NGO Another Way (Stichting Bakens Verzet), 1018 AM Amsterdam, Netherlands.


Edition 04: 19 October, 2010.

Edition 27 : 28 November, 2014.


01. E-course : Diploma in Integrated Development (Dip. Int. Dev)



Quarter 1.





Study value : 04 points out of 18.

Indicative study time: 112 hours out of 504.


Study points are awarded only after the consolidated exam for Section A : Development Problems has been passed.



First block : Poverty and quality of life.


Study value : 02 points out of 18.

Indicative study time: 57 hours out of 504.

Study points are awarded only after the consolidated exam for Section A: Development Problems has been passed.



First block : Poverty and quality of life.


First Block : Section 1. Analysis of the causes of poverty. [26.50 hours]

Block : First block : Section 2. Services needed for a good quality of life.

First Block : Exam. [ 4 hours each attempt].



Block 1 of Section 1. Analysis of the causes of poverty. [26.50 hours]


Part 2: In depth analysis of the causes of poverty. [14.00 hours]


01. In depth : definition of poverty.

02. In depth : some factors linked with poverty.

03. Debts and subsidies.

04. In depth : financial leakages : food and water industries.

05. In depth : financial leakage : energy.

06. In depth : financial leakage : means of communication..

07. In depth : financial leakage : health and education.

08. In depth : financial leakage : theft of resources.

09. In depth : financial leakage : corruption.

10. In depth : the industry of poverty.


Report on Section 1 of Block 1 [06.00 Hours]



Part 2 : In depth analysis of the causes of poverty. [14.00 hours]


04. In depth : Financial leakages : food and water industries.


“During the next 10 years, many countries important to the United States will experience water problems—shortages, poor water quality, or floods—that will risk instability and state failure, increase regional tensions, and distract them from working with the United States on important US policy objectives. Between now and 2040, fresh water availability will not keep up with demand absent more effective management of water resources. Water problems will hinder the ability of key countries to produce food and generate energy, posing a risk to global food markets and hobbling economic growth. As a result of demographic and economic development pressures, North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia will face major challenges coping with water problems.” (Global Water Security, Bottom Line Statement, Defense Intelligence Agency et al, Intelligence Community Assessment IC 2012-08, Washington, 02 February, 2012.) 


This confirms that water is destined to play a key role in the Foreign Policy of the United States over the coming decades. How this is likely to be put in practice was explained in the Statement of Principles of the Project for the New American Century, Washington, 03 June, 1997. This aggressive and ignominious document was proudly published for some 17 years at, but the website was "suspended", possibly in connection with the expected bid by Jeb Bush, one of the signatories to the Principle, for the coming Republican nomination for President. The Principles formed the basis of the foreign policy of the United States during the two George Bush junior administrations and that of  the Obama administration to date. The principles are discussed in Wikipedia, and include the list of signatories and supporters which could be a mind-opener for many.


By way of confirmation president Barack Obama stated on May 28, 2014: “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being” in his Speech to the U.S.Military Aacademy at West Point, New York, May 28 2014, as reported by CNN.


04. Financial leakage: food industries and drinking water.


"If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it." - Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, quoted in the Kansas City Star, March 7, 1994 ). (Cited in R. Cummins, BioDemocracy or Corporatocracy : The Food Fight of our Lives, Article 27261, Organic Consumers Association, 27 March, 2013, Finland MN 55603 (USA).

"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job." - Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, quoted in the New York Times, October 25, 1998.  (Cited in R. Cummins, BioDemocracy or Corporatocracy : The Food Fight of our Lives, Article 27261, Organic Consumers Association, 27 March, 2013, Finland MN 55603 (USA.


“Success in producing food has been accompanied by a failure to provide an improved entitlement to that food….. Exclusive emphasis on food production has led towards “the dissolution of systems of rural livelihood’’ and the erosion of exchange entitlements. The extra food produced enables the nation to reduce food  imports or increase exports, but does not necessarily lead  to more being eaten.”  (Pacey A. and Payne P. ) (ed.) Agricultural Development and Nutrition, Hutchinson , London, 1985, p. 159.


For an analysis of the consequences of industrial farming and the use of genetically modified crops, read the article by R. Cummins, Industrial Agriculture and Human Survival : The Road Beyond 10/10/10, published by  Organic Consumers Association, October 7, 2010, Finland MN 55603 (USA).


Carefully read Food Sovereignty, Feeding the World, Regenerating Ecosystems, Rebuilding Local Economies, and Cooling the Planet – all at the same time , Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), c/o African Biodiversity Network, Kitha, November 2011. This document is an integrated part of your course.<


Food dependence.


1. Opinion.


What do you think  «food self-sufficiency means » ? 

Who, in the modern world, enjoy food self-sufficiency ?


Take the following in turn :

Industrialised countries, a) large towns b) rural areas.

Emerging economies, a) arge towns b) rural areas.

Least developed countries, a) large towns b) rural areas.


2. Opinion.


Which differences between industrialised, emerging, and least developed countries emerged in your analysis of food sufficiency ?

