Globalization, Environmental Crisis and Social Change:
The Unfair Case on the South
http://www.meghbarta.net/globalization/moyeen.html
Dr Abdul Moyeen Khan
Khan Foundation
Dhaka, Bangladesh
"... forests preceded civilization, deserts followed ..."
Anonymous
The Global Context
I would like to begin with a rather simple question and hope the learned audience
will forgive me for being so naive. How can we achieve globalization: economic,
environmental or otherwise, when nearly 90% of the earth's resources are being
consumed by about 10% of the planet's population? Further, how can we continue to
strive for at least a minimal quality of life for the millions of poor in the South while
the North continues to perpetuate extravagant life styles? Countries of the North
even group together to ensure their future prosperity through economic domination
of the poor, once military domination had ceased to be the order of the day! I do not
want to sound skeptical, as globalization indeed has its own advantages, but whether
it will reward all equally is the question.
The learned professors who have come here from ten thousand miles away will
deliberate on these issues during the two days of the Conference and I have no
means to be pedagogical in their presence. Yet, there are a few down to earth
problems that I, as a mere practitioner at the grass roots level, cannot but draw to
the attention of this august gathering. As you rationalize and theorize, with a view to
achieving the most out of this process, it will become clear that there is no way the
poor countries in the South can go against the strong thrust of this not too new wind
of globalization. Nonetheless, from a pragmatic point of view, I would like to add to
the concept of globalization a new element. That element is the consumption pattern
of the North.
The fact of the matter is that the issue of sustainable development in the South does
not quite go hand in hand with the prevalent concept of (over) consumption in the
North. I would like to broaden the concept of the "sustainable development" of the
poor by redefining it, in the context of their survival, as the question of their
"sustainable livelihood." But even at this level, the greatest challenge to the concept
of globalization lies in the conflict between the survival of the poor in parts of Asia,
Africa and Latin America, and the arrogance of over-consumption and of the
mindless waste of resources occurring in North America, Europe and Australia. The
solutions to the various problems arising out of this highly sensitive contradiction
become even more complex when we consider the case of Bangladesh, an extreme
case in the South.
As you all know, the situation in Bangladesh is already critical. In subsequent
sections of this address, I will provide some details of some "practical" approaches to
a sustainable livelihood for the people who live on the borderline between survival
and extinction. The approaches are consistent with what I would call "rational
1
globalization." Intimately related to this concept is the issue of the carrying capacity
of the globe, which has been dealt with in great detail in the recent literature. Yet, it
is necessary to highlight the issue, in the context of the prevailing concepts of
globalization in investment, trade, financing as well as, in trade regimes. While there
is no doubt that the social issues of overpopulation of the South continue to be a
threat to a homogeneous globalization process, few people in the North comprehend
that adding just one new child in the North amounts, in consumption terms, to
adding as many as a hundred newborns in a country like Bangladesh.
Thus, the notion of planetary carrying capacity is as much dependent on new and
advanced technological breakthroughs as it is on the concept of globalization.
Moreover, the notion also depends on the limits that we will accept in order to
restrict both our consumption and the squandering of our "limited" global resources.
The resolution of the conflict between global interests and the legitimate national
interests of Bangladesh may in fact lie in restriction the consumption pattern to a
"realistic level" in countries other than Bangladesh. Thus, the challenge of
sustainable development of Bangladesh is not quite confined within the localized
parameter sets inside the country, which are only subsets of a much wider global set
and are thereby intimately related to the issue of globalization.
Whether reducing the consumption patterns of the North to the "realistic level"
mentioned above is a "practicality" in the context of the present day trend towards a
consumer world and the northern concepts of globalization, as opposed to what I
called "rational globalization," is a different issue. But the fact remains that the
ultimate carrying capacity of the planet will eventually be determined on a global
basis and the questions of equity in this context is something which cannot just be
forgotten altogether. Any major imbalance between the North and the South may
jeopardize not just the South, but even the affluent society of the North since the
various regions of the world interact economically and socially. The basic instincts of
sustainable livelihood, in whatever part of the world it occurs, may require decisionmakers to take into account the concept of a rational globalization as the only viable
mechanism to ensure the survival of Homo sapiens.
