WORLD SOCIAL FORUM 2005

• World Social Forum 2005 website

• Technology Democracy Workshop: Thursday 27 January - Outcomes
  
  
• Technology and Democracy - a proposal for the World Social Forum
  
  
• Background to Technology Democracy

Technology Democracy Workshop

Technology Democracy: reclaiming science and technology for the public good

World Social Forum, 27 January 2005, A104, 8:30 - 10:30

WSF 5 theme: Autonomous thought, reappropriation and socialisation of knowledge and technologies

Discussants: Claudia Neubauer, Science Citoyennes; Jim Thomas, ETC group; Patrick Mulvany, ITDG

The workshop discussed how to achieve greater democracy in decision making on science and technology and how to prioritise the recognition of the technological capabilities of the (often poor and marginalised) majority in localised production systems.

It considered examples of how people have been successfuly involved in decision making on technology, as summarised in Democratising Technology, by Tom Wakeford. Also examples of the involvement of people in science policy in Europe and Canada. And, because of the threats to livelihoods and the environment from, for example, genetic engineering and nanotechnologies the workshop considered proposals for a new International Convention for the Evaluation of new Technologies (ICENT) in the context of the convergence of proprietary nano- bio - info- technologies and cognitive neurosciences.

The workshop strategised about how to achieve greater resonance of Technology Democracy issues in the current discourse on science, technology, development and intellectual propoerty. It also proposed how to increase regulation and control of those technologies that present risks to livelihoods, the well being of the majority and the biosphere, in the public interest. It recognised that it foms a core element of solidarity (localised) economies, Food Sovereignty and environmentally sound and safe science and technological development in both rich and poor countries.

Outcomes:

To work towards engaging more people and organisations in discussions on Technology Democracy as part of the processes of:

• Localised development and the realisation of food sovereignty
• International assessments and regulation of science and technology
• The development of the emerging 7th framework of the European Commission
• European Social Forum in Athens and the next World Social Forum under a theme similar to that in WSF 5 "Autonomous thought, reappropriation and socialisation of knowledge and technologies".

And, as a first step, to engage a wide range of organisations in developing a common 'vision' of technology democracy.

Technology and Democracy

A proposal for the World Social Forum

Impact, evaluation, governance, ownership, choice and use or rejection of new technologies are some of the crucial issues that confront society in the 21st century. These impact on the livelihoods and food sovereignty of the majority as well as the integrity of the biosphere.

With IP laws and global trade rules protecting the technology choice interests of the rich, the poor majority are in a weak position to exercise their democratic rights, in particular with reference to technology choice.

Aware of the impacts on society, livelihoods and the environment of industrial technologies, e.g. fossil fuel technologies, CFCs, genetic engineering, GMOs and now nanotechnologies, Civil Society should be calling for a new compact with global governance structures.

These must enable deliberative democratic processes to determine the governance systems that are appropriate that will benefit the majority for the public good not private appropriation.

With specific reference to technology - the knowledge and skills people use to provide the goods and services they require - there have been many attempts to find the best way forward. These are usually thwarted by the imposition of unjust technologies through, projects, aid schemes, perverse subsidies and the hegemonic tendencies of global corporations.

At the same, local communities continue to develop locally-adapted technologies that sustain livelihoods and local agroecosystems and natural resources. These include the knowledge and skills used by resourceful indigenous peoples, women and men farmers, forest dwellers, pastoralists and fisher-folk who have developed a myriad of varieties of every crop, breeds of livestock and sub-species of fish and other aquatic organisms. These provide for every possible social, cultural and economic need and are suited to a kaleidoscope of different ecosystems, climates and pest and disease threats. By developing, selecting and improving local varieties and livestock breeds, swapping seeds and animals amongst themselves and sharing these with neighbours, agricultural biodiversity has been maintained. This sustains Life on Earth - food and livelihood security and ecosystem integrity.

