charity campaigns. These were people who simply exist, carrying out their daily activities with a complete lack of control over their lives. They had no choices whatsoever to make about their future, no options or decisions to make. The future, when it was discussed, was done so in terms of ‘in an ideal world…’ and ‘if I eventually leave here…’ These were big ‘ifs’; many others chose not to openly voice their fears.

Will China take the rest of the world out of poverty?

Will China take the rest of the world out of poverty?

Part 1.

By TUBS [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons

            According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, China's largest oil fields, upon which they have been relying since the 1960's, have reached peak production in the past few years.  Anticipating the fact that these mature fields will be unable to support the rapid increase in oil demand, China has been increasingly importing its oil from abroad.  Crude imports now account for over half of China's annual oil consumption.  As of 2009, China is the second-largest importer of oil, trailing only the United States. 

            Securing oil from abroad has proven to be relatively easy for the Chinese, especially with their implementation of the so-called oil-for-loan deals, which have been made with Ghana, Angola, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Kazakhstan, and others.  These deals essentially trade oil for access to Chinese investment dollars.

            Another method of accessing imported oil is through pipelines, which China currently uses to get oil from Russia and Kazakhstan, and will in the near future through Burma.  These pipeline projects require international teams and vast investment capital to complete, and create an entire infrastructure around them in order to be maintained into the future.

            Given the vast amounts of capital delivered through the oil-for-loan deals and pipeline construction projects, many nations stand to profit a great deal from China's incredible rise to economic dominance.  Because of Chinese investment dollars, it is now possible for third world countries to build an infrastructure capable of sustaining long term development which, in theory, would take them out of poverty and into the 1st world. 

            While China certainly benefits from the increases in oil imports from abroad, the countries doing the importing stand to gain quite a bit themselves, if they handle the investment capital carefully, and ensure that is their workers, and not the Chinese, who are being educated to work in the developing industries.  For if all of the majority stake holders and all of the skilled laborers within the developing industries within a country are of Chinese background, that country stands to lose its status as autonomous, and instead becomes a true puppet. 

            Part two, soon to follow, will discuss how a country should properly use Chinese investment capital to guarantee its future success.

Zachary James

Whose Pipeline Is It Anyway?

Whose Pipeline is it Anyway?

           According to the DVB (Democratic Voice of Burma), seventy-five percent of the Burmese population is without access to the national electricity grid.  This lack of electricity has far reaching consequences that put the majority of the Burmese at a disadvantage.  Electricity allows students to study at any hour of the night, and creates the opportunity for cell phones and computers, ultimately granting access to the wider world via the internet.  Electricity also allows farmers to make the move from physically taxing manual labor to subsistence farming. Subsistence farming is not only better for the health of farmers, but also typically produces higher crop yields. 

           With such an enormous energy yielding pipeline being built literally across the span of Myanmar, one would think the people would be celebrating the introduction of energy into their communities.  But they are not.  Thousands of acres of land have been confiscated from Burmese farmers in order to build a large corridor of land around the proposed pipeline, and many of these farmers have been protesting their received compensation as woefully inadequate.  Furthermore, and perhaps more disturbingly, is the fact that even though the pipeline runs through the entirety of Myanmar, locals have not been granted any access to the oil and gas which will run through their confiscated lands.  This means that of the estimated 12 million tons of crude oil and the 12 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year, locals whose lands come into direct contact with the pipeline and whose lands will likely suffer the most from it will receive exactly zero of the energy benefits which the pipeline delivers. 

           So, if the Burmese aren't getting the enormous amounts of energy being delivered by the pipeline, who is?  According to Narinjara, an independent news agency, 50.9% majority of the stake in the pipeline is held by China National Petroleum Corporation.  They are ensuring that this pipeline delivers its energy producing power straight into mainland China, and have been largely ignoring the demands of the locals whom they displace and disenfranchise.

