Large Dams

Large Dams evoke intense hostility. The governments interpret as an engineering marvel for their ability to control floods, provide electricity, and irrigate farmland, thereby improving the lives of millions of people. Yet, these benefits can come at a cost of environmental damage, displacement of people whose lands are flooded, and economic burdens.

The most serious problems associated with the building of large dams arise because of lack of public participation in decision-making processes, together with inequitable distribution of the benefits and a lack of compensation for negative consequences. This also demonstrates the absence of any coherent water management strategies at all levels and a result of shortsighted planning and political inertia.

The governments should agree that people who will be directly affected by large dam projects should be drawn into the decision-making process, and particularly emphasize the importance of avoiding land-use changes that are so detrimental to the culture of indigenous people and the natural resource base on which they depend, that their way of life is threatened. In this connection, ILO convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, and especially to Article 27 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, refer to the obligation states have under these agreements to consult indigenous peoples and ensure that they are able to participate in the process that affect them.

The governments should review social benefits, decision-making processes and basic principles for planning and carrying it out. A comprehensive public debate reduces unintentional adverse effects on dam project, and particularly its social, environmental and cultural impacts. The government should urge the importance of taking these aspects into account in the decision for large dam project and not merely consider the economic aspects.

The government’s portrayal of the benefits give little weight to the description of its socio-economic and welfare advantages for the population it is intended to serve. It would be interesting to see a more thorough discussion of the alternatives to building dams and of what the economic costs and environmental and social consequences of such alternatives would be.

The decision-making process should emphasize negotiations between the government and local communities that shall be directly affected by KBD and that will give indigenous peoples the right of veto over development projects. All stakeholders should support the intentions behind this point. The adversely affected local populations must be given much more influence over decisions.

The government should go rather too far in the direction of consensus-based decision -making systems. This model might reduce the influence of public-sector bodies on the decision-making process to be a constructive way of dealing with major infrastructure projects, which frequently involve conflicts of interest.

Governments need to adopt a decision-making framework to guide future development of water and energy resources including dam construction. It should seek to go beyond a simple cost–benefit analysis and present a more inclusive approach to analyzing the dam project. This framework should include steps such as looking for options other than dams to meet the objectives, making sure the benefits of the dam are equitably distributed, and safeguarding the rights of people whose homes and livelihoods are destroyed or jeopardized by dams. The issue of the rights-and-risks approach is very important.

People whose livelihoods and communities are harmed by large dam must play a role both in negotiations that mitigate the harm done as well as in development agreements. Such agreements are fundamental commitments and responsibilities of the stakeholders.

Joint negotiations with adversely affected people result in mutually agreed upon and legally enforceable mitigation and development provisions. These provisions recognize entitlements that improve livelihoods and quality of life, and affected people are beneficiaries of the project.Successful mitigation, resettlement, and development are fundamental commitments and responsibilities of the stakeholders.

Storage and diversion of water on trans-boundary rivers has been a source of considerable tension between provinces. Specific intervention for diverting water, KBD requires constructive cooperation. Consequently, the use and management of resources increasingly becomes the subject of agreement between provinces to promote mutual self-interest for cooperation and peaceful collaboration. This leads to a shift in focus from the narrow approach of allocating a finite resource to the sharing of rivers and their associated benefits in which provinces are innovative in defining the scope of issues for discussion.

A dam may be built to serve several purposes, for example flood control, irrigation, hydropower production, drinking water supplies, etc., and a number of conflicting interests will generally be involved. The decision-making process therefore can be very time consuming and costly and can end in disagreement.

In some cases the legislature should take the final decision on large dam, which can ensure that the advantages and disadvantages are assessed at the highest political level. Inadequate legislation is a serious obstacle to sustainable and equitable utilization of water resources.

There is a need for legislation that makes it possible for the government to take decisions that are important to achieve national goals and safeguard considerations of national importance. The large dam project should be evaluated thoroughly before a decision is made, and to ensure that all those affected receive an equitable share of the benefits from the project. A decision to build large dam should not be taken until all affected parties have had an opportunity to express their views on social, cultural and environmental matters relating to the plans and the environmental impact assessment and their concerns fitted in. Asif J. Mir, Organizational Transformation

GM Food

New technologies play an increasing role in food production, and genetically modified foods (GMF) are at the forefront of the changing nature of our food culture. The promise of GMFs seems almost too good to be true. With a human population of more 6 billion, producing higher yielding foods may be more crucial than ever. Genetically modified (GM) crops are now grown in more than 16 countries. In 2002, farmers around the world planted 60 million hectares of land with dozens of varieties of GM crops. The appearance of GMFs in the marketplace of the West has resulted in a firestorm of public debate, scientific discussion, and media coverage. A variety of ecological and human health concerns come with the new advances made possible by GM.

