208 recipes against hungersuccess stories for the future of agriculture

august 2001

argentina

bangladesh

benin

bolivia

brazil

burkina faso

chile

china

colombia

costa rica

cuba

dominican republic

ecuador

egypt

ethiopia

guatemala

haiti

honduras

india

indonesia

kenya

lesotho

madagascar

malawi

mali

mexico

nepal

nicaragua

niger

pakistan

paraguay

peru

philippines

sambia

senegal

simbabwe

sri lanka

sudan

swasiland

tansania

thailand

uganda

vietnam

a project by

1

The hunger hypocrisy

More than 800 million people are suffering frommalnutrition and starvation today. A considerable amount ofmalnutrition even exists in “developed countries” due to poordiet. This situation exists in spite of global food supply growingfaster than population in the past decades. It shows that thenotion of “feeding the world” following the Northernindustrialised model of agriculture is a simplistic, misleadingcliché. What matters is access to food or to the means toproduce or buy it. Achieving food security, therefore, means toeradicate poverty, which hinges also on the economic andpolitical environment.

Claims that the world’s hungry could be fed if only theagribusiness giants of the North were allowed to providegenetically engineered crops are hypocritical, because they arestill “pies in the sky”, far away from practical implementation andcynical, given that resource poor farmers will not be in a positionto buy expensive seeds and that developing countries do nothave the institutional means to deal with the considerable risksinvolved.

The World Food Summit in 1996 plead to halve the numberof the hungry and starving by 2015. The disappointing results sofar indicate how low the commitment for radical improvement ison an international political level. The challenge to achieve foodsecurity without damaging the environment and depleting andpolluting soils, water and biodiversity will have to be met largelyby the affected people themselves.

Real hope is coming from initiatives that involve farmers inthe South directly: A study commissioned jointly by Greenpeaceand Bread for the World found more than 200 examples ofsustainable, productive agriculture resulting in genuineimprovements in people’s livelihoods.

The four documented examples in this brochure from LatinAmerica, Africa and Asia show how creativity and ecologicalunderstanding lead to an agriculture that fosters biological andcultural diversity. They stand for alternatives that are productiveand adapted to their respective ecosystems. But they also carrya strong message for political decision-making both nationallyand internationally: Do not delegate the responsibility for 800million starving and malnourished people to a handful ofagribusiness companies. Get serious about the commitmentsmade five years ago in Rome. Create the enabling politicalenvironment for the poor to feed themselves and support thelarge number of successful approaches to produce sustainably.We must not allow the ongoing erosion of interest and supportfor the South to continue, denying the poor the mostfundamental human right – the right to food.

Dr. Lorenz PetersenGreenpeace International

Content

2 Bolivia – a world ofdifference

4 Report – a globalrevolution against hunger

6 Brasil – more thancoffee

7 Kenia – a remedy formoths and geneticengineering

11 Interview – with Dr.Tewolde Egziabher

12 Bangladesh – goodnews from Bangladesh

Farida Akhter, a woman withvisions – for the rural people inBangladesh

New thinking in Kenia: good maizeharvests without pesticides andgenetic engineering

2

A world of differenceThe sun has long risen, and an ink-blue sky

arcs over the mountains. But it is bitterly cold at thelittle experimental field 10,500 feet above sea level.Despite the cold, Prudencia Aduviri and herhusband Gabriel Crisp’n have only thong sandalswith soles made from old tyres on their feet.Shivering, they pull their hats down to warm theirnecks as they wait for the other peasant farmers tojoin them on the dusty plateau in the Bolivianhighlands.

Today is an important day for the 21 familiesfrom the tiny village of Wenqaylla: it is the daythey will decide which varieties of potatoes to plantin their fields during the autumn; the day that willdetermine how bounteous next year’s crops will beand, therefore, how well – or poorly – the familieswill fare.

“Without potatoes we cannot exist”, theKetchua Indian Prudencia says solemnly. “Thepotato is our life, which Pachamama, our MotherEarth, gives to us.” When she too finally catchessight of the consultants from “World Neighbors”,she resolutely takes her basket of raffia, presses thehoe into Gabriel’s hand, and makes her way towardthe small communal field. Below its topsoil lie thetubers on which everything depends.

Five years before, the “gringos” fromOklahoma had come to the former silver-miningregion of Potos’, where to this day most of thehighland Indians must wrest their crops laboriouslyfrom a barren earth. Leached-out, badly erodedsoils and a dearth of fertilizer have the mountainfarmers trapped in an all-but hopeless vicious circleof poverty.

Gabriel Crisp’n was one of the first peoplewilling to listen to the ideas of the North Americansand their Bolivian colleagues. Even so, the initialefforts were anything but promising: “Theyproposed to us that we should scatter a portion ofour bean and pea harvest as fertilizer onto thepotato fields”, the 51-year-old Ketchua recalls.“Crazy! How can we do something like that toPachamama! The harvest is her gift to us!”

That this age-old veneration of the EarthMother could become a problem was something the“Neighbors” had not considered. They were notdaunted, however, but began to search for othertypes of plants growing at altitudes between ten andthirteen thousand feet that would be suitable asfertilizer. They discovered Tarwi, a species oflupine.

“Tarwi was worthless for us. Its beans are sospicy that it takes a lot of work to make themedible”, Gabriel Crisp’n explains. “We couldn’tbelieve that these lupines made such goodfertilizer.” For hundreds of families from some

thirty communities in the provinces Charcas andIbanyez, the leguminous plant has meanwhilebecome a key element of organic, close-to-naturefarming.

The “green fertilizer”, with its soft stems andleaves, makes for an outstanding compost. Whenthe lupines begin to open their purple blossomssoon after Mardi Gras, the farmers pull them fromthe soil and plough them into the earth for thepotato planting in October. The organism’s secretingredient is the tiny pink nodules on the whiteroots: highly concentrated nitrogen deposits, whichcan easily compete with any chemical fertilizer.One thorough weeding and turning over of the soilis all the extra work the lupine method requires.And that investment more than pays off: fertilizingwith Tarwi has doubled and tripled the harvestcompared with the past.

The potato foliage on the inconspicuousexperimental field is rich and green too. Sevenmonths ago the farmers planted different varietiesas on the squares of a chessboard – Waych’a, RunaNativa, Runa Toralapa, Alpha and several others –to see which would grow best under the localconditions.

Gabriel and his neighbours thrust their hoesinto the rows of plants. Blow by blow the dusty soil

A farmer from Wengaylla gets potatoes out of the soil.

3

yields up its tubers. Prudencia and the other womengather the earthy fruit up, keeping the various sortscarefully separated. While they do so, the elderserect the “Wath'ia” - the igloo-shaped clay oven - atthe edge of the field. Harvesting and the communalpotato meal have gone hand-in-hand since the timesof the Incas.

