D+C Development and Cooperation (No. 5, September/October 2001, p. 3)

This, however, is not the only message. The UNDP Report 2001 does not stop at the description of the often miserable state of the world. It proposes to use new technologies to promote human development and concludes that the process of globalisation, if properly managed, has the promise to bring more benefits than risks and dangers for people around the world. At the moment, though, research efforts are oriented on the needs of the rich industrial countries. In 1998, the 29 OECD countries with only 19 per cent of world population spent 520 billion dollars on research and development and acquired 91 per cent of all patents, but of the 70 billion spent on health research, only 300 million went towards developing anti-AIDS vaccines, and only 100 million into malaria research. In other words, research objectives are biased towards the needs and preoccupations of the rich.

An example is the discussion on genetically modified organisms (GMO). In Europe and America, consumers fear the hidden dangers of gene-manipulated foods because they might cause allergies and disturb the careful balance of natural habitats. Biotechnology, therefore, is seen with great misgivings, and agricultural research suffers from underfunding from public sources. However, for many developing countries with shrinking land resources, soil losses, and increasing environmental degradation, it is a matter of survival to develop plants which have a higher resistance to pests, salinity, or drought. In a special article for this year's Report, M.S. Swaminathan - the 'father' of the Green Revolution - argues that the new technologies offer the chance to start an 'ever-green revolution' which will enable small farmers to increase their productivity on less land and with less time, labour, and capital. He recalls Mahatma Gandhi's 'antyodaya' approach which says that the poorest and weakest people should always the ones who profit from development efforts. At the moment, it is the rich who benefit.

Another example for divergent interests between developing and industrial countries in the use of technology is that of DDT. This substance is a dangerous pesticide which was banned worldwide in May 2001 because of its harmful effect on the environment. But in the developing countries, it is one of the most effective substances in the fight against malaria. Since spraying with DDT was ended in many developing countries, deaths from malaria increased to more than one million in recent years. The malaria-infested countries now have the choice between incurring the incertain and longterm risks of DDT spraying, and the almost certain alternative of high death rates from this fatal disease. Does the North have the right to take the decision for them?

The protesters of Genoa will have difficulties with these arguments. They say they want to help the poor, but will it really help them if the advice is to go back to organic farming and shun modern technology and the world markets? A safe use of the new technologies will best be guaranteed if there is a systematic risk assessment and risk management, says the Report. It is not enough to make good laws, but to create mechanisms for implementation and monitoring, and it is up to each country to make its own risk assessment. Developing countries need help through global cooperation to build up institutional capacities for this task. And there is the need for information on the risks of new technologies like genetical engineering to allay fears of the unknown which have contributed so much already to discredit gene research.