Proceedings of the UNESCO - University of Tsukuba International Seminar on Traditional Technology for Environmental Conservation and Sustainable Development in the Asian-Pacific Region, held in Tsukuba Science City, Japan, 11-14 December, 1995.
Editors: Kozo Ishizuka, D. Sc. , Shigeru Hisajima, D. Sc. , Darryl R.J. Macer, Ph.D.
Bertram : I am from New Zealand, have been asked to chair this first session of the conference. There are three papers, the first is from Prof. Stephen Hill, the Director of the UNESCO Regional Office for Science and Technology in South-East Asia, in Jakarta, who will talk on "Technology Policy, Environmental Conservation and Sustainable Development in the Asia-Pacific Region". We invite questions on his paper.
Seki : I would like to be shown the definition of "traditional technology", in relation to the definitions of "new technology" and "recent technology". If we use the example of pesticide application in the tropical region, which category would it fall into? The use of insecticides in tropical regions has been considered essential, however, recently genetic engineering has been applied to make pest resistant plants, without chemical pesticides. Also some researchers are looking at the prey-predator relationships in order to protect crops in the tropics. For each of these three examples which is new, recent and traditional technologies? I believe it is appropriate to clarify this definition at the beginning of this UNESCO-Tsukuba University Seminar, and ask Prof. Hill who is the representative from UNESCO.
Hill : Thank you very much Prof. Seki for the question. I may not have paid enough attention to the differences between the definitions. Let me give the message I intend. Within indigenous technologies there is new technology and new knowledge, which is coming all the time. It is not static, as people adjust their lives. Contemporary science involves very new knowledge as well as the reapplication of traditional scientific knowledge in a new way. There are many examples were a community may leap frog across a whole history of a technique, it would be foolish, for example, for a small country to start a telephone system going back to Morse code, rather you start with today's technology and what has gone on before is irrelevant. It is possible and in many cases highly desirable and appropriate to use the latest technology, as you suggest to use genetic engineering approaches. But the caution is that, what I have found to be very important for people in my experience, for them to take control of their lives with that knowledge, it has to fit with what they know. If it is a complete black box it will remain as magic which is not able to be integrated. I give an example which I found while working in Thailand. A very common pattern of development in industry, was that following the introduction of a new technology into a company, and there would be a sudden increase in capital in that industry. In the USA, the same technology, would then over time reduce the costs, as small incremental adjustments would be made to the technology, by people who new what they were doing on the floor of the factory. In Thailand, the cost always went up. There were no incremental improvements at all. After ten years it would be replaced by a completely new technology. The reason is that the people had no way in their own knowledge to increment, or link, the technology over time. This is the only caution I would say about new and old technology. A more important point for me is not defining new or old, but finding articulation between knowledge that is new for that group, and knowledge which they currently have available to them. Without finding a link, the knowledge will never empower them.
Bertram : Thank you for the presentation, we must move on. I am sure that many of the issues that he has raised will be referring themes in this conference, and on the closing day we will return to many of these points. The second paper this afternoon is by Felix Ryan, who is the head of the Ryan Foundation in Madras, and a UN Global 500 Environmentalist Chief Monitor, and the paper is entitled "Innovation of traditional and new technology to solve problems created by high technology (connecting environment, technology, NGOs and the poor)." Are there any questions?
Mazid : You know that there are harmful effects on soil fertility of chemical fertilizer if people are not aware of how to use them in balanced proportions. You have suggested to use fish fertilizer. But I know that in Bangladesh we produce about one million tons of fish, how is it possible to produce enough fertilizer from fish? There is a shortage of fish, and declining production.
Ryan : If we were to boil all the animals and fish, you get oil floating on top. That oil has several uses. You can get a garden mud pot fill of water, and place a smaller pot with several holes under it. You put garden waste, tailors waste, old rags, etc., into the small pot. Then you pour over the fish oil, engine oil, etc., and then set fire to the waste. It burns for up to 48 hours, and gives a steady heat. We put that under the waste pot, and it is an alternative source of energy and can lower costs. Now, after extracting the oil from the fish, the residue is also a fertilizer. It is also a fish feed, and you can also make fish feed out of it. There are many applications, including gum, fish paste. I can explain later more at length. We have been using this fish fertilizer particularly in Kerala plantations, which produce many coconuts. Along with fish fertilizer we also use neam, and Acacia holocesia (Australia), and have made a list of plants and trees, which animals do not browse, which have insecticidal properties. Many of them a nitrogen-fixing. We also mix in eucalyptus oil with the neam, and make not only fertilizer but also insecticides. We have published these methods.
Mazid : But how do get sufficient fish to solve the fertilizer problem?
Ryan : About 40% of the catch is non-edible fish, and it is thrown back into the sea. Also, when you cut the fish nearly 40% is unwanted. All of this waste can be used for making fertilizers and gum.
Bertram : We have nearly reached the end of our discussion time. Thank you very much Dr Ryan, for a practical visionary's description of how to apply and develop these technologies, and I am sure there will be more discussion of these matters when it comes to the closing session. We now invite Dr Darryl Macer, of the Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Tsukuba, who will talk on "Bioethics and lifestyles to protect the environment in the age of biotechnology". Are there any questions?
Wilk : I recently attended a conference on global consumerism, and consumer culture. One of the papers at the conference presented a model of what will happen to the global climate if all the people in the developing world were to consume at the rate that North Americans consume energy products. There was a lot of discussion about how dangerous this was going to be, and how policies had to be developed to change consumer attitudes both in the North and in the South. But there was an angry outburst from several of the presenters from developing countries who articulated a very clear sentiment, that I am very sure that you are familiar with, which was why are the rich countries telling us that it is better to remain poor. I am wondering how bioethicists accommodate this notion of autonomy with the political realities that in the next century there are still going to be haves, and have-nots, and as long as that is the case people are still hypocritical for people from rich and developed high consumption countries to tell people from poor and developing countries that they have to aspire to less.
Macer : I quite agree, it is hypocritical, so I think the challenge is for industrialized countries to reduce their consumption. Instead of changing their energy production systems, they should reduce their consumption. They need to make some positive measure. Politically that is very difficult to do, but in some countries the decision has been made. For example in Germany, the question whether to have to switch to increased nuclear production facilities or to make the national decision that they will reduce their energy consumption, therefore they did not need to make more energy. There is still some debate, but there was the general decision. I think this is a good example where a developed country decided they must do this as an example to other countries. I think if a country does not change its lifestyle they cannot preach to the developed and poor and say don't do what we did, rather they must say do what we are doing now. I also think the idea of environmental quotas may be a way to maintain the respect for autonomy of persons equally.
Bertram : I would like to thank Darryl Macer very much for his paper, a theme that will recur throughout the conference. It is now time for the afternoon tea break.