The farmers scrutinize the potatoes, weighingthem in their hands, squeezing them and sniffingthem. Gabriel is satisfied with the experiment. Andhe has made his choice. “The Alpha is useless here.I will plant the Runa Toralpa, and some Waych'a aswell, though that didn't grow quite as well. But theWaych'a is more flavourful and will fetch a betterprice if I have any left over to sell.”

Humberto Beingolea, an agrarian engineer andproject director at “World Neighbors”, is alsohappy with the outcome of the seed tests: “Potatoesof every kind are the staple diet here, along withbeans, noodles, and vegetables. If we succeed inpersuading more highland Indians to employ ourmethod, we can fight back against the poverty andhunger that otherwise drive people into the cities.”

But the 35-year-old Beingolea also knows thathe cannot work miracles. The manifest climatechange, the extreme geography, and the advancingerosion curb the potential. In some communities,

both large landowners and landless tenant farmersrefuse to comply. The infrastructure is effectivelynon-existent: on the generally disastrous roads, ittakes trucks eight hours to reach Cochabamba..

For this reason the “Neighbors” not onlydiscuss new potato varieties and plantingtechniques with the farmers, but also improvedstorage methods. The organisation proposes soilregeneration, terracing, and the reforestation of theerosion-scarred Ketchua mountains. But it alsopromotes health and education, while lendingspecial support to the women. These are frequentlymore receptive than the men – particularly towardsfamily planning, without which eluding the grip ofpoverty remains very difficult.

“Milaujata Pachamama!” – Give us a miracle,Mother Earth! Burning twigs from the clay oven areglowing on a flat stone. Under the spellbound eyesof the neighbours, Prudencia casts incense stonesinto the coals and places an offering on the potatomound. The harvest will be good, the Indianwoman is now quite sure of that. Prudencia hadoften prayed for just such a miracle when sheplaced the incense on the potatoes: MilaujataPachamama.

Max Zeimet (text) and Sophia Evans (photos)

Gabriel Crispin and his son Esteban are proud of their high-quality potatoes.

4

A global revolution against hungerThe authors of a study published in the US

magazine “Science” in April were feeling gloomy.“Most ecologists on this planet should be sufferingfrom post-traumatic stress syndrome,” said DavidSchindler from the University of Alberta. Himselfincluded: he and nine colleagues from variousAmerican institutes had worked out what it wouldhappen if the world's farmers persisted in theirestablished ways. Ten million square kilometres ofintact nature, an area bigger than the USA, wouldhave to be turned into fields and meadows by theyear 2050, and during the same time environmentalpollution caused by nitrogen, phosphorus andpesticides would double or treble, numerousanimals and plants would be threatened withextinction. “It’s a good thing I'll be long gone bythen,” was Schindler’s dry comment.

This kind of apocalyptic vision, however,guarantees good spirits in the boardrooms of foodand biotechnology concerns. After all, it finallygives them an excuse to whet people's appetites forgenetically engineered plants and animals. “Theworld needs to treble its food production by theyear 2050,” says Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, head ofthe food giant Nestlé. “How is that going to happenwithout genetic engineering?” According toBrabeck-Letmathe, it would be immoral of acompany like Nestlé to renounce geneticallyengineered ingredients “due to pressure from a fewprivileged Europeans.”

The bioengineering lobby skilfully exploitshunger in the southern hemisphere to spruce up itsimage. Until now, European consumers havestrictly rejected genetically engineered food. Afterall, this designer cuisine doesn’t taste any better nordoes it bring any other benefits for the consumer –only risks. Even in the USA, where people loveprogress, the industry has recently had cause ofconcern about its image – not least because of thescandal surrounding taco shells baked fromunauthorized, genetically engineered corn. Thecorporations reckon that, even if a detour via thethird world countries is required, this currentlyscorned techno-food will one day become sociallyacceptable in the western world.

The United Nations Development Programme(UNDP) recently supported the genetics lobby:“Genetically engineered useful plants could be usedto fight malnutrition and would be especiallyvaluable for poor farmers south of the Sahara,” isthe conclusion reached in its Development Reportthis year. UNDP Director Mark Malloch Brownsees genetically engineered strains of rice acquiringpreviously undisclosed magical powers: “Theybring 50 percent more yield, contain more protein,are more resistant to disease or drought, and grow

without the help of artificial fertilizers orpesticides.”

And these are the plants that environmentalistswant banned from the fields, although there are stillover 800 million hungry people in the world?“There isn't a single genetically engineeredorganism on the market that can fulfil suchpromises,” is the response given by Von Hernandezof Greenpeace in south-east Asia, “and the UNDPshould know that the complex problems of hungerand agricultural development cannot be solved withsome kind of miracle cure.”

Nearly all genetically engineered cropscurrently on the market are either resistant to oneparticular kind of weed killer or they contain ahereditary disposition for the natural insect poisonknown as Bt-Toxin. The goal of geneticmanipulation is not a better harvest, but simplymore rational work in the fields. However, the onlypeople who can benefit from this potential are thosewith machines, lots of land and enough money.Genetic engineering as performed today is ofabsolutely no use to poor farmers - who cannoteven afford to buy artificial fertilizer or pesticides.Quite the opposite – in their poor soil the turboplants would yield even less without chemical aidsthan the traditional, robust strains.

Even in industrialized countries, geneticallyengineered plants don’t always deliver what theirdesigners promise: a study by the US Departmentof Agriculture showed that when geneticallyengineered soy is planted, eleven percent moreweed killer ends up in the fields than withconventional plants – and not less, as Monsanto &Co. insist.

Even if – hypothetically – benefactors were togenetically improve useful plants that had beenadapted to the needs of the poorer farmers, anddistribute them free of charge, planting them wouldstill not be the solution. Natural relatives of specificcultures are especially endemic in tropicalcountries, with their abundance of varieties. Bycrossing them, their genetically engineered qualitiescan be passed on to indigenous plants and severelydisrupt natural ecological systems.

'The complex problems of

hunger and agricultural

development cannot be solved

with some kind of miracle cure.'

5

'It is this very diversity in agri-

cultural production that helps

improve the rural population’s

income.'

This risk is unnecessary, as the same can beachieved without resorting to genetic engineering.A study by the University of Essex shows thatsustainable agriculture using fewer chemicals canput an end to hunger in the developing countries.Jules Pretty and Rachel Hine have evaluated 208ecologically orientated agricultural projects in 52countries for Greenpeace, “Brot für die Welt” andthe British Department for InternationalDevelopment. Nine million farmers were involvedin the projects under review, extending over an areaof almost 300,000 square kilometres. Most of theprojects do not meet western criteria for ecologicalfarming but, according to the authors, they doprotect natural resources such as water, the soil andbiological diversity on a lasting basis.

Most important of all, they generate highyields: on average the fields produced 50 to 100percent more crops once the environmental-friendlymethods were introduced; the potential provedlower with artificially irrigated fields, but even heresustainable agriculture produced five to ten percenthigher harvests. Of course there can be nocomparison with central Europe, where organicfarmers produce thirty percent less than theircompetitors using conventional methods.