GM is the technique of changing or inserting genes. Genes carry the instructions for all the characteristics that an organism – a living thing – inherits. They are made up of DNA. GM is done either by altering DNA or by introducing genetic material from one organism into another, which can be either a different variety of the same or a different species. For example, genes can be introduced from one plant to another plant, from a plant to an animal, or from an animal to a plant. Transferring genes between plants and animals is a particular area of controversy. Developing countries have special interests, but fairer trade rules would do more to eliminate hunger than GM crops.

GM foods offer a way to quickly improve crop characteristics such as yield, pest resistance, or herbicide tolerance, often to a degree not possible with traditional methods. Further, GM crops can be manipulated to produce completely artificial substances, from the precursors to plastics to consumable vaccines.

By manipulating the genetic code of organisms that provide food sources, they have created new strains of plants and animals capable of growing larger in less time on less suitable soil. From an ecological perspective, adding more food to a starving population promotes reproduction, exacerbating the very condition scientists are trying to solve.

The policymakers of Pakistan ought to see how GM technology can help produce more food and offer medical, social and economic benefits but without attached threats. Some of the many health advantages of GMF include the edible vaccines, which can help curb various diseases in Pakistan. Nutritionally improved crops with a higher content of proteins and vitamins can supplement the nutritional requirements of the lower strata of the population, who cannot afford a non-vegetarian diet. Pulses constitute a major source of protein in Pakistan. However, the presence of raffinose-like sugars can cause digestive problems. The genetically tailored pulses that contain reduced amounts of raffinose and similar sugars can result in enhanced digestibility. GMF that contain sweet proteins like thaumatin will be good for people with diabetes. And GMFs that have greater iron content can be especially beneficial for Pakistani women, as they are susceptible to anemia.

GM crops can result in enhanced agricultural productivity with lower inputs in terms of plant protection strategies and fertilizer applications, raise the per capita income and, hence, the living standard. Further, the availability of better quality nutrition at affordable costs can also improve the general health of the population, which in turn will raise national productivity.

Contrary to the natty payback, many leading scientists admit that GM is unpredictable, unstable, and potentially dangerous because of the consequences. GMF raises the possibility of human health, environmental, and economic problems, including unanticipated allergic responses to novel substances in foods, the spread of pest resistance or herbicide tolerance to wild plants, inadvertent toxicity to benign wildlife, and increasing control of agriculture by biotechnology corporations.
In Pakistan it will be a tragedy if the multinational corporations pushing genetically engineered crops gain control over crops and seeds. Although the corporations claim biotechnology is needed to feed the world, this is a myth. There is already more than enough food to feed everyone; poverty and inadequate allocation of resources are the major hurdles. According to a FAO report, the world can produce enough food to meet global demand in the year 2030 without the use of GM crops.
Meanwhile, organic farmers are among those most threatened by GMF. One reason is because cultivation of genetically engineered crops on neighboring farms can contaminate their crops via pollen drift. No genetically engineered materials should be used in organic products. Thus, a grower may be unable to sell his or her crop as organic if it has been contaminated
Ultimately, it is the consumer--and all Earth's inhabitants--who have the most to lose in the long run. Because little thought is being given to the consequences of what GM crops will do to the environment and to biodiversity, Earth's ecosystem could be turned upside down. There will be no way to undo the damage or recall new organisms that have been unleashed.
Large seed companies are likely to make large profits from GM crop seeds. This will be exacerbated if they make crops that produce sterile seeds, which cannot be replanted the following year. Consumers and small farmers who are forced to buy seed year after year will lose.
Pakistan needs to adopt a harmonized, uniform and transparent procedure for safety assessment of GMF. Coordinated and comprehensive labeling requirements for GMF should also be prepared with the aim of providing the consumer with a real choice.
Pakistan has a national food poverty rate of 33% and 40% of children under the age of five are underweight, 50% are stunted, and 9% are wasted. The GMF has the capability of overcoming these problems. Its dubious impact, nevertheless, compels us to seriously consider all pros and cons before the risks involved in GMF take the nation by surprise. Asif J. Mir, Organizational Transformation

Cutting out a Pro-Poor Budget

In developing countries each time the budget has come, it means the elimination of benefits for the poor and elevated benefits for the rich. The hopes of the governments for making their countries as the most vibrant economies are laudable but the development policies have no relevance to the man in street.