The basic principles of technology choice were ably summarised by Kelvin Willoughby about 10 years ago when he developed the idea of a specific technology choice having three 'dimensions': Technical - does the technology work? Political/Economic - are there opportunities for it to work to the advantage of the users of the technology? Ethical/Personal - is the technology suited to the ethical requirements and social needs of the users?

The keystone is building on people's capacity to develop and use their skills and knowledge, make informed technology choices and pass on their skills to a new generation. It is about innovation within the community, group or local governance structures and not about "dumping" new technologies on communities' doorsteps. It is also, importantly, about creating frameworks that provide the necessary opportunities for local economies to thrive.

For local people-centred economies to work effectively, requires strict enforceable regulation of extractive national and international public and private sector enterprises that disrupt local production in favour of globalised trade in goods and services. These are provided at low prices, often containing hidden subsidies, and usually do not include social and environmental externalities, minimise transport cost elements and contain a profit that often only benefits small elites and distant corporations. It requires minimal disruption from conflict, health pandemics and political avarice.

It requires local governance structure to control resources - land, water, genetic resources, labour, local capital and so on - needed for production. (see for example "Cutting the Wire, the Story of Brazil's Landless Workers Movement", by Sue Branford and Jan Rocha.)

Privatisation processes, including the patenting of genetic resources that remove control of assets and knowledge from the community, and especially poor people, and enclose local and global commons allow neo-colonialism to thrive. The struggle in Brazil for local determination to keep soya production in Rio Grand do Sul GM-free, is a current, pressing example of corporate power over local sovereignty

Civil society organisations have helped to create global structures and agreements that could respond to the needs of the majority and allow for social, economic and environmental sustainability. The record of governments implementing social and environmental agreements is poor and, rather, the last decade has witnessed an unprecedented growth in corporate control of economies, perhaps unsurpassed since the excesses of the colonial merchant era.

Local sovereignty over resources and the protection of local and global commons are essential components for securing local livelihoods. (See for example the report from the World Food Summit: five years' later "Hunger - a gnawing shame" www.ukabc.org/wfs5+report.htm)

It is, thus, the task for Civil Society to find ways of supporting local developments and change processes and at the same time developing new ideas for local, meso, national and global governance. These will provide for sustainability and continuance of Life on Earth and allow realisation of the rights of all peoples to survive, thrive and develop to the best of their abilities.

Such a process is followed at the World Social Summit, held as a counterveiling process to the ' Davos World Economic Forum' meetings of OECD ministers and G8 summits.

We should look to the WSF process to provide guidance in our work. This could be more profitable than the tokenisitic tinkering of treaties and agreements, produced by global UN, WTO and Bretton Woods processes, that absorb so much advocacy time. This is not to disavow work on confronting governments and the global structures, but, rather to say that more time should be spent in processes that are closer to the realities of poor people, their aspirations and their capacities to govern and control.

For this reason, we propose that WSF should give more space for these issues.

Technology Democracy

Impact, evaluation, governance, ownership, choice and use or rejection of new technologies as well as the continued use of existing benign technologies are crucial for society in the 21st century. These impact on the livelihoods and food sovereignty of the majority as well as the integrity of the biosphere .

With Intellectual Property laws and global trade rules protecting the technology choice interests of the rich, the poor majority are in a weak position to exercise their democratic rights, in particular with reference to the technologies they may wish to use.

To overturn the negative impacts on society, livelihoods and the environment that have been created by industrial technologies, e.g. fossil fuel technologies, CFCs , genetic engineering , GMOs and now nanotechnologies , and to liberate the technological capabilities of the majority, a new compact between local and global governance structures is required - a technology democracy .

Scope

A technology democracy will facilitate deliberative democratic processes to determine the governance systems for technologies that are appropriate and that will benefit the majority for the public good not private appropriation. It will also regulate, in the public interest , those technologies that present risks to livelihoods, the well being of the majority and the biosphere.