This only seems paradoxical at first sight.Unlike in industrial countries, most farmers insouthern countries don’t use machines, expensivepesticides or much artificial fertilizer. There are, ofcourse, huge plantations cultivating export goodssuch as coffee or oranges; these are spread out overthe most fertile regions and make intensive use ofchemicals. But two thirds of the farmers till theirfields the way they have been doing it for centuries.Even though conventional agriculture is based onthe knowledge experience brings, it is often poorlyadjusted to today’s environmental conditions andhabits – and offers relatively little scope forimprovement.

For centuries the tribes in Latin America andsouth-east Asia were able to burn out small fields inthe jungle without doing any permanent damage tonature. After a few growing seasons, when theground was exhausted, the people simply movedon. Now the population pressure on the world's lastremaining tropical rain forests has increased to suchan extent that slash-and-burn farming is no longerviable. During colonial times, many small farmerswere forced to vacate the plantations and move topoorer areas - often at higher elevations moresusceptible to erosion - where their traditionalfarming techniques failed to work.

Where the soil cultivated by the farmers isfairly fertile, the western style of intensive farmingwould probably bring a better short-term yield thanthe sustainable methods studied by Jules Pretty andRachel Hine. In the long run, however, farmerswould have to pay the same price as demanded bythe “green revolution” in many regions: while food

production in developing countries has almostdoubled since the Sixties through the use of high-yield crops, artificial fertilizer and pesticides, therehas been a heavy price to pay – in the form ofdegraded soils, dwindling wildlife populations,disappearing plants, and serious damage to farmer'sand farm workers' health as a result of pesticides.

Based on educating farmers, agriculturalprojects in India illustrate how traditional growingmethods can be enhanced ecologically: numerousinitiatives such as the Government of RajasthanWatershed Development Programme teach the localpopulation ways to increase the fertility of the landby simple and inexpensive means. These includeskilled water retention and irrigation techniques;and planting trees, hedges or crops along thecontour line to halt erosion. While these methodsmay not sound very spectacular, their impact issensational: in villages that employ these methods,the yield of rice, wheat or sorghum has often morethan doubled, while degraded earth has becomefertile again and ground-water levels in dry areashave risen.

Experience shows that involving the localpeople from the very outset is the key to success forsuch projects. Instead of just following orders, theIndian villagers formed self-help groups andassumed joint responsibility for improving theirliving conditions. As the harvests grew, so didfarmers’ self-confidence and independence – thevery opposite of what would happen if patentedgenetically engineered seed from westernlaboratories were distributed.

In India particularly, the rural population’sfear of genetic engineering is repeatedly vented inprotests that sometime erupt into violence. Peopleare especially wary of what is known as “terminatortechnology” being spread. This preventsmanipulated plants from forming seedlings, drivingfarmers into the suffocating embrace of the seedmanufacturers.

Since time immemorial, the women haveabove all been responsible for collecting andmanaging the seed. Their position in societydeteriorated still further when the men startedbuying new seed from salesmen every year. Anunfortunate development, for the experts all agreethat a better social status for women would form theplatform for more prosperity and less distress inthird world countries.

6

If farmers in the developing countries opt forgenetic engineering, there would be even greateruniformity in the fields – fewer, geneticallyengineered plant types would drive out a variety ofproven cultured strains. As the Essex study shows,it is this very diversity in agricultural productionthat helps improve the rural population’s income.The “rice-fish” programme in the Chinese provinceof Jiangshu offers one impressive example: sincefarmers there have been using their flooded ricepaddies for aquaculture at the same time, the profitsper parcel have trebled. The fish bred there supplyprotein for the rural population’s diet andsimultaneously eat the eggs of young mosquitoesthat transmit malaria. Similar successful attemptshave been reported by villages in Bangladesh,where fish are not only bred in the rice paddies, butvegetables are also planted on the dykes betweenthem. And farmers in the Vietnamese MekongDelta use their land seasonally, alternating betweenbreeding prawns and growing rice - withoutreducing the fertility of the land.

Sustainable agriculture often produces thesame yield as intensive farming performed thewestern way. There is hardly another part of theworld where as much pesticide was sprayed as overthe rice paddies of eastern Asia, which moreoverhas proven ineffectual. For many years farmers inthe Vietnamese province of Long Am had usedchemicals more than once every season to attacklarvae that were devouring their seedlings' leaves.Then researchers discovered that the insects had noimpact on the size of the rice harvest. A mediacampaign using fliers and radio spots finallymanaged to reduce the use of poisonous chemicalsby more than two thirds – the yield either remainedthe same or even increased.

Sheer poverty was what forced Cuba to shiftto ecological farming. After the collapse of theSoviet Union – once one of the Caribbean state’smost important trading partners - the farmers were

suddenly left with no artificial fertilizers, nopesticides and even no petrol for their tractors.People began to starve and the daily calorie intakefell from 2600 to below 1500. Fidel Castro’sgovernment declared an “alternative model”: oxentook over from tractors, chemical pesticides werereplaced by biological pest control, ingenious croprotation was used in lieu of monocultures. Withsuccess: at the end of the Nineties Cubans had anaverage daily intake of 2700 calories.

There are more than enough promisingattempts at environmentally acceptable and yetproductive forms of farming. However, there is nosingle solution that works everywhere: theecological system, especially in the tropics, is socomplex and varied that a made-to-measureagricultural strategy is needed for every differentregion, if not for each village. The climate and lawsof nature need to be taken into consideration, alongwith the traditions and the social structures of thepeoples. This opens up an almost inexhaustiblefield of activity for scientists and farmers willing toexperiment. Whereas in 1989, seven billion USdollars of development aid went into agriculture,forest and fishing projects worldwide, in 1999 thesum was a mere three billion US dollars. “The heartof the problem,” says Hernandez of Greenpeace, “isthe fact that investments in further developingsustainable farming methods are so obviously beingneglected.”

Alexandra Rigos

The study "Reducing Food Poverty with SustainableAgriculture: A Summary of New Evidence" by JulesPretty and Rachel Hine can be found on the internet athttp://www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/ResearchProgrammes/CESOccasionalPapers/SAFErepSUBHEADS.htm

More than Coffee –Help for Brazil’s Smallholders

Organic fertiliser made of milk,sugar beets, bone meal and cowsmanure; banana plants givingshade and providing the soil withnutrients after their leaves havebeen converted into compost –these are the tricks of sustainableagriculture that make APTA, aBrazilian NGO popular amongfarmers in the Brazilian state ofEspirito Santo. There are morethan 70,000 smallholders alongthis part of the Atlantic coast

whose main source of income iscoffee. Because world marketprices are extremely low farmersdo not even reach a third of theiralready low average income. Theyare not even able to ask for betterprices for organic coffee. Becausepoverty and hunger are not onlythe result of bad harvests, APTAhelps to increase harvestssustainably. New sources ofincome like growing fruit andvegetable are proposed and theway the produce is marketed isbeing changed: Rather than sharethe profit with middlemen, the

smallholders from the region sellonions, fruit and vegetables on themarket and earn double theincome.