The National Context: Socio-Economic Changes
Prologue
As they say, there is no country like Bangladesh, anywhere on the planet. No country
less understood, less well known, less misperceived. The images of the country
carried in the minds of people around the world are not encouraging. People
remember Kissinger's "basket case economy," and CNN TV shots depicting disasters
in which countless people drown from floods and cyclones as the sea surges over the
low islands of the Ganges-Bramhaputra delta. Yet, without exception in my
experience, visitors to Bangladesh fall in love with the beautiful land and the simpleminded people once they are here. They never really forget us, and many keep
returning, as if to their first love. The saying goes “The diplomats posted to
Bangladesh weep twice, first when they get the transfer order to come here, since
their perception of Bangladesh is the one most miserable in the world and they want
to cancel the order; next when they are transferred out of Bangladesh, for, they had
already changed their perception to the most loved one in the world."
2
The charm of the country lies in the simplicity of the lives of the people; in their
expression of contentment with "so little" in this materialistic world; and, in their
amazing resiliency as they emerge again and again from the scourge of repeated
natural calamities. The country is almost totally devastated as family, home, hearth,
cattle and crops are washed away by ravages of the mighty waves and tidal bores of
the Bay. Yet, the people, in their quest for lives, rebuild and continue to sustain a
lifestyle so poor in its extravagance, yet so rich in their hearts!
Bangladesh is a microcosm of the challenge of globalization for the planet. The
problems of sustainable ecology and development are at their extreme in this
national context. If we can work out globalization in Bangladesh, perhaps we can
achieve it worldwide. Escapism is not the solution. Nor must continued struggle be
our perpetual fate. Sustainability, even if at a bare minimum level, is the key for the
survival of the teeming millions of Bangladesh. Once this is achieved, we are sure we
will be able to cross the threshold and our transition into a world of peace and
prosperity can then be accelerated in the natural course. This might take a longer
time, yet it would be more worthwhile than plundering our scarce resources for
short-term exigencies. As we have learned from the example of Nigeria, abuse of
plentiful resources is not sustainable in the longer run.
The National Commitment
Rio's Agenda 21 called for a "global partnership for sustainable development" and for
the "fulfillment of basic needs, improved living standards for all." The Rome Food
Summit envisaged the "right to adequate food and the right of everyone to be free
from hunger." The Habitat II Agenda spoke of "adequate shelter for all," i.e.
sustainable development of the world's cities, towns and villages by 2020. The WHO
programme envisages "health for all by the year 2000." What do all these mean in
the context of globalization of free capital flow and removal of trade barriers! We
have already learnt the hard way that non-tariff barriers can be worse than tariff
barriers.
During the last five years of democratic governance in Bangladesh we committed
ourselves to achieve all these. We aspire for self-sufficiency in food, appropriate
shelter in particular for the urban poor and health for all our citizens, in time for the
new millennium. Shultz said "Future productivity of an economy is not foreshadowed
by space, energy and cropland. It will be determined by the abilities of its human
beings." The productivity of Bangladesh will no doubt be determined by the abilities
of its populace, which has to be trained and converted into our resource. We are
determined to transform the basket case into a success case, may be in a small but
nonetheless positive way, and the path is that of sustainable development. But in the
process we will also need the global touch in order that we can restore our past
glory.
The Golden Age of the Past
Yet, it was not always like this. A few centuries age, the land of Bengal was a rich
country, with a vibrant economic life and quite a lavish lifestyle. It was more
sustainable, no doubt, than today's "lavish lifestyles" and impressive with its colour
and pageantry. It so impressed the Europeans that we were flattered with a colonial
experience. Our resources, and the fruits of our resources, drained away to a distant
3
land in the "modus operandi of globalization of the past!" Our people fell behind, first
in their prosperity, then in their most basic development.
Half a century ago, we started again with a clean slate, at least politically if not
economically. We inherited new ideals of democracy, ideals, which in all fairness, had
not been known before colonialism. Some good things did come from that
experience. And so, we tried to sustain people for half a century. But it was only a
partial success. The demographic explosion had begun, and the population began to
burgeon. The race between numbers and resources commenced. Our experiments
with western democracy and with the process of moving to a market economy have
been only partial successes because we have not been able to establish the
appropriate links between democracy, development and globalization.
The Harsh Reality of the Present
With 816 persons to the square kilometer (120 million people on a landmass of
147,000 square kilometres), Bangladesh is the most densely populated, large nationstate in the world. The country was considered devoid of any significant natural
resources, although recently considerable reserves of natural gas have been
identified. However, at the same time, there is acute shortage of both energy and
power since we lack the assets to develop this resource. While lucrative offers of
investment are coming from the North in the process of globalization, a few
examples (e.g., the Occidental disaster and the Kafco fraud) show that the investors
take away the cream, leaving behind the scum for us. Meanwhile coal mining
started in the country just a few years ago, finally overcoming the great difficulty in
organizing the investments it required. But the dilemma of choice between fossil fuel
and "cleaner" alternatives continue to baffle our energy planners since the real
choice for Bangladesh is one between having a not too small component of fossil fuel
in its energy mix or continuing to be as energy starved as we are now! Besides, the
international financing institutions like the World Bank continue to obstruct the
process of developing coal-powered energy on the grounds of so-called "holistic”
global interests.
