Modern science and technology offer tremendous opportunities for improving the well-being of current and future generations and the environment. However, they also embody risks. Science and technology must be guided toward outcomes desired by society. Guiding science and technology to benefit the poor and food insecure in developing countries is the focus of this set of policy briefs.
Some people argue that modern science and technology have little to offer the poor. To paraphrase Bill Gates: The poor do not need computers; they need food, clean water, and health care. Yes, but they also need education, jobs, and—if they are among the millions of the world’s poor and malnourished who live in rural areas—opportunities to produce enough food at a reasonable cost and without degrading the natural resources needed by their children and grandchildren. Is modern information and communication technology (ICT) irrelevant to these needs? Ask the poor women in hundreds of Bangladeshi villages who have escaped poverty by renting cell phone time to their neighbors, who in turn got higher prices for their handicrafts and agricultural products because they received timely market information.
Some people oppose the idea that modern biotechnology be applied to help the poor farmers and consumers solve their food and agriculture problems. Many low-income Chinese farmers who produce more cotton with less pesticides because they have access to genetically modified Bt seed are lucky that the opposition did not get to the seed before they did. Some people are also opposed to developing improved technology for small farmers through traditional research methods, such as those used in the Green Revolution. They argue that the indigenous knowledge generated by farmers over centuries is most appropriate for poor farmers. Ask the millions of Asian farmers who escaped food insecurity and poverty thanks to the Green Revolution—and for the first time were able to send their children to school or build a good house—if they shouldn’t have taken advantage of new technologies.
Some people are opposed to poor farmers’ using purchased inputs, such as improved seed, inorganic fertilizers, and chemical pesticides. There are better solutions, they argue; poor farmers become dependent on the market and on private suppliers of such inputs. However, how can those of us who have been fortunate enough to escape poverty, food insecurity, and malnutrition by integrating into the exchange economy ethically argue that the poor should stay isolated from that economy because they may become dependent? The poor will escape poverty and food insecurity only if they take the risk of integrating with the rest of the economy.
Modern science and technology is only one of many factors that will determine whether and to what extent the poor will benefit or lose from integrating into the exchange economy. Existing institutions and policies as well as the technology itself may be biased against the poor. Competitive markets for the goods and services produced by the poor may be absent. Government regulations on ICT may be such that the poor cannot benefit. Public or private monopolies may exploit the poor who try to participate. Technology suppliers’ owning patents or other intellectual property rights, as well as uneven distribution of market power between the poor and the suppliers, may facilitate exploitation of the poor. In such cases the dependency argument may be valid.
For these reasons, efforts to guide modern science and technology to solve poor people’s food and nutrition problems are likely to be successful only if supported by appropriate policies and institutions. Modern technology should be viewed as part of a broader effort to help the poor solve their problems and not as a silver bullet applied in isolation.
Recent dramatic changes in scientific methods and the resulting technologies have been accompanied by heated debate about these technologies and others on the horizon. What are the potential benefits and risks? What new policies and institutions are needed to achieve benefits without incurring unacceptable risks? What should be the roles of the private and the public sectors? Does new science infringe on societies’ and individuals’ values and ethical standards? Are the traditional approaches not better? Most of the debate takes place in rich countries among well-fed individuals. The most important question—how can modern science and technology help poor people escape poverty, hunger, and malnutrition—does not take a front seat in these debates. Neither do poor people. The best way to find out what poor and food insecure people want is to give them real choices.
This set of briefs does not pretend to speak for the poor and food insecure. Instead, it presents relevant evidence regarding actual and potential benefits and risks associated with a number of technology areas and contains suggestions for how the benefits can be enhanced and the risks reduced. It also includes the authors’ opinions about the extent to which the technologies discussed could help poor people solve their food and nutrition problems in a sustainable manner.
The first four briefs discuss alternative technologies for helping poor farmers enhance their well-being through higher agricultural productivity and lower production risks. Jules Pretty presents evidence that agroecological approaches in a large number of projects not only increase productivity but also contribute to more efficient water use, improved soil quality, and pest and weed control with little or no chemical pesticides. He concludes that such approaches lead to sustainable agricultural development, reduced rural poverty, and improved rural livelihoods. He suggests that a larger share of the research budget should be spent on further advancing these approaches.
Prabhu Pingali refers to the success of the conventional research approach underlying the Green Revolution in enhancing food supplies, food security, and poverty reduction. While this approach has led to ecological stress in some cases, he concludes that, when it is focused on marginal areas, it pays off in higher farm yields. He argues that such research will continue to play a major role in efforts to ensure food security and that biotechnology can play an important complementary role.
This sentiment is echoed by Calestous Juma, who concludes that genetic engineering can significantly help poor farmers and consumers. He discusses why perspectives on the use of genetic engineering for food and agriculture are likely to vary between rich and poor countries and notes that almost all genetic engineering has been focused on agriculture in the rich countries. New incentives for the private sector and expanded public investment are needed to develop technology needed by the poor. He suggests that the rich be more sensitive to the needs of the poor when making decisions on trade, property rights, and foreign assistance.
Jennifer Thomson discusses the potential utility of modern biotechnology for Africa and concludes that the region’s farmers should be given access to appropriate technology developed through molecular biology–based research.
These briefs indicate that the three technological approaches should be considered complementary rather than alternatives. Give farmers the choice, and each is likely to combine elements from the three approaches in a way that will be optimal for his or her situation.
The next two briefs deal with ICT. Nuimuddin Chowdhury explores how ICT can improve the economic welfare of the rural poor. He stresses the opportunities offered by Internet connectivity and cell phones and argues that filling the existing strong latent demand for more information in rural areas could greatly benefit the poor. He calls on policymakers to create policies and institutions that will foster rapid spread of ICT infrastructure in rural areas.
Uwe Deichmann and Stanley Wood focus on whether geographical information technologies, such as global positioning systems, are appropriate tools for the poor in developing countries. They find that information generated by these technologies is used widely in developing countries to track land use and land degradation, human settlement, and many other uses. However, the benefits for the rural poor have been mostly indirect, through better information. The authors conclude that geographical information technology offers great opportunities for improving rural livelihood through better information.
Recent technological advances have also affected the availability and costs of energy from alternative sources, such as solar panels, biogas, and windmills. R. K. Pachauri and Pooja Mehrotra review the energy problems in rural areas of developing countries, assess the opportunities offered by alternative sources, and compare them with more traditional sources. They identify a number of potential benefits for the rural poor and for the environment from alternative energy sources and suggest policy measures needed to promote them, including the elimination of subsidies on traditional sources.
The major cause of illness and death among children in developing countries is diarrheal diseases, most of which are caused by contaminated food. Morton Satin discusses the potential benefits and risks associated with the use of food irradiation to address food-borne diseases. He suggests that food irradiation be used to complement best practices to avoid contamination. He argues that fear of the unknown is the main reason why many consumers do not demand irradiated food.
The collection of briefs provides a snapshot of some of the most important technologies available for improving the food security of the poor in developing countries. Most of these technologies have been developed to serve people in rich countries. Some are immediately applicable to poor people’s food and nutrition problems. Others will serve the poor only if existing policies and institutions are changed. The interaction between technology and policies is critically important. To be truly effective in helping the poor solve their food problems, modern science must focus on developing the technology and knowledge that most appropriately address these problems. With access to the results, poor people should then be empowered to design and implement their own solutions.
Per Pinstrup-Andersen (p.pinstrup-andersen@cgiar.org) is director general of IFPRI.