High coffee yields in the shadow of trees

7

Herbs against moths and genetic engineering

The only question facing Lawrence Odek nowis: should he build a stable for dairy animals, takeanother wife, or buy a draught ox? The farmersfrom the vicinity are not short of good advice. Oneafter another, the men rise to their feet from thebenches Odek has brought from the nearby church

to provide a proper setting for the “Field Day” - theagricultural information day being held at his farm.They praise their host’s pioneering spirit and gladlyreveal what other improvements, in their view, the48-year-old farmer might be able to make. And ifjests, derision, or envy should mingle with the

Aman Rabilo is one of the pioneers using the "push – pull" method that delivers good harvests without agro-chemical input. Healthy maize like onhis field is a rarity in Kenya. Most fields are moth-eaten and weakened by parasatic St. John's Wort.

8

miscellaneous praise, Lawrence Odek knows howto respond: “It’s better to invite all the neighboursto the Field Day”, he explains, “much better thanbeing pestered by people every day when theycome to gape at my maize plantations - and trampledown my harvest in the process.”

Two fields the size of tennis courts haveturned the Odek farm into an agricultural attraction.One of them resembles the majority of maize-growing plots in the sun-scorched Lambwe Valleyat the Kenyan shores of equatorial Lake Victoria: asquare of barely hip-high, moth-eaten plants withears as shrivelled as dried prunes. Purple St. John'sWort sprouts amid the tangle of yellowing growth,a parasite that feeds on the roots of the alreadysickly plants. And in direct proximity to thisagronomic disaster, a crop rises in unblemishedgreen, healthy, and so high that not even the tallestof the Field Day visitors can reach the tops of theplants with outstretched arms. As the farmers standassembled between the two plantations, no jokes orteasing interrupts Lawrence Odek’s explanation ofthis incredible contrast.

When, roughly a century ago, colonial farmersset up the first maize plantations, the crop importedfrom America soon outstripped sorghum, thetraditional staple. Corn was easier to grow,produced higher yields, and was tastier to boot.Unfortunately, it was also more susceptible toparasites from the alien African fauna and flora. ForSt. John's Wort, in particular, it proved the idealhost - as it was for a half-inch, mud-brown mothcalled chilo partellus, which was importedaccidentally from India in the Twenties, and whose

caterpillars have been voraciously eating their waythrough East African corn fields ever since.Together the weeds and moths now destroy half ofKenya’s corn crop, at an annual cost of millions ofdollars.

For the subsistence farmers of the LambweValley, the damage is even more devastating. Theylack the funds needed to buy the importedagrochemicals used by the big farms to curb theirlosses. They don't even have money to finance theirchildren’s education, so most of them pay schooltuition in kind, that is, with maize. If the harvest isbad, the children have to drop out of school or elsethe family will go hungry; sometimes both thesethings happen at once. At the end of a semi-annualgrowing season, Lawrence Odek used to have ayield of rarely more than three sacks of corn, some400 pounds—hardly sufficient for a family of ten tomanage.

Then, two years ago, Lawrence and his brothertravelled to the nearby provincial capital of Mbita.They had heard that a Doctor Khan there haddevised a means of controlling the corn pests andwas now looking for farmers willing to try it out inpractice. After some deliberation they agreed toplant one of their fields according to Khan’s new“Push-Pull” method.

Zeyaur Khan, a scientist from India, is aresearch director at the “International Centre forInsect Physiology and Ecology” (ICIPE), anorganisation whose fame spread even beyondscientific circles in 1995, when its director - HansHerren - was awarded the World Food Prize.Herren had been able to stop the African maniocharvest from being wiped out by the mealybug –not with sprays, as others had vainly tried, but bypopulating the fields with the pest’s naturalenemies: ichneumon flies and ladybugs. Khanhoped to apply a comparable method to maize. Ifanything, the hurdles were even greater, since hehad to contend not only with an insect but also withthe St. John's Wort. While rigorous scientificmethods conquered the moth, a lucky break did thesame for the plant.

Khan’s team of scientists tested more than 400different kinds of grass to ascertain where theimported chilo partellus moth and its only slightlyless voracious African cousins deposited their eggsmost frequently. The finding: moths love Napier.Given a choice between maize and this reed-likeplant, 80 to 90 per cent of moths opt for the wildgrass. That discovery gave Khan the “pull” elementin his method. When planted all around a cornfield,Napier “pulls” the moths away from the usefulplants. For the “pushing” he sought an herb that,sown directly between the maize, would repel themoths. This role was finally allocated to a SouthAmerican legume called desmodium. Experimentsrevealed, however, that this silvery plant offeredeven more: it prevents rain from washing away the

Pupated moths.

9

topsoil, fertilises the ground by storing nitrogen,and – what no one had expected – suppressesparasitic plants. It emerged that the roots of thedesmodium secrete chemical substances that keepSt. John's Wort at a safe distance. The “Push-Pull”strategy created more work for the Odek brothers atfirst. But their efforts have been rewarded: theynow reap 15 sacks of corn from a single field – fivetimes the previous yield from their total acreage!

No wonder the other farmers are stepping upto introduce the method in their own fields. Thereare, however, two retarding factors. For one thing,the desmodium seed needs to be purchased (whichis expensive) or grown (which takes a long time).Moreover, for “Push-Pull” to work properly, thefarmers need precise instructions on how to lay outthe plantation. At Lake Victoria, they have made avirtue of necessity: at “Field Days”, the corngrowers instruct each other in the method, anarrangement that proves much more effective thanhaving outside experts tell the farmers how to work.Khan is convinced, however, that his methodinvented will not only work in Kenya. In 1999Ethiopian and Tanzanian agricultural instructorswere due to be trained in Mbita. Acute shortages offunds delayed the programme; both countriessuffered poor corn harvests at the same time. Tohelp solve these problems, Hans Herren usedmoney from his World Food Prize to found theorganisation “Biovision” - whose task is to spreadthe gospel of the “Push-Pull” method.

Stephen Mugo has no financial difficulties tocontend with, although his research field is thesame as that of Zeyaur Khan. The seven-figurebudget for his project “Insect-Resistant Maize forAfrica” (IRMA) is paid from Switzerland – by the“Novartis Foundation for SustainableDevelopment” established by the geneticengineering combine of the same name. Mugoviews the involvement of the multinationalorganisation as “a humanitarian contribution to thewar against world hunger”. It scarcely needsmentioning that this contribution is to be made withthe aid of an ecologically hazardous genetictechnology.

The project opened its office in Kenya becauseof the “advantageous political situation”, as Mugoconcedes. Although the release of geneticallymodified organisms is not permitted officially,anyone knowing how to pull the right politicalstrings can receive special authorization. Last year,the agrarian multi Monsanto started planting itsgenetically manipulated sweet potatoes there. Norare the IRMA people expecting difficulties oncetheir outdoor experiments with genetic maizecommence in early or mid-2002. After all, as aharassed expert charges, the committee of scientistsadvising the government has been cleansed ofcritical voices. And the minister for agriculture,

when asked about his former opposition to geneticengineering, now feels grievously misquoted.