Lighting and fuelling of at least 20 millions earthen hearths in rural Bangladesh
occurs by "twiggies" from the trees, often collected by children (child labour?), in
order to prepare two meals every day. In the absence of any formal source of
energy, the process contributing to the vanishing tree lines in the country is
gradually leading to an ecological disaster. Whether to continue this enormous
consumption of bio-mass every day when their replacement cycles are anywhere
from 20 to 50 years, or take recourse to fossil fuel, which may be less environment
friendly than what one might like, for a transitional period is the key question. How
do we strike a balance between our most immediate critical energy requirements
(only 15% of the people receive formal energy sources in the country right now, and
more than two-thirds of our foreign exchange reserves are annually used to import
oil and oil products) and a ecologically sound energy policy in Bangladesh? Having
given just one example, the solution to any of these critical problems is not an easy
task by any standard for the justifiable reason that struggling at subsistence level
must not be an inevitable fate of Bangladesh forever.
We could, of course, look to sister nations for inspiration. Malaysia's income per
capita has tripled in the past 30 years - a time when it was below ours. The tiger
economies of Southeast Asia have produced impressive growth. However, they are
4
confronting instabilities right now and their confident growth rates may be a thing of
the past. But they have achieved wonders nonetheless, and their problems are those
of important economics wrestling with globalization and the associated predilections
of modern exploitation.
The Tough Challenge of the Future
The problems of Bangladesh are not only daunting but they have become sad and
rather perverse. Thirty years ago in Bangladesh, people may have been poor, yet
nobody starved. They just caught fish. In the 1990's one cannot do that any more.
In most places, fish from the ponds are not fit for consumption; in others, the fishes
are simply not there. Sustainable development for a country like Bangladesh will only
succeed if human activity becomes reconciled with the natural order. We must not
exploit our resources, but use them in a natural judicious order. Humankind must
not exploit mother Earth any more. We must change our mind-sets. We must attain
peaceful living and cohabitation with nature. We must harness rather than dominate
nature, and sustain life for both humans and all other life-forms beginning with the
royal Bengal Tiger, of which only a few remain. Over the long-term, exploitation of
nature will mean deprivation of humans. We must live with the planet, not off it, so
that both humanity and the planet survive together.
The choice is extremely difficult for policy-makers, in the short-term they face
dauntingly tough challenges. If they relent from the harsh discipline of their decisionmaking for the sake of short-term demands arising out of political exigencies or
otherwise, they destroy the long-term base of sustainability for future generations.
If, however, they survive the pressure and are courageous enough to make decisions
that sometimes sacrifice the short-term interest, they face the danger of getting
voted out. The critical social problems listed below are not served by the profit
concepts of globalization, they need to be taken care of by philanthropic social
welfare gestures of governments, even those of poor countries.
Food Security
Poor countries like Bangladesh are often forced to do things they do not wish to do.
Globally, DDT is illegal, but in Bangladesh we are still using it. We know it is harmful;
we do not want to use it; yet, there seems to be no choice at the moment. There is
no answer apart from optimizing our interests. Two decades ago we experienced the
Green Revolution - a breakthrough in rice yield produced by significantly increasing
the use of water, insecticides, and pesticides. Productivity doubled. It was just as
well, for it allowed us to keep pace with the population growth that has also doubled.
But in the process of this survival, the dependency on agro-chemicals increased
dramatically. At the same time, the fact remains that our agricultural productivity
(yield/ hectare) is only one-fourth of that of Japan and about one-half that of other
countries in South East Asia. While intensive monoculture might achieve a four-fold
increase in yield, thus showing enormous elasticity in our carrying capacity, new
questions arise as to whether it is advisable to so stretch the carrying capacity for
the sake of the consumer society, or whether we should restrain ourselves and settle
at a more realistic level that will sustain a reasonable life-style for centuries to come.
Meanwhile, the chemicals continue to destroy the micronutrients in the soil. Even at
the current rate of use, they are poisoning the fish in the ponds. Moreover, people
are focusing in growing only one crop, HYV rice, and this monoculture approach
further reduces the nutrient balance in the soil. Some of the damage is irreversible,
5
not only to the material order of things, but to the psyche of the people living in the
area. In the future, we shall need a better balance, a balance between technology
and psychology.
