Foreign Investment, the Extractive Industry, and Burma

"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: Ellen Bryna

 http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-96/issue-14/in-this-issue/petrochemicals/thailand-rules-yadana-pipeline-must-proceed.html

A few weeks ago, Revenue Watch Institute released The 2013 Resource Governance Index, which measures the quality of governance in the oil, gas, and mining sectors of 58 countries, including Burma. Burma received a failing grade, falling in last place among all the countries surveyed in the index. Burma’s composite index score of 4 is based on scores in four main categories: institutional and legal setting, reporting practices (such as revenue and contract disclosures), safeguards and quality control, and the broader governance environment (rule of law, government effectiveness, corruption, and democracy).[1]

Burma’s abysmal ranking comes as no surprise to those who have even casually followed Burma's extractive industries, which are notoriously opaque and riddled with corruption. Burma does not require environmental impact or social impact assessments for extractive projects, and it does not require the disclosure of revenues or contracts, making it very difficult for communities to understand the potential impacts of projects and hold anyone accountable for those impacts. In addition to problems with cronyism, opacity, and poor regulations, extractive projects in Burma have also been blamed for land grabs, loss of livelihoods in affected communities, massive environmental damage, egregious human rights abuses, and for exacerbating of conflict between the Burmese military and ethnic militias.[2] 

The gas, oil, and mining sectors are crucial components of Burma's national economy, accounting for 39 percent of exports in 2010. With its offshore oil and natural gas reserves estimated at 10 trillion cubic feet, and large amounts of untapped mineral resources including precious gems and industrial minerals, the extractive industry is expected to expand its contribution to Burma’s gross domestic product from $8 billion in 2010 to $21.7 billion by 2030.[3] 

The vast majority of Burma’s population lives in rural and impoverished conditions, depending on small-scale agriculture to make their livings. Only about 26 percent of the population has access to electricity, and even those with electricity access experience consistent blackouts.[4] Some argue that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Burma’s vast natural resources can help decrease poverty rates and improve infrastructure and access to services. Burma’s score in the Resource Governance Index, however, suggests that it is unlikely that the people of Burma will benefit at all from this investment unless the government makes sweeping reforms in its policies surrounding oil, gas, and mining. 

The government has recently made small moves to improve transparency in the sector, such as stating its intent to join the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI – a voluntary reporting and transparency standard for countries and companies involved in extractive industries), but ongoing projects, such as the Shwe Oil and Natural Gas Pipelines and the Letpadaung Copper Mine, suggest that business in Burma’s extractive industry will continue as usual for the foreseeable future. 

[1]See http://www.revenuewatch.org/rgi/ 
[2]For more information on abuses and conflict associated with Burma’s extractive industry, good places to start are: http://www.shwe.org/ and http://www.earthrights.org/campaigns/burma-project 
[3]“The Rush to Tap Myanmar’s Energy Promise” in Bloomberg Business Week, June 7, 2013, at http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-07/the-rush-to-tap-myanmars-energy-promise 
 [4]Myanmar In Transition: Opportunities and Challenges, Asian Development Bank, August 2012, pg 22 available at http://www.adb.org/publications/myanmar-transition-opportunities-and-challenges?ref=countries/myanmar/publications

GMOs: A Different Debate part 2 of 2

GMOs: A DIFFERENT DEBATE

Part 2 of 2 

 

By: Jonathan Rhodes
Co-contributor: Green Communities Consulting

Please see GMOs:A Different Debate part 1

By Minouto via Wikimedia Commons

The GM topic continues to reach headline news and remains a topic of discussion for health.  GMOs are perceived in the western world as having serious potential health risks. To date the jury is still out on direct links between health issues and GM foods. However, like so many things in this world, health is only one face to this mammoth of an issue that is GM crops. A much larger focus should be placed on the effects of GM farming in developing nations - issues such as biodiversity and livelihoods should be of larger focus.

Biodiversity

By Christian Ziegler. via Wikimedia Commons

 Every healthy ecosystem is robust and diverse, and through species diversity comes resiliency towards both natural and anthropogenic disasters. Take plants for example, if disease reeks havoc on a healthy ecosystem, there is enough biodiversity for the system as a whole to bounce back. Minimal loss to plant life and animal life results from a large pool of genetic diversity. In other words, humans will continue to have an alternative food source when one crop is lost.  However, when one species dominates an ecosystem, there are system wide risks - species extinction, livelihoods, and food security to name a few.

 

This is where GMOs can have devastating consequences to the natural environment. GMOs are designed to out compete naturally occurring relatives. If and when they are released into the wild these advantages disrupt the biodiversity of a system. The research published by the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. shows how GM salmon would cross bread with wild trout in closed conditions. Their offspring out competed both GM salmon and wild trout. This effectively created a super species and posed risks to biodiversity.

By Christian Ziegler. via Wikimedia Commons

 Livelihoods

Throughout SE Asia, I have come across many development practitioners and farmers who are proponents of GM crop. Farmers who wish to use them argue the benefits to job creation and food security. By successfully growing GM crops business can expand and create new jobs. This will also increase food stores that could provide income for poorer regions. This is a win right?

There is a darker side to this. GM agriculture lends itself to mono-cropping. This in turn restricts competition and reduces job creation except through expansion. All those jobs created by micro farms are suddenly lost. Small farmers’ inability to compete means loss of sales, loss of land, and loss of jobs. Additionally, the cost of investment is out of reach for the majority of farmers. Those who can afford GM crops aren’t necessarily the same people concerned about creating them. An example of this problem is in Burma. A majority of farmers are unable to support the expenses of GM crops and associated fertilizers/pesticides needed. Those who could afford GM crops tend to be large business owners or government officials from the Junta regime.

In many developing nations biodiversity and livelihoods are related. Utilization of a diverse ecosystem helps fuel livelihoods creation; weavers with their harvested fibers or silks, craftsman using wood and bamboo, or farmers and fisherman selling a range of produce are all examples of this interconnectedness.

For GMOs to have a positive impact on developing countries they must first overcome these obstacles. Until GMOs minimize threat to biodiversity and livelihoods they will continue to be a false hope for development.