so, anyway, i checked out one of these talks the other night - ok... a month ago now. Gebisa Ejeta was the guest of honour, the 2009 recipient of the world food prize. here's the blurb from the idrc site...
In a public lecture at IDRC on February 3, 2010, Ethiopian-American agronomist Gebisa Ejeta made an impassioned case for revitalizing agricultural research to improve the lives of the one billion people who still suffer chronic hunger. He argued for a renewed commitment to development assistance centred on supporting local researchers working on the ground to solve local problems. Farmers in the developing world need new knowledge and methods, so that agriculture can become part of the solution to an increasingly complex set of global challenges, including climate change and water scarcity.
mr. Ejeta is definitely an interesting individual that has done a lot in the field of agricultural science that pertains to the developing world - especially the horn of africa. however, i was utterly disappointed by the talk (that you can listen to on the idrc site...).
it was a tad disappointing to listen to the tired old technological arguments for tackling famine. even when some spoke up during question period to mention their own negative experiences of the green revolution and the overall limiting aspects of an emphasis on technology, there was a token nod to being careful but little recognition of anything more. no one raised the issues of access, of the need to foster diversity (often hampered by technology - especially through the patenting of seeds), or of the troubling aspects of current agricultural practices. one issue i found convenient was the fact that he mentioned the need to increase food production to meet future needs, but did not suggest that an examination of current diets or agricultural practices needs to be undertaken. population growth was not tackled, but neither was the increasing reality of the intensification of resource dependent agriculture.
my memory is a little vague on certain other aspects of the talk but i remember being disappointed by his dismissal of concerns over genetically modified organisms. he argued that the argument was misplaced and that as research into this field increased, concerns would diminish. i really sensed a disconnect on this issue, that he could not understand the moral questions associated with gmos and therefore talked around the issue.
that's about it... hopefully the talks will get better - feel free to check out the links to add your two cents.