Rivers of Life
Water is the most critical problem for the whole planet in the 21st century and
Bangladesh, again, shows the extreme. Our rivers - the holy Ganges, the mighty
Bhramhaputra (Meghna) and the treacherous Jamuna - all originate in the Himalayan
foothills in India and Nepal. India has not been beyond violating international law in
the past and diverting the Ganges to its own national needs. On our side of the
friendly border, silting first made the river un-navigable, then the water completely
dried up, parching an otherwise fertile land and making life a torment for millions
struggling for subsistence. The Farraka Barrage became internationally known, but
no compulsory jurisdiction by the International Court existed to resolve a dispute
between a large country and a small country that is striving for survival both
economically and ecologically. Recently, an agreement has been reached between
the two governments. But the dispute between a large and a small country is worse
than ever, and the toll produced over three decades can never be undone. A poor
country becomes poorer.
Artesian water has its own problems: there is arsenic poisoning in the ground around
the wells as the subsoil water is increasingly drained off to support irrigation for
modern agriculture. People dig deeper but the concentration of arsenic in the water
has risen to dangerous levels, already resulting in fatal cases of poisoning.
In the southwestern part of the country, a different problem with the soil exists. We
should further develop the “Sundarbans”, the world’s largest mangrove forest in the
Ganges Delta. But the flora already suffers from “top-dying” - the leaves at the top
of the trees are dying from the increased salinity of the soil resulting from massive
withdrawal of the water at the upper reaches of the Ganges. One bright solution is
aquaculture -especially shrimp farming in the many inland ponds. But as I noted, the
quality of the pond water will require improvement and protection. There are also
proposed solutions to the land congestion. Some say that high-rise buildings are the
answer to the population, since it takes less land per person. I do not fully advocate
that, but we may be forced into it as the availability of land recedes.
Population Planning vis-a-vis Basic Education
The dilemmas are many but the solutions could be many as well. Each will have its
own merits and demerits. Take population planning for example. The population
growth rate during the past five years has been brought below the rate projected by
the UNFP because the government’s success at providing services to the rural
population was better than expected by external donors. Five years ago, the
government realized that although pills and condoms were crucial for family welfare,
the more fundamental item was, in fact, education and, in particular, the education
of girls. The government then prevailed on the donor community as to where the
real thrust should be. So, forty-five years after the end of colonial rule and twenty
years after the birth of Bangladesh, the government took the bold step of requiring
compulsory basic primary education and the unprecedented steps of providing free
education for girls and scholarships for all rural girls up to the secondary level. There
6
were three interesting conditions attached to the eligibility of girls for the
programme:
a) the girls had to maintain at least 75% attendance at school,
b) they had to obtain at least the minimum qualifying marks in the class exams, and
most importantly,
c) the girls could not get married while they are at school.
May I mention that although the legal marriageable age for girls is 18, younger
marriages are not at all uncommon, and are often the choice of parents whenever a
reasonable groom is at hand.
The results of the programme have been conspicuous. Within the short span of five
years, we have a population planning scenario far better than anybody had expected,
notwithstanding the fact that this plan resulted in an enormous increase in school
enrolments, significant decrease in drop-out rates, and a significant rise in the
literacy rates, particularly for girls. The infrastructure developed in five years include
building or reconstructing 50,000 primary schools (existing and new) each at a cost
of US$ 10,000, and nearly 10,000 secondary school and pre-university colleges, at
an average cost of US$ 20,000 apiece. Sustainable development for one of the
poorest countries in the world, yes! But the dilemma remains! The initial success of
the program has now led the donors to want to wash their hands of the population
programme, saying that enough has been done. However, the reality in population
planning is that we have just about seen the beginning of an end and not the end
itself. A lot more remains to be done and the development partners still need to
support us, at least during this critical transition period.
Health for All
In addition to education, the concept of sustainable population planning includes
adequate health services, proper shelter and the other fundamental rights of food
security and a minimum standard of living. Five years ago, emphasis was also put on
enhancing health services. The government created a “free” maternal child health
care centre at each of nearly 4500 Union in the country (a combination of about 15
to 20 villages in the rural areas) and a “free” 31-bed hospital with “full emergency
operation table facilities for maternity care services,” and related x-ray and
emergency ambulance service in each of the 469 Thanas (a combination of 10 unions
on the average). These facilities served the country side occupied by a rural
population of some 100 million people. The programme was not simple by any
standards! At the same time, the government committed to provide at least a simple
bamboo hut (maybe a thatched one) for everybody to have a place to take shelter
during rain and sun, a modest “dal-bhat” (rice & lentil) dream for Bangladesh. Such
goals are rather realistic and are consistent with the planetary interest, as I will
elucidate later.