           The real question that arises from this is:  Why would Myanmar let China do this?  Despite the fact that the pipeline runs across the breadth of Myanmar, Burmese shareholders are in the minority, and therefore ultimately do not have the final word in the decision making process.  If the average Burmese citizen is not allowed access to this energy development, then it is quite clear that the privileged few who do have sold much of their country's future in return for personal gain. It still remains to be seen whether Myanmar, now a developing democracy, can utilize this development for good rather than to fatten the wallets of Chinese developers and corrupt Burmese politicians.

by Zachary James, GCC Contributor

Sources:

http://www.dvb.no/news/global-protests-target-burma-pipeline/20519

http://www.shwe.org/chinese-oil-firm-ignores-land-rights-with-burma-pipelines/

http://www.narinjara.com/details.asp?id=2386

GMOs, A DIFFERENT DEBATE

GMOs: A DIFFERENT DEBATE:

Part 1 of 2 

 

By: Jonathan Rhodes
Co-contributor: Green Communities Consulting

http://giselleheredia.blogspot.com/

Agriculture plays a critical role in a nation’s development and can have huge effects on economic systems (see What If Soil Runs Out by John Crawford and an older excerpt for the FAO by Rolf Moehler). Thanks to the Green Revolution the world saw increased agricultural production as well as advancements in agriculture techniques and technologies. These advancements included plant strains with increased fertilizer uptake, higher productivity per hectare and improved pest control. These three achievements led to developments in genetically modified organisms (GMO) technologies. GMOs promised to be the next evolution in the Green Revolution – a green revolution 2.0 of sorts. After all, the goals of GMOs are the same as the outcomes praised in the Green Revolution: higher nutritional value, larger yields, more robust plant.

However, the public perception of GMOs is much more negative than of the Green Revolution. A dimension of the debate most Westerners are familiar with is GMOs' supposed human health risk. Adeeba Hasan wrote an Op Ed piece for the Berkeley Political Review that begins to address the debate in Why GM Foods Are Not As Bad As They Seem: a message to GM Demonizers. She stated

“…a recent study by Stanford University’s School of Medicine cites a ‘definite lack of evidence’ to support that organic foods are inherently healthier than GM foods… [and] research ‘proving’ the dangers of GM foods is often flawed or premature…”

As the excerpt suggests, the jury is still out on the long term effects of GMOs to the human body. Human health and food security should remain a topic of debate – no argument here, but a less discussed dimension should be examined by the Western world. What are the implications of GMOs on developing nations; the very people the technology is supposed to assist? Agriculture is known to be a driving force for national development, especially for poverty alleviation, livelihoods creation, and nutritional health. The developing world is said to have benefited the most from the 1940s – 1970s Green Revolution. GMOs are expected to have significant positive impacts on developing countries, however there are still concerns about unintended consequences. 

To bring this idea closer to home, consider the impact emerging markets or even developed Asian markets can have on our Western economies, i.e. the recent GMO fear from Japan which could led to an increase in specific global food prices (see the Eamon Murphy article). After all Monsanto, the biotech giant, controls 90% of soybean seeds sold says Scott Tong from Marketplace.org. Additionally, according to the Jan. 2013 Swiss Re study, instability in agriculture in these emerging markets contribute to more severe food shortages for developed countries during times of stress.

The green revolution 2.0 with GMOs at the forefront should be good for development (check out the Europa Bios article). Why then is there strong opposition towards GM crops throughout the developing world (such as Peru and Kenya until a year ago)?  Why are they so stigmatized? With all its promise to end world hunger and nutrient deficiency (golden rice) or potential to prevent another potato famine (Washington Times article by Adrian Higgins Genetically modified potatoes are studied, criticized in Ireland), why are people so fearful of GMOs? Are the fears even founded?

http://www.goldenrice.org/

Part 2: GMOs A DIFFERENT DEBATE part 2 will come out next week soon. It will address the issues faced by developing countries. This will include challenges to biodiversity, livelihoods and economic development.

ADDITIONAL READS and other perspectives on the GMO issue:

David Tribe blog and 600+ published safety assessments

Mark Lynas Time To Call Out the Anti-GMO Conspiracy Theory

Joel Kotkin, The real Winners Of The Global Economy: The Material Boys

MicroPress, FAO underlines importance of agriculture to address world’s environmental challenge

NY Times GMO Articles