The majority of the people in poor countries yearns for a pro-poor budget. Promoting pro-poor growth requires a strategy that is deliberately biased in favor of the poor so that the poor benefit proportionally more than the rich.

In general a pro-poor budget is one that takes into account the needs of the poor. It is one that seeks to make a difference in the lives of the poor. It is one that would impact positively on the poor so as to enable them to actively participate in and benefit from the process of development. A pro-poor budget would enable the poor to have increased opportunities In order to be healthy, educated, productive and responsible people. Such a budget would have to have a deliberate bias so that the poor would benefit proportionately more from government expenditure than the rich.

The first step in achieving a pro-poor budget is the identification of who the poor are. The understanding and measurement of poverty has evolved over time. Today it is generally accepted that poverty is not only a money related deprivation, but a combination of several deprivations that result in lack of well being. Consequently budget provisions must respond, to this complex situation of poverty. This is no easy task. In formulating a pro-poor budget there is need to have up to date information of the levels, intensity and types of deprivations that make up poverty.

There are many reasons, both practical and strategic, to establish a conceptual linkage between gender and poverty for promoting gender-sensitive budgets. It would be a mistake to simply equate the two categories. Gender imbalances and inequalities should run across every social, economic and political classification. The exclusion and deprivation experienced by the poor is not the same, and tends to be even more acute for women than for men. Gender allows us to stop envisioning the poor as a homogeneous category of people, whose needs can be addressed in a uniform way.

Pro-poor growth should direct resources disproportionately to the sectors in which the poor work (e.g. agriculture), areas in which they live (underdeveloped regions), factors of production which they posses (such as unskilled labor), outputs, which they consume (such as food), translated into strategy of pro-poor growth - employment generation combined with price stability of goods and services which are essential items. Policies need to be designed to reflect concerns of poverty.

In order to address poverty effectively the budget will need to have more direct rather than indirect means of taxation. This would help reduce prevailing high-income inequalities and help spread the benefits of economic growth.

Pro-poor growth means that the poor benefit disproportionately from economic growth. This is to say the proportional income growth (i.e. their income growth rate) of the poor must exceed the average income growth rate. The per-capita income growth rate of the poor must exceed growth rate.

Three obvious policy messages emerge. First, policies to promote growth should help the poor although they could do so more if they made growth pro-poor rather than neutral as it currently is. Second, reducing initial inequality, particularly asset inequality, should receive highest priority, due to its triple effect on poverty. Third, reducing gender inequality should equally be of highest concern to policy makers that want to achieve pro-poor growth.

It is clear that pro-poor growth that directly reduces poverty must be in sectors where the poor are and use the factors of production they possess. The vast majority of the poor is in rural areas, a majority depends directly or indirectly on agriculture for their livelihood, and the factor of production the poor possess and use most is labor, sometimes land, and even more rarely human capital. Thus pro-poor growth must be focused on rural areas, improve incomes and productivity in agriculture, and must make intensive use of labor. These things are nearly tautological, but often forgotten and are clearly not reflected in public policies or in the allocation of public funds by national governments or donors.

Heavy investment in the human capital of the poor will yield two benefits on poverty reduction. It will increase economic growth and it will make growth more pro-poor. The record of East Asia is a good illustration where high human capital accumulation promoted growth and poverty reduction.

Beyond a concern for increasing average incomes and reducing poverty, there is a greater appreciation for a need to enhance the security for the population if one is to ensure sustainable pro-poor growth. The security of the poor is threatened by physical threats. Thus, the poor are forced to avoid risks that may carry high rewards, can get trapped in cycles of poverty and insecurity, and are regularly pummeled by shocks that militate against sustainable reductions in poverty.

Our budget-makers need to remember that real enemy is poverty and deprivation, that their key weapon is their skill and professionalism and that their modus operandi is their humility. They are the custodians of a value system that defines our objective as demonstrating every single day that we are a caring democracy.

Attaining a pro-poor budget is a big challenge. It requires a bottom-up approach; that ensures that poverty eradication is a central issue and not a donor driven requirement. The principles of equity and accountability with particular attention to efficiency and effectiveness have to be continually respected at each stage of the budget process. www.asifjmir.com