Globalization and Ecological Sustainability
In general, one can refer to poverty, ignorance, greed, local custom, natural
hazards, unplanned exploitation of resources, backward technology and the
conventional concept of development itself, as major stressors of our environment. It
has also become a custom, if not a fashion, with development planners and policy
masters, to overemphasize poverty as the worst form of pollution. True, poverty is a
7
major constraint, but to attribute all evils to it is, perhaps, an oversimplification of
the reality of the situation. In fact, poverty and environmental degradation may have
been locked in a vicious circle. This is not as much as a consequence of the poverty
of the people, as it is, in many cases, due to reasons originating in the rich countries.
The point I would like to emphasize is that we really need to move away from the
traditional concept of overexploitation of nature in the North, to that of harnessing it
from a global approach.
It is true that the complex interactions among economic, social, political and the
technological status in a poor country like ours make things extremely delicate for
our eco-system as a whole. But at the same time, I would hasten to add that the
process of globalization does not make things any easier, since the profit motive
works supreme in the area of industrialization and production efforts of consumer
goods.
In fact, there is only a limited capacity for examining the environmental
consequences of a development project at the Planning Commission of the
Government of Bangladesh. There are few relevant professionals in the Planning
Commission to do this job. Most decision-making is in the hands of bureaucrats
anyway. At the moment, there exists only one formal department, called the
Department of Environment Pollution Control (DEPC) under the Ministry of
Environment & Forests, and it deals only with a very specific area of our
environment, namely industrial pollution. Over recent years, however, some efforts
are being made by a few NGOs to create environmental awareness among the public
and some consciousness among the decision-makers.
Let me now briefly point out the key areas of concern in the overall environmental
perspective of Bangladesh, concerns that have been done away with as a
consequence of globalization. Whether our decision-makers appreciate it or not, the
situation is already critical, even more so because nowhere else in the world does the
land have to withstand so much pressure from people. By the simple act of adding
fuel to a fire, the existing poor are playing an important role in making the situation
more critical day by day. Incidentally, the subcontinent has more or less similar
historical and cultural traditions, yet, in contrast to the situation in India, and some
other countries in the same region, Bangladesh is far more vulnerable. Actual
resource constraints coupled with a lack of awareness for their proper management
and high population growth results in severe depletion of both living and nonliving
resources. The immediate demands of the large population are so intense that in
most planning and implementation decision-making processes, the considerations of
conservation and sustainability are altogether overridden. How to strike a balance
between our immediate and longer-term needs is not a trivial problem. For me, the
following areas need to be addressed by environmental researchers, as well policy
planners, in order to formulate a strategy for harnessing and conserving our
resources for the sustained development of Bangladesh.
Soil Resources
The often-unseen important factor in the environment is the soil. Although it may
sound unbelievable, studies indicate that soil erosion and land degradation is
occurring so fast in Bangladesh that the productivity of our soil is being reduced and
irreversible processes are being set into action. Nearly 120 million people are being
supported by about 8.3 million hectares of arable land and a significant fraction of
8
this land is lost every year due to river bank erosion, industrial use, burial of fresh
sediments by major rivers and flash floods, non-judicious agricultural planning on
slopes, and urbanization. With the population increasing at the rate of 1.8% per
annum, the stress due to increased agricultural efforts on our soil over the next 2030 years is going to be immense. This stress may result in serious depletion of
micronutrients in the soil.
Probably it would not be an overstatement to mention that traditionally farming
practices in Bangladesh were ecologically compatible with the available natural
resources. However, population pressure coupled with increasing demands for a
better life style have led to fast deterioration of this system leading to
overexploitation of the soil. But at the same time, it is true that there is no going
back to the past. We must now look for an environmentally sound equilibrium using
more advanced technology that can ensure food security for our large population.
A serious problem is arising because of increased use of renewable biomass for food,
fodder and fuel. For example, in the northwestern parts of the country, the repeated
overuse of the same land for rice production has produced zinc and sulphur
deficiencies in the soil. This deficiency problem is consuming an alarming portion of
the Gangetic flood plain in the western part of Bangladesh. Soil erosion is occurring
in the eastern region of low hills where slope cultivation coupled with sudden high
rainfall and floods cause loss of agricultural lands. Splashes of raindrops on slopes
already subject to deforestation contribute to the erosion of top soil, as do certain
recently introduced cropping patterns (e.g. those for pineapples). Obviously,
extreme care must be taken in all future agricultural planning if we do indeed intend
to retain our already scarce arable land and its quality.