“These people know which side their bread isbuttered on”, says a journalist from a Kenyan trademagazine who asked that her name remainundisclosed for fear of reprisals. According to herinformation, the big corporations keep in thedecision-makers’ good books by means ofcarefully-targeted donations, sponsoring, andfooting expenses – everyday occurrences in acountry whose corrupt government is even pilloriedby the World Bank and the International MonetaryFund. When Hans Herren addressed a conventionorganised by Novartis in Nairobi to demand equalfunding opportunities for non-genetic methods, hewas denounced by high-ranking governmentofficials as a “racist” – on the outrageous groundsthat the Swiss scientist presumably thought blackAfricans too stupid to manage the technology. Thedenunciation patently stems from self-interest.Insiders report that these same government officialshave already launched a company that will managesales of the seed once the development of thegenetic maize is completed.

To IRMA coordinator Mugo, such mud-slinging is an embarrassment. The political andcommercial aspects of the project are none of hisconcern; he emphasises, “I concentrate on thescientific work.” And in that context, he claims, hecan show dazzling results. His team, he says, wasworking on the “bacillus thuringiensis” whichoccurs as a natural insecticide in the soil, and hasidentified an active substance variant that is

The Indian scientist Zeyaur Khan developed the "push-pull"method to fight the maize-demolishing moth larvae.

10

especially effective against moth larvae. Thetechnique of transplanting bacterial genes is well-known; in the USA, Bt-maize has been in the fieldsfor years. All Mugo needs to find now is a varietyof corn suitable for Kenya.

The scientist intends to tackle any impendingenvironmental risks with the help of a group ofspecialists charged with investigating interactionbetween industrial products and the biologicalrealm. He is unconcerned by the fact thatindependent experts regard the timeframeenvisaged as downright negligent. The soleproblem Mugo recognises is that the moth larvaewill eventually become Bt resistant, not least as arigorous resistance management program like thatimplemented in the United States is not viable inthe African farmers' minuscule fields. But thebenefits, he believes, offer more than amplecompensation. “Push-pull”, on the other hand, heregards as little more than a nice idea, because theplanting sequence will overtax many of the farmers.Simultaneously cultivating three different types ofplants is simply uneconomical. With Bt-maize, onthe other hand, the technology comes in the seed, sothat nothing can go wrong. “All the farmers have todo is sow, reap, and eat.”

Of course, they would have to buy the seedfirst. Plus chemical herbicides (because Bt-maize isnot immune to St. John's Wort) and chemicalfertiliser, before their – quite substantial –investment can be hoped to bear fruit. In the "Push-Pull" method, in contrast, the do-it-all desmodiumenriches the soil with nitrogen all by itself. "Quiteapart from all the other problems”, the Kenyantrade journalist comments, "the fact is that the

poverty-stricken African smallholders couldn’tafford the genetic technology in the first place. Thatshows that winning the battle against hunger is notthe objective here, but rather the marketing, underthe mantle of humanitarianism, of a controversialtechnology."

Lawrence Odek can only agree. "There is nota single man attending my Field Day who could somuch as afford the seed for conventional high-yieldmaize." If there is one farmer in the entire LambweValley capable of making any investments in hisfarm, it would probably be himself – something he,incidentally, owes to the very double and tripleplanting from the "Push-Pull" method criticised byMugo. Whereas the corn crop is devoted almostexclusively to covering food and school tuition, hecan readily sell the Napier grass and desmodium;both are in high demand as fodder. Which explainswhy Odek is now faced with an altogether novelproblem. Should he spend the money he has madeon a cow barn and venture into the extremelylucrative field of dairy farming? Or should he rathersave up for a draught ox, so that he can ploughmore land? Or would it be smartest to take a secondwife, a practice quite customary for residents nearLake Victoria with money to spare? After all, thewife would be able to help both with the cattle andin the fields. "My neighbours keep giving me allkinds of advice”, the farmer says. "But nobody canmake the decision for me. Before I learned aboutPush-Pull, I was never faced with such dilemmas."

Marcel Keiffenheim (text) andMatthias Ziegler (photos)

During "field days" farmersteach each other the "push-pull"method.

11

Genetic engineering produces risks, not solutionsAn interview with the Ethiopian expert Dr. Tewolde EgziabherThe Ethipopian Dr. Tewolde Egziabher, aged 61, represents the developing countries at conferences on geneticengineering, biodiversity and gene patenting. The ecologist runs the Ethiopian environmental protectionauthority and the non-profit "Institute for Sustainable Development".

GP: Are you happy about the agriculturalgiants' offers to fight world hunger with newplants developed through genetic engineering?

Tewolde: Not at all. It's naïve to imagine that plantsand their highly efficient gene pools - which haveevolved over millions of years - can be improvedby replacing or adding a new gene. The interactionbetween genes and proteins is far too complex.Which is why so many genetic experiments gowrong.

But don't you take their offer seriously?

No, they're missing the point. Famine in developingcountries is mainly the result of unfair distribution.Today, the world is producing more food than everbefore - but there are still more people starving thanever before as well. Producing even more fooddoesn't automatically mean that the poor willbenefit. They simply haven't got the money to buyit. And genetic engineering isn't going to changethat.

Couldn't the genetic engineering industryproduce plants that are better adapted to dry orsalty soils?

There's a lot of propaganda about this, but there'sabsolutely no proof that these plants are moreprolific. The big companies actually have verydifferent goals: they want to supply farmers withstrains that are immune to specific pesticides, inorder to make them dependent on these pesticides.The Life Sciences Industry also has a second goal:to take control of the developing countries' existingseeds and gene pool. The strategy is always thesame: they supply free seeds until farmers haveused up their own resources or the resources are nolonger usable, and then they start charging fees.

That's a serious accusation.

It coincides with the experiences we've had withpesticides and artificial fertilisers. And it's the verysame agro-chemical companies that are pushinggenetic engineering today. Controlling seeds andcharging the poor farmers for this service is notgoing to solve the problem of famine.

If the farmers' harvests improve, they can affordto pay the fees.

Some 30 different parties own patents for thenotorious "golden rice". None of them charge feesat present. But once they have the farmers undertheir thumbs, they'll get their money. Agriculturalcompanies are using patents to make us dependenton their seeds. There could hardly be a more

effective form of colonialism? The geneticengineering industry will effectively be able to holdus hostage. That isn't the way to bring about worldpeace. Rather, it will spark an unprecedentedrebellion with waves of refugees heading for themost affluent countries.

Why does the UN development program UNDPsupport genetic engineering?

Because its work is dependent on money from theindustry. The report definitely discredits the UNDP.I often wonder whether it is really still on thedeveloping countries' side.

How can the world's affluent countries help?

