University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

141
Thus, they stress their donations to wildlife conservation organizations (DuPont,
2007:25; Dow, 2007a:65) and their help to farmers to reduce the negative impacts of
agricultural techniques (Syngenta, 2007:3). As adequate measures they mention high
quality seeds to achieve higher yields per acre in order to reduce land usage (Bayer
2008:3), the application of a broad-spectrum herbicide without tilling the field, i.e.
“conservation tillage” (Monsanto 2007a:33) and the training of farmers on how to
use their products and techniques responsibly, i.e. “integrated crop and pest
management” (Bayer 2008:4; Syngenta 2007:3). These TNC activities are not
accredited by NGOs which identify them as trivial (BD 2008:10; CBD 2008b). They
consider biodiversity as the natural capital and small-scale farming as the proper
method for food security especially in times of climate change (SF 2008b:24,25).
Small peasants are seen as the protectors of biodiversity (LVC, 2008f) and the true
experts in “life sciences” (ETCGroup 2008b:8,9). They are perceived as the ones
who use millions of farmer-bred varieties, mostly food crops, which are diverse,
patent-free, decentralized and adapted to different cultural, environmental, climate
and geographical conditions (ETCGroup 2008b:9).
When it comes to climate change both, TNCs and NGOs, report of the same
challenges (SF 2008b:9) but see different solutions. For example, they agree that
agriculture is not only affected but also a major contributor to climate change
(Monsanto 2007a:26; Greenpeace 2008a:6; SF 2008b:12). Throughout their reports
companies state that they try to reduce their own emissions (DuPont 2006a:4;
Syngenta 2007:8; Monsanto 2007a:26; Bayer 2007a:5) but moreover to help the
farmers, to reduce their emissions by using the company's products and techniques,
e.g. GE crops in combination with non-selective herbicides and minimum tillage to
reduce energy input and improve carbon storage in soils (BASF 2007:94; Syngenta
2007:8,9; Monsanto 2007a:29).
Overall, companies see the solution not only for climate change but also for poverty,
resource scarcity, and the rising demand for food, feed and fuel in their products and
technologies (Landec 2007:89; KWS 2007a:6; DuPont 2006b:4; Syngenta 2007:11;
Limagrain 2007:33; Monsanto 2007a:26; Bayer 2007b:8; BASF 2007:46; Dow
2007c:10; Grain 2008b:31; CBD 2008b). Therefore they try to improve the
productivity of the plants and develop new seed products with resistance to diseases
and specific herbicides. Field crops should be of higher quality, more nutritious,
better suited for specific use and meet market expectations (DuPont 2006b:4; KWS
2007b:7; Limagrain 2007:12; CBD 2008a). Monsanto's R&D efforts focus on
environmental-stress adaptation including drought-tolerant crops and nitrogenefficiency
genes which should also lead to higher yields (Monsanto 2007a:26). Bayer
(2007a:77) states that their breeding programmes focus on crop varieties to withstand
drought, flood, salinity, heat and cold. NGOs on the other hand deny a positive role
of the seed industry to adapt to climate change and propose other – biodiverse -
farming systems (Greenpeace 2008a:2,4; ETCGroup 2008a:12; SF 2006:15,
2008b:17) as well as diversity of culture and knowledge systems (SF 2008b:7). Also
“sustainable small scale agriculture” (ETCGroup 2008b:9; LVC 2008g), favouring
food production for local consumption and ecological as well as organic farming are
seen as successful adaptation strategies while industrial agriculture is seen as
vulnerable to climate change because it is based on uniformity and monocultures,
centralized distribution systems and dependencies as well as intensive energy and
water inputs (SF 2008b:4,13; LVC 2008b).