HYV Rice/Pesticides/Chemical Fertilizers and the Environment
The HYV rice paddy is a partial answer to the problem of providing feed grains for
the expanding population of Bangladesh. However, its use is not without a cost. The
problem is not just with the excessive focus on rice (see a previous section) but also
with the support activities used to maximize yields. Our agricultural extension
service (although spreading virtually all over the country) is inexperienced and
inefficient and has failed to make our rural users aware of the environmental
consequences of the use of hazardous materials such as DDT (which is still produced
and used in Bangladesh). Fertilizers and pesticides are being marketed
indiscriminately by multinationals that enticing farmers to take them as panacea for
all yield problems. The farmers obviously do not have the background education or
the technical knowledge on the proper use of these items. Thus, in many cases,
overuse or improper combinations of various chemicals are leaving a disastrous trail.
The private sector primarily controls the distribution of fertilizers and pesticides;
there is very little scope for controlling their distribution and use. The abuse is
depleting micro-flora and fauna from the soil and is causing an inability to sustain
high yield levels over longer time periods. Fortunately, detailed work on such
problems has already been done in some developed countries. Unfortunately, there
seems to be an time lag in disseminating this information in our country. Perhaps the
immediate needs have taken priority over long-term considerations and the process
of globalization has not really worked where it could have worked positively. It is
time that the dangers of such negligence be brought into focus and given due
importance in our overall globalization process.
9
Water Resources Management
It has already been predicted in many quarters that the most difficult problems for
mankind in the coming century will relate to the use of water resources. Bangladesh,
although fondly referred to as the land of rivers, obviously has its problems with
rivers, monsoons and droughts, floods, and tidal waves. While monsoon flooding
continues to disrupt the lives of millions every year, they also are use to it bringing
to the agricultural flood plains the alluvial soil that adds natural fertility to the flood
plain. This led to a basic concept to our livelihood, living with the floods. More
recently however, Flood Control and Drainage (FCD) programmes undertaken by
Government agencies (some well planned and many unplanned) have upset the
natural balances and, in many cases, have resulted in man-made flash flooding and
other important ecological imbalances. On top of the questionable surface water
system management, there is a severe depletion of the ground water resource
because of increased use of irrigation water needed for HYV rice paddies. These two
apparently distinct, but obviously interrelated, areas of surface and ground water
systems have already had serious impacts on the environment of Bangladesh.
The FCD projects have been implemented after considering their impacts on
hydrology, morphology and the socio-economic aspects of the people in the area.
But the projects have affected livelihoods and eco-system in general. Almost 90% of
the population of Bangladesh depends on ground water for potable water supplies,
particularly during the dry season. Moreover, agriculture is becoming more
dependent on irrigation from ground water sources with uses already exceeding the
annual recharge rate. In the northern part of the country, irrigating tubewells have
to be sunk considerable deeper than they were ten years ago, and, in an increasing
number of cases, one is ending up with dry bores. The riverine system has its own
problems. The Farakka dam on the Ganges River has been withdrawing water from
the upper reaches without any consideration for the lower riparian. As a
consequence, there is desertification in the northern part of Bangladesh as well as
intruding salinity on the southwestern coast. A belated agreement signed by the two
water sharing countries late last year failed to rectify the irreversible processes that
had been set in motion and that are upsetting the ecology of one-half of Bangladesh
and affecting the livelihood of over 50 million people. The other problem resulted
from the Karnafully Hydro Electric Project, which dislocating and consequently
required the total rehabilitation of a tribal group in the eastern part of the country.
Such a social impact was hardly understood by experts 50 years ago when the
project was first initiated as a process of early globalization by no other than the
Canadians.
Forestry and Wild Life
The largest tract of the Mangroves forest eco-system is the Sundarbans in the southwest, while other important forest tracts include the evergreen forests in the East
and North-East in the districts of Chittagong and Sylhet. In the central part of the
country, Modhupur forest constitutes a considerable part of the reserved forest in
Bangladesh. At present, forests barely cover 8% of Bangladesh. The figure, low as it
is, is going down fast every year as the resources are being used to meet the timber
and fuel wood requirements of the millions around the countryside who lack formal
power sources.
10
The Shal forests of the Modhupur tract are also vanishing fast, giving way to human
habitation, agriculture, and various industrial projects in this relatively sparsely
populated area. The poorest eco-system of the eastern and northeastern parts in the
districts of Sylhet and Chittagong are also being depleted by anthropogenic
interference in the form of agro-forestry, plantation agriculture, and human
settlement. Under the prevailing circumstances, the choice of “Social Forestry”
seems to be the most effective way of saving our ecology. The slogan “plant trees in
your household and save the country,” raised by the government five years ago, has
already affected rural lifestyles. Nonetheless, the demand for monoculture cropping
in the reserved forests continues to destroy the bio-diversity of the rich forest flora
and fauna.