By supporting developing countries' endeavours toimprove their infrastructures. We need decent roadsfor transporting the food produced here to themarkets. We need to preserve food, and be in aposition to process it. And we need warehouseswhere we can keep surplus food from good harvestsin store for harder times.

None of this is necessarily inconsistent withusing genetic engineering in agriculture, though.

We should only start contemplating this newtechnology when we've solved the other problems.We don't need any new plants for food either;nature provides all the nutrients we require. Thesenutrients simply need to be distributed evenly.Genetic engineering doesn't present solutions; itpresents risks. The tropics are home to an incrediblearray of species, and a valuable and irreplaceablegene pool. If genetically manipulated species wereto be released, they could contaminate this genepool, and many strains or species would die out.And that would be irreversible.

Do you believe that sustainable farming canproduce enough food to eliminate faminecompletely?

Yes, I really do. Jules Pretty's study provides a lotof examples to support this view. Farming in thenorth has ceased to become an alternative for us. Itdestroys the soil and contaminates the groundwater, which is ultimately our drinking water. Wecan use artificial fertilisers, but only if they improvethe soil quality rather than destroying it. All themethods need to pass a test: they shouldn't beallowed to disrupt natural cycles and processes.Bio-farming is no longer a luxury for us. It is ouronly remaining hope.

Interview: Michael Friedrich

12

Good news from Bangladesh

Korshed Alam is part of a revolutionarymovement, but he doesn't carry a gun. His daybegins at 4am, but he works for no boss excepthimself. His mission is political, yet it springs fromthe very soil itself. He farms a mere 3.5 acres in oneof the world's poorest countries, yet the movementhe is a part of has the potential to strike at the veryheart of modern industrial agriculture.

Korshed's revolution is an ecological one.Like tens of thousands of farmers all overBangladesh, he has abandoned the chemicals andhybrid seeds of 'modern' agriculture for something,well, even more modern. It's a shift that he's madenot just because he is committed to the principles oforganic agriculture, but because it simply makessense.

"It's changed my life," he declares, squattingwith other farmers in the shade of a large jackfruittree in Nandoria village. "Before we changed,everyone had skin diseases from the chemicals. Wecouldn't even take the fish because they werepoisonous, and there were no wild plants to eatbecause they were either dead or very bitter. Nowwe've got good food, and it even tastes different -it's healthier and there are more vitamins."

Conventional farming wisdom preaches thevalue of efficiency, of maximising the yield of asingle staple crop like rice or corn. This is howKorshed used to farm. He would buy the latest 'highyielding variety' seeds at the local market, andspread artificial fertiliser on the soil. Obedientlyfollowing the doctrines of the government and theWorld Bank, he would spray his crop several timesto keep pests under control. But even as the poisonsbegan to contaminate the soil and water all aroundhim, he saw no alternative.

He explains: "Before we started usingchemicals our soil was good, and just adding a littlebit of fertiliser gave us a huge boost in productivity.But the yield soon began to go down, and we had toput on more and more fertiliser per acre. Theamount of fertiliser we had to use went up ahundred times over thirty years. To make thingsworse, the price tripled over the same period. Soeverybody was losing - but they had to keeppumping in chemicals to try and get enough yield topay for next year's seeds and to buy enough to eat."

Locked into a vicious chemical treadmill,farmers all over the country started to go bankrupt.Many had to sell their land and move to the cities in

Densely populated and threatened by floods and storms - Bangladesh is one of the poorhouses of the world. But there are seeds of hope:farmers bring in better harvests and live better since they use the methods of "Nayakrishi Andolon" – New Agriculture. The revolutionarysimple model finds more and more supporters and can become an example for a whole region.

13

a desperate search for work. And all the while no-one thought to question the basic economics ofconventional agriculture. Corporate adverts for newhybrid seeds and ever-better chemicals flooded thebillboards and the airwaves. Everyone thought therewas no alternative.

Then came the 1988 flood. Floods are aregular occurrence in Bangladesh, and far frombeing the disasters they are often portrayed as,regular flooding is essential to renew soil fertilityand fish stocks. But the 1988 deluge was unusual -it lasted for weeks, and many farmers losteverything. It hit particularly hard around Tangail, asmall town three hours north of the capital Dhaka,where a small, radical NGO called UBINIG wasconducting a research program with handloomweavers.

"We had no experience in agriculture even,"remembers Farida Akhter, now Executive Directorof UBINIG, whose name is the Bengali acronymfor 'Policy Research for Development Alternatives'.But we felt we had to do something. So wegathered together a medical team, took care ofdrinking water and helped buy people clothes."

But as soon as the water started going down,UBINIG - which had a strong environmentalbackground - found itself in a quandary. A group offarmers approached Farida asking for financialsupport so they could buy chemicals and seeds tostart farming again.

"We thought it would not help to supply themchemicals," says Farida. "Instead we said if theywanted to talk about doing something else, wecould." So UBINIG called community meetings,and discussed with the farmers the alternatives tochemical-dependent farming. "It was the womenwho responded most positively," she recalls. "Mostof the men, especially the younger generation,could not see any alternative to chemicals."

Then at one particular meeting an elderlymidwife stood up. "We should not be usingpesticides at all, because it destroys our bodies," thewoman declared. She told the meeting about all themiscarriages she'd seen, and blamed chemicals for

ruining the health of both people and animals. Itwas a breakthrough. Other farmers chimed in,telling stories of terrible diseases, of spirallingdebts, and of soil that although once reknowned forits softness had become more recently as hard ascement. "Now our number one principle is nopesticide," says Farida proudly. "We got that firstprinciple from that woman."

That one meeting didn't just change thefarming practices of those who attended, it sparkeda nationwide movement - now called theNayakrishi Andolon. 'Nayakrishi' means 'newagriculture'. It's a name that was chosen to showthat the practitioners of ecological farming were notgoing backwards towards traditional agriculture,but forwards to something new and better – havinglearned from the mistakes of the 'GreenRevolution'. And the results were staggering.

Korshed is now proud of his fields. "Usingmodern agriculture in this field here I only used toget one crop - of sugar cane," he says, pointingacross a stream to a small plot full of lush growth."Now, because we've started inter-cropping I getseven - onions, garlic, potatoes, radish, lentil,pumpkin and sweet potato. And I still grow sugarcane in between. I don't have to buy any chemicals,and I can sell the surplus at the local bazaar."Instead of artificial fertiliser, nitrogen is fixed in thesoil by leguminous crops like pulses and okra('lady's finger'). Korshed pulls up an okra plant, andshows how the root clump is clustered with whitenitrogen nodules. Compost is made from waterhyacinth (which grows ferociously on all the ponds,and used to be considered an invasive weed),banana leaves, rice paddy straw and cow dung. InBangaldesh's steamy climate it rots down in lessthan a month. The soil is soft and covered in wormcasts. "They are nature's plough," he says. Seeingthis example in Nandoria village, ten villagesaround have declared themselves Nayakrishi, andeighteen more have expressed interest.