Emerging Consensus

There is an emerging consensus among many concerned individuals and organisations that a better balance needs urgently to be achieved between the advantages of many new products and technologies and the insights that women and men bring though their existing know-how.

The basic claim of the new consensus is that technologies only work for people if these people are able to play an integral part in the development and application of any new or existing technology. To ensure that environmental sustainability and equal rights for every individual are safeguarded it is essential to combine scientific and technological innovation with democratic processes that encourage the active participation of all groups in society, unrestricted by intellectual property systems.

Appropriate Technologies

The technologies - the knowledge and skills people use to provide the goods and services they require - employed by poorer societies often suffer from the imposition of unjust technologies through, projects, aid schemes, perverse subsidies and the hegemonic tendencies of global corporations. Without adequate regulation these technologies may dsirupt or destroy otherwise sustainable local production systems.

At the same time, local communities strive to develop and maintain locally-adapted, appropriate technology that sustain livelihoods. For example they may be designed to sustain local agroecosystems and natural resources in support of food sovereignty. These technologies include the knowledge and skills used by resourceful indigenous peoples , women and men farmers , forest dwellers, pastoralists and fisherfolk and others who have developed a myriad of crop varieties, livestock breeds and sub-species of fish and other aquatic organisms. These provide for every possible social, cultural and economic need and are suited to a kaleidoscope of different ecosystems , climates, and pest and disease threats. By developing, selecting and improving local crop varieties and livestock breeds, swapping seeds and animals amongst themselves and sharing these with neighbours, agricultural biodiversity has been maintained. This sustains Life on Earth - food and livelihood security, living landscapes and ecosystem integrity. To maintain these sustainable production systems requires a technology democracy .

Building Capabilities

Technology democracy requires building people's capabilities to develop and use their skills and knowledge, make informed technology choices and pass on their skills to a new generation. It is about innovation within the community, group or local governance structures and not about "dumping" new technologies on communities' doorsteps such as through GM Food Aid ( http://www.organicconsumers.org/biod/africa050404.cfm ). It is also, importantly, about creating frameworks that provide the necessary opportunities for local economies to thrive.

Increased Regulation

For local people-centred economies to work effectively, requires strict enforceable corporate regulation of extractive national and international public and private sector enterprises that disrupt local production in favour of globalised trade in goods and services. It requires local governance structure to control resources - land, water, genetic resources, labour, local capital - needed for production. It also requires measures to minimise disruption from conflict, health pandemics and political avarice.

Privatisation processes, including the patenting of genetic resources that remove control of assets and knowledge from the community, and especially poor people, and enclose local and global commons are the results of corporate power over local sovereignty. The last decade of the 20th century witnessed an unprecedented growth in corporate control of technologies and economies, perhaps unsurpassed since the excesses of the colonial merchant era.

A technology democracy would increase democratic regulation of corporations and other entities developing and using technologies and increase local democratic control over natural resources, the technologies to use these sustainably and the protection of local and global commons essential for securing local livelihoods and ecosystem integrity.

Technology Democracy in Action

An example of technology democracy in action is the emerging policy framework for food and agriculture - food sovereignty - see, for example, the report from the World Food Summit: five years' later Hunger - a gnawing shame [1] ( http://www.ukabc.org/wfs5+report.htm ) and the speeches by Michael Meacher MP to the UK Food Group's World Food Day event in 2003 Governance of food and agriculture: a challenge for the UN? [2] ( http://www.ukabc.org/ukfg/WorldFoodDay2003Seminar/UKFG_WorldFoodDay_Meacher2.pdf ) and ITDG's Technology Democracy conference in November 2004 Democratising science and technology in the interests of all peoples of the world: a four-point agenda [3] ( http://www.itdg.org/?id=publicgood_meacher )

Background Paper

Democratising Technology by Tom Wakeford ( http://www.itdg.org/?id=publicgood_paper )

See Also

Public Good or Private Gain: reclaimimg science and technology for sustainable development ( http://www.itdg.org/technologydemocracy )
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_Democracy "