In most imminent danger is the mangrove forest eco-system of the Sundarbans. It is
on the verge of extinction as result of unplanned exploitation and management, and
from “top dying” resulting from the increased salinity of the land. The problem of
deforestation in these three major areas has to be addressed with genuine
seriousness.
The fauna of Bangladesh is unique in that it shares the fauna of the subcontinent as
well as of the Malayan region. However, the WWF is already striving hard to save our
famous Royal Bengal Tigers, their number perhaps being countable on fingers. The
elephants, which use to plunder the eastern belt of Bangladesh, are also rarely seen
now. Significant ecological changes are taking place in the northeastern “Haor”
region of Bangladesh, which traditionally was a sanctuary for migratory birds from as
far away as the Siberian and Himalayan regions. Recent observations report a
significantly decline in the number of birds resulting from increasing human
habitation and related economic activities in this region. It is important to realize
that various shortsighted development projects are already severely straining the
natural balance of habitat for the wildlife of Bangladesh.
Fisheries and Shrimp Culture
As the saying goes “Machhe Bhate Bangali”, so to say, the people of Bangladesh
cannot live without fish and rice. This saying is no longer to be taken as a true
statement regarding the life and culture of Bangladesh. Over the centuries, fish have
been consumed in the riverine country of Bangladesh without either taking recourse
to modern methods of fish cultivation, or having shown any regard for a sustainable
fisheries management system. The consequences of such practices are now too
obvious. A more important ecological conflict has recently emerged in the form of the
more lucrative shrimp culture in the bay areas of the coastlines. Shrimping is a
consequence of the process of globalization, originating because of its popularity and
profitability in the northern countries. However, it is resulting, on the one hand, in
the depletion of the naturally occurring post larvae of shrimps from the bay waters
along the beaches (in the absence of adequate number of hatcheries capable of
meeting the increasing demands), and, on the other, in brackish water pools along
our southern coasts that destroy the more environmentally-friendly rice paddy fields.
The consequence is massive degradation of coastal areas. Consequently, open water,
as well as, marine fisheries management systems are needed to regulate destructive
fishing practices and to increase productivity while sustaining fish population
dynamics.
Land Use
11
Earlier I mentioned that land is possibly the most scarce resource in Bangladesh and
perhaps is more valuable than gold. The increased population pressure is putting
enormous stress on its land resources. Due to the recent Government policy of
decentralization there has been a growth in the number of urban centres in the
country. At present more than 20 million people live in various urban centres and the
number is growing rapidly. Rural dwellers, in search of jobs and employment, are
migrating to urban centres and this has resulted in an unmanageable urban
expansion. In order to cope with the unemployment situation, as well to upgrade the
overall economic condition of the country, the policy of the Government has been to
emphasis the development of the industrial sector of the country. As a consequence,
many industrial estates are being established around the countryside, often taking
over agricultural land with areas much larger than they need. Expansion of urban
and industrial areas in Bangladesh, in most cases, occurs at the cost of our best
agricultural lands. In the absence of a National Land Use Plan, such development
programmes are taking place indiscriminately, without due consideration to their
environmental consequences.
Global Warming and Rising Sea Water
I would conclude this section by drawing your attention to the most alarming
environmental development of our time i.e. global warming. It is a process to which
Bangladesh, as a country, contributes the least but could be affected by it the most.
Even a rise of few degrees in global temperature would result in one-fourth of the
deltaic flood plain of Bangladesh going under the sea and would destroy one-third of
the crop and the corresponding livelihood of our people. Such a situation can no
longer be brushed away as a figment of imagination in the light of the Kyoto
Conference on Global Warming. There experts from all over the world deliberated on
how to curtail the emission of greenhouse gases in the North to pre-1991 levels.
While the principle of “the polluter pays” has been accepted in the national context, a
big question is whether the principle should not be extrapolated to global context. At
a time when, in the environmental sense, the concept of geographical sovereignties
transcends national boundaries and the security of nations is transformed to the
security of all people - whither globalization?
Electricity, sanitation, and sewage other than in the streets - modest
accomplishments. But 50 million Bangladeshis do not have it even today. Such goals
depend on the kind of technology we desire and connote the kind of lifestyle we
want. Americans strive to have a “two-car family;” our contentment is in “two square
meals a day.” Americans want to send their children to university; we would like to
send ours at least to primary schools. Just as every American want the best of health
insurance; we want to have at least basic health services. Some 50 million human
beings, 40% of our population, do not yet have these basic human needs. It is
“legitimate national interest” to have these basic needs as the birthright of having
been born into the species and it is this “legitimate national interest” that we are
talking about being synthesized into our concept of a rationale globalization.