Throughout Bangladesh a total of 65,000 ruralhouseholds have now converted to practisingNayakrishi. UBINIG has established fiveNayakrishi centres in different parts of the country,which hold workshops for farmers and co-ordinatethe sharing of knowledge between differentvillages. The centre at Tangail now employs 40people, many of them extension workers who travelby motorbike between the nearby villages to holdthe weekly Nayakrishi meetings within thecommunities.

One of these co-ordinators is Abu Bakar, a 25-year-old former farmer. Sitting cross-legged on amat in Nallapara village, he is joined by 20 localfarmers and their wives, as well as a crowd of eagerchildren. Puffed rice is handed round as he worksthrough the various agenda items. This week thediscussions focus on making an inventory of seeds.Now is the time to plant paddy rice seedlings in

Women are traditionally the ones keeping the seeds.

14

well-tended seedbeds, to be planted out later inbigger fields after the rains. In addition, new bananatrees can be put in, and the bamboos which grow inprofusion throughout the village - and are used foreverything from buildings to bridges - are 'pregnant'and so should not be cut. It's very detailed and verypractical. Abu Bakar runs two to three of thesemeetings per day, covering 13 villages and 17hamlets in total. "My main concern is to involvemore farmers and to listen to their concerns," hesays. "More people keep coming to meetingsbecause they're curious to see how it works, and thenumber of Nayakrishi farmers is increasingrapidly."

One of those attending the meeting is 58-year-old Hayet Ali. "Before I started Nayakrishi thewater was so poisonous you could not put your feetin," he remembers. "We had lost many of our localvarieties of seed because the government waspromoting hybrids. The soil condition was hard,and we were all losing money on chemicals andbuying seed. Then after the 1988 floods we startedtalking with UBINIG about alternatives. We foundimmediately that with mixed cropping rather thanmonoculture we were eating better than before. Wewere eating our own varieties of rice andvegetables, and soon we had some left over to sellso we were gaining financially too. And our healthwas improving - skin diseases, stomach problemsand even cholera had all gone."

Perhaps the central thrust of Nayakrishi is thepromotion of diversity - not just in the varieties ofseed but in the whole ecosystem they are grown in.Nayakrishi fields are teeming with life - birds,insects, frogs and fish splash, plop and flit about inbetween the crops. It couldn't be more different tothe average European field, where acres of the samecrop stretch into the distance and even hearingbirdsong is a rarity.

"See this fence - it has fifteen varieties of treegrowing in it," says Raiqul Haque, universallyknown as 'Tito', the energetic director of the coastalNayakrishi centre near Cox's Bazaar. "Birds arecoming in and making nests. Fallen leaves aredecomposing on the soil, so that's food for micro-organisms, and we're getting some grass and otheruncultivated plants coming. That's diversity for you- it's all over the place."

Touring the centre, his enthusiasm isinfectious. "See that pond?" - he indicates over to agreen patch of water, the surface of which iscontinually rippled by fish coming up to catch flies."The droppings from the ducks are the best feed forfish. And those chickens over there - we've got 31varieties of chicken. We're not even ploughing here- the soil is so fertile you can just stick seeds in withyour finger."

He turns round again: "Look - if I usepesticides, I'm destroying all the life-forms, friendly

insects too. If I use fertilisers I'm destroying micro-organisms in the soil. If we leave the insects theybecome food for the chicken. Only by ensuringbiodiversity can we ensure food security foreveryone." Partly because of this commitment, theCox's Bazaar centre has been running a programmeto replant the area's lost mangrove jungle - once thehome of tigers, elephants, monkeys and crocodiles -which was destroyed by commercial prawn farmingduring the 1980s.

This philosophy turns the conventional viewof farming on its head. In Europe farmers still thinkthey have to abandon biodiversity altogether, byturning over their fields to a single monoculturalcrop. Mountains of wheat pile up, and thereforefood security is ensured. Surely Bangladesh,plagued as it has been by famines and malnutrition,should aim for the same thing?

Tito shakes his head vigorously. "No, youdon't understand. I'm talking about food security forall life forms, not just for humans. That's notpossible without biodiversity. I might be gettingone crop for me, but what about the trees, theinsects, the grass and the chickens?" Put simply, theNayakrishi view is not to see humans as separatefrom nature, dominating it. Instead, humans are partof a much larger cycle of life, all of which has avalue. It's a much more expansive concept thanstraightforward organic agriculture, which seesabandonment of chemicals as the major goal.Instead Nayakrishi sees the protection of the entireecosystem as central to the human role.

Farhad Mazhar, Farida's partner and co-director of UBINIG, has a story that illustrates theconcept well. "When I go into a village to dotraining, the first thing I do is to give a farmer astick, and tell him to hit the nearest child with it. Hesays: 'No, I won't do that.' I say: 'Why not?' and thefarmer says: 'Because it would hurt him.' Then I askthe farmer: 'So why do you put pesticides on theland, which hurt the other life?' This is an ethicalprinciple. Insects and birds all have a right to food.So why cut a plant when it is food for anotheranimal?"

It's perhaps a consequence of this approachthat makes Nayakrishi farmers have a ratherdifferent concept of the 'household' than is usual inthe West. In Europe, a rural household mightinclude a farmer and his wife, their children, andoccasionally an older relative or two. InBangladesh, cows, goats, chickens, even trees andwild plants that grow around the homestead are allconsidered part of the 'household'. Trees help shadethe huts and beaten-earth courtyard from the glareof the tropical sun, whilst also providing buildingmaterials, fuel and fruit. Wild plants - so long asthey're not contaminated by chemicals – have allmanner of medicinal uses and food value too. Asthe evening draws on in the Cox's Bazaar centre, aflock of doves gathers on the roof of one of the

15

huts, cooing gently. Tito scatters them some seed."They too are Nayakrishi members," he beams.

Spend some time in a Nayakrishi village andall your preconceptions about Bangladesh begin toevaporate. There's a gentle rythm to life which is aworld away from the TV images of floods andfamines. Children play hide and seek in amongstthe jute and sugar cane stalks. Dogs stretch out idlyin the shade, whilst untethered cows wander in thefields, grazing on weeds and old rice stalks. Butthere's some other quality to the village whichmakes it's unhurried pace doubly attractive. At firstyou can't quite put your finger on it. Then suddenlythe truth dawns. People actually talk to each other.All the time. And even more shocking, they arehappy.

Happy? How many European village meetingscould you go to where farming people would smile,laugh and declare themselves 'happy'? "Shuki!Shuki!" (Bengali for 'happy') is a common refrain.No BSE, no foot and mouth disease, and a realcommunity where people still live together and helpeach other out with seeds, advice and goodcompany. Sound idyllic? Welcome to theNayakrishi Andolon.

The focus on community life is no accident.It's one of the key pillars of the Nayakrishiapproach that farmers should work together -especially on saving seed. Every household has itsown seed bank, and every community has a sharedseed centre where resources are pooled. And as athird backup, each regional Nayakrishi centre has a'Seed Preserving Centre' from the whole area,storing literally thousands of local varieties of crop.