And there is a Dream of the Earth too. The Rev. Thomas Berry wrote about it in a
book by that title. It is of an environment like the one we inherited when we came of
age as a species, pristine and natural, untrammeled by the perdition of humanity;
one where economic theories are not inherently destructive of the planet and its
resources. It is the global dream. The Bangladeshi Dream and the Dream of the
12
Earth are one and synonymous with the American dream too. For Thomas Berry is an
American!
Globalization must have two purposes: one of vital global interest, the other, of
legitimate national interest. They are relevant to the case of my country. The global
interest has to lie in a sustainable development for all the world’s people, not just for
flourishing the financial deal and packages of multinationals and quasinationals in the
name of free enterprise and market forces. We have not yet reached a stage where a
global ethic is truly entertained by all countries, but we certainly shall, and it has to
happen within the next century. Once this is secured, policy making will intensify and
be directed at protecting genuine global interests. It will be seen as grotesque and
normatively unacceptable - unfashionable - to engage in disproportionate financial
and economic excesses in the North, on the one hand, and deprive even minimal
welfare to the people of the South, on the other.
Have the architects of globalization ever questioned the morality and justification of
this and asked why the North did not agree to even a minimum decorum of diverting
just a nominal 0.7% of their GDP towards the South to achieve an equitable
globalization. Even the EC had to accept a similar policy when it was formed. The
question of “Europization” within the EC depended critically on removing regional
disparities within the EC before “one economy” could start, in the real sense of the
term. For that purpose, enormous resources were mobilized as “structural funds”
prior to attempting what I called Europization. In comparison to the period prior to
the much publicized process of globalization, the contribution of the recommended
0.7% of the GDP of northern countries to the South is actually shrinking! The
scenario on the trade regime is no different from that for aid! When the booming
economies of the Far Eastern countries hit hard on the North, the lofty ideals of
globalization vanished in thin air. Their unholy alliance attempted to destroy the
economies the Far East. Similarly, when the North failed in economic competition
with China, India and even Bangladesh, non-tariff barriers were raised high to
preclude free market competition. What harm does Bangladesh cause if it is capable
of capturing the whole North American market in RMGE with the lowest prices? The
North imposed quotas, regulations and even invoked restrictions on the use of
primary “gray” materials on the pretext that they are not produced in Bangladesh.
How do free market concepts fit in there? Where go the lofty words of globalization
then? Why do the WTO or the Uruguay Rounds restrict exports of products from the
primary producers of raw materials while protecting the interests of the North
through the pretension of so-called intellectual rights?
One last simple example, and I will be very frank with our fellow intellectuals from
the North! If the “products” of the North can have free accesses to the south by
virtue of their competitive price (the North’s products will always be cheaper as they
can be produce in the millions and by more advanced technology (carefully planned
to be protected by virtue of the intellectual rights)), why can’t the “factors of
production” from the South (the migrant labourers and workers, skilled or unskilled)
find their way to the labour markets of the North by virtue of their being the
cheapest? The dishonest protectionism, which contradict the basic principles of free
market and globalization, comes in the form of such “non-tariff barriers” as visa
restrictions and immigration laws.
Meanwhile, may I ask the North, not only the United States, will you address these
issues today, not fifty years from now. What is a legitimate globalization pattern for
13
you, as the South struggles to sustain its livelihood on the dawn of a new century
and the new millennium? These are questions which need to be resolved on a
rational basis for the sake of promoting globalization, in the real sense of the term,
and of making the process beneficial for everyone, not only for the rich. There is no
scope for deceit!
Just as global interests must be examined, so do claims of legitimate national
interests. National policies will have to induce more modest levels of consumption,
not compared with what we already have, but in a relative sense compared with
what the “elasticity” could conceivably provide for the richest. Technology will allow
continued improvement in the human condition, but social norms will persuade a
degree of self-restraint on the richest for the sake of those striving to attain basic
human needs elsewhere on the planet. Anything beyond that will be seen as
exceeding the “legitimate national interest” of a country.
Finally, there remains the basic question of the fact that trillions of dollars are being
spent in this world every year on war efforts. If only a fraction of this could be
diverted towards the process of what I termed rational globalization, we might well
be able to leave a more peaceful and harmonious world for future generations. We
do not want to leave behind “deserts” for our posterity!
14