Each seed centre is specially designed so thatit's kept cool, and the air circulates. In the Tangailcentre, hundreds of glass bottles hang from thebeams of a wooden hut - each with a differentcolour according to the amount of light that theseed prefers. Each is carefully labelled with name,place of origin, scientific name and number.Altogether this seed centre contains a staggering1400 different varieties of crop. There are 298varieties of rice, 68 varieties of bean, 16 of corn, 31of wheat, 36 of chillies, 113 of jackfruit, 7 of potatoand 4 of mustard seed and many more. Each varietygrows best in a particular type of soil and at aparticular time of year.

There's an immense skill in keeping seed - inknowing exactly which conditions to keep it in, andhow many times to dry it in the sun afterharvesting. It's knowledge that was traditionallykept by women, increasing their status in thecommunity and the household. "We get much morerespect because we are the ones keeping the seed,"says Sharbanu Banu in Nallapara, wrapping a brightred sari around her shoulders. "It really binds thefamily and the community together." She smiles.

"'Sisters keep seeds in your hands'. That's ourslogan."

These may be household concerns, butSharbanu doesn't just see herself as part of a localor national movement. "It's global," she says. "Lastyear we had a three-day gathering of farmers fromall over, including from abroad. The biggest issuewas about the patenting of seeds - foreigntransnational companies steal our seeds so they canmake a profit. If some company comes round here,we don't tell them anything." Several farmers fromnearby villages have been been to protests inDhaka, and some went on an international 'People'sCaravan' all over Asia in 2000, meeting otherfarmers and spreading the word.

"If we go for ecological agriculture then weare really fighting transnational corporations," saysFarhad Mazhar. "We're not just saying: 'We don'twant Monsanto', but we can actually show thatwe're much better off without Monsanto." It's not adogmatic position: "I'm not against the market, oreven international trade. It's just that trade shouldbe non-exploitative, and local needs should comefirst. Now we've found that Nayakrishi agricultureis more economically viable than conventionalmodern farming, many households are beginning togo into cash crops for the market too."

But even as one battle seems to be going well,new storm clouds are gathering on the horizon.Genetic engineering is the new buzzword amongstthe seed and chemical corporations - and Asia isbeing targeted by companies like Syngenta, who areeager to sell patented GM seeds to farmers acrossthe continent. Syngenta has hit upon 'golden rice' asa key promotional too. The new rice is geneticallyenriched with vitamin A, supposedly as a way tocombat malnutrition.

Haroun Rashid, who farms 2.5 acres aroundBaratia village near Tangail, is unimpressed. Hehasn't heard of 'golden rice', but he understandsimmediately what the game is. "In that rice we'd getonly one kind of vitamin," he counters. "What

The ducks eat the harmful insects in the paddy-fields, theirfaeces are used to feed the fishes.

16

about the other kinds of vitamins." Another farmeradds: "Imagine if one person out of a family ofseven is vitamin A deficient. If you feed them all'golden rice' then the other six will get sick!"Everyone laughs, and the decision is clear. "No,we're not interested in golden rice," confirmsHaroun. "We've had enough of these chemicalthings. Enough is enough."

Instead of importing yet more innovationsfrom the corporate laboratories of Westernagribusiness, the practitioners of Nayakrishi areintent on exporting some of their ideas into afarming system they see as destructive even forthose who seem to benefit from it. "Westernfarmers have a miserable life," says Farhad. "Iknow, because I have lived with them in Canada.People are very unhappy, and there are many casesof suicide." But surely Europe at least is self-sufficient in food. "That's a myth," replies Farhad."Europeans produce 1 calorie of food by spending 9calories of energy. In Bangaldesh we get 3 caloriesof food with 1 calorie of energy. All the oil andfertiliser come from pirating the resources of othercountries using military and trade power. It's not anargument to say that Europe is self-sufficient infood."

"Last year I also visited some farmers inCanada, and it made me realise just how muchbetter off we are in Bangladesh," agrees Farida.

"One farmer had 7000 acres and several hugetractors, but only his son there with him. He waslonely and I felt so sorry for him." But surely she'snot suggesting that life is better in a Bangladeshivillage than, say, a German village? "Yes I am," shereplies calmly. "Life is far better in a Bangladeshivillage than a German village because people therecannot lead a normal life. The government ispaying them not to cultivate. It's like a museum.But in our villages there's a community - there areliving people there." But what about poverty?"People in Northern countries suffer from a povertyof happinness," she says. "It's difficult for them tosee that they don't have certain things we have."

And as for famine? Well, here's a typicalmenu for an evening meal at the Tangail NayakrishiCentre: Local paddy rice (speckled brown, notsticky, with a subtle nutty flavour), dhaal (lentilswith onion, garlic, ginger, oil and water), greenbeans with jackfruit seeds (life soft nuts) cookedwith amaranth, fresh-water prawn and pumpkin leaf(cooked like spinach with a hint of chilli) and freshfish (cooked with onion, turmeric and other spicesin a mouth-watering sauce). Followed by fresh,sweet mangoes and cow's milk.

Anyone for a bowl of genetically engineeredvitamin A rice? Thought not.

Mark Lynas / Karen Robinson

17

Greenpeace demands:

! Food is more than a commodity – it is a basic human right. Thismust be reflected in the policies of governments (North and South),international organisations and the private sector. The 1996 'Plan of Action'as a result of the 'World Food Summit' was a modest start, butreal progresswill only be achieved, if the poor are enabled to feed themselves.

! The large number of successful models for sustainable agriculturemust be applied globally. Rather than pushing the agenda of a handfulof agribusiness giants Greenpeace demands that these models ofsustainable agriculture be applied, further developed and refined in a trulyparticipatory fashion for the immediate benefit of farmers and thelivelihoods of the rural poor.

! International organisations like the UNDP must reconsider theircontroversial techno-enthusiasm in agriculture. Rather than focusingon theoretical ‘potential benefits’ of Genetic engineering that are far awayfrom materialising, international organisations must stop ignoring theecological risks involved with such technologies and redirect their attentiontowards the immediate direct needs of the poor (the people thatsupposedly justify the UNDP’s existence.

! The basic human right of food for all must take precedence overtrade agreements. Food sovereignty should rank above WTO procedures.

! The “true costs” of food (including the environmental costs andbenefits not reflected in prices) have to be the basis forstructuring incentives in agriculture policies: so far, neither theenvironmentally beneficial aspects of ecologically sound agriculture nor thedestructive effects of conventional farming are being adequately addressedby agricultural policy and the incentive structures it creates.

Greenpeace International – Genetic Engineering Campaign – Chausseestr. 131 – 10115 Berlin

phone: +49.30.30 88 99 14 – fax: +49.30.30 88 99 30 e-mail: lpetersen@greenpeace.de – www.greenpeace.org

August 2001 - printed on recycled paper