Is there any  difference between an inhabitant in an industrialised country  without self-sufficiency in  food and an inhabitant in a poor country without self-sufficiency in food?


Suggested reading : Agriculture in the City. A Key to Sustainability in Havana, Cuba, Cruz M.C. and Medina R.S., IDRC International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, 2003. (ISBN 1-5525-0-104-3).


2. Imposed production standards.


The International Standards Organisation (ISO) has developed some 19500 international standards</span>, and 1100 new standards are added each year.

Other influential standards organisations include :


American National Standards Institute ANSI,

Association Française de Normalisation AFNOR,

British Standards Institute BSI,

Deutsches Institut für Normung DIN.


Legally, the texts of the standards are not made available to the public free of charge.


3. Opinion.


Why do you think the texts of standards are so expensive ?

What is your view on the (high) compliance costs needed to meet the standards ? 

What do you think about the high costs of completing tests necessary to be able to comply with and obtain a certificate of compliance with the standards?

What are your conclusions?


4. Opinion.


Relate  your conclusions to control of industrial production structures.


In 2002 the European Commission tried to enforce pasteurisation of milk in Europe, including milk destined for cheese production.. The proposal was (successfully) resisted by farmers, with the support of the French Government.


Read : Goldsmith E., Lack of “Hygiene” as a pretext for closing down small food producers,, Right Livelihood Award Foundation, Stockholm, undated.


5. Opinion.


What do you think  was behind the proposal for the compulsory pasteurisation of milk ?

Why were French farmers opposed to it?


6. Opinion.


Relate your conclusions to the risk of loss of control by producers over their production.


Pettis J. et al show the direct relationship between the on-going decimation of honey bees (Apis mellifera) in nature and the use of neonicotinoid pesticides such as Gaucho, produced by Bayer, Leverkusen, Germany in their study Pesticide exposure in honey bees results in increased levels of the gut pathogen Nosema , (Natuurewissenschaften-The Science of Nature, January 2012,, accessed 31 January, 2012). The extermination of honey bees is a serious threat to food production world-wide. The negative effects of  pesticides on bees have been known for several years, but despite a temporary moratorium introduced by the European Union restricting the use of three neonicotinoid pesticides the pesticides have not yet been banned. Industrial interests of multinationals have been be allowed to prevail over the common interest.


Bee-harming pesticides include imidacloprid, thaimethoxam, clothianidin, fipronil, chlorpyriphos, cypermethrin, and deltamethrin. The first three are all neonicotinoids.


“These seven chemicals are all widely used in Europe, and at high concentrations have been shown to acutely affect bees – mostly honeybees as the model target, but also other pollinators. Further concerns arise from the fact that impacts have also been identified as a result of chronic exposure and at sub-lethal low doses. Observed effects include impairment of foraging ability (bees getting lost when coming back to the hive after foraging, and an inability to navigate efficiently), impairment of learning ability (olfactory – smelling- memory, essential in a bee’s behaviour), increased mortality, and dysfunctional development, including in larvae and queens (see Table 1 for a summary of the potential harms of the seven priority chemicals).


“The science is clear and strong: the potential harm of these pesticides appears to far exceed any presumed benefits of increased agricultural productivity from their role in pest control. In fact, any perceived beneficial trade-offs are likely to prove completely illusory. The risks of some of these pesticides – the three neonicotinoids in particular – have been confirmed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), while it is very widely accepted that the economic benefits of pollinators are, in parallel, very significant.” (Bees in Decline : A review of factors that put pollinators and agriculture in Europe at risk, Technical Report (Review) 01/2013, Greenpeace International, Amsterdam, April, 2013.)  This resource includes a detailed reference list for students wishing to widen their knowledge on this subject. 


The insidious way pesticides multinationals have tried to create a pro-bee smoke screens to protect their business interests at all costs is described and fully referenced in Simon M., Follow the Honey : 7 ways pesticide companies are spinning the bee crisis to protect profits, Friends of the Earth with Bee Action, Washington, April 2014.


7. Research.


Why do we conserve food?

Which systems were traditionally used for the conservation of food in your project area? For which foods ?


You may wish to consider, amongst other techniques, drying, the use of brine, vegetable oils, and glass.


Remember that food was traditionally conserved for a short term (for example butter and cheese) and for a long term (for example drying, pickling, and jams).


8. Opinion.


Make a comparison between industrially canned and bottled foods and the use of freezing and vacuum packing.


What do you know about  solar drying?


9. Opinion.


What do you think about the risk of loss of control by producers over their own production?


4. Freezing, vacuum packing, and packaging of foods.


10. Research.


Make a list of the main food industries in your chosen area, in your region, in your country.

How big are they?.

Estimate the capital invested in them.

Who own them ?

Where are the foods in question produced?

Where are the industrialised food products consumed?

Indicate the relation between the turnover of the food industries in your project area, in your region, in your country with the state budget of your country. 

What are your conclusions?


11. Opinion.


Relate your ideas to the risk of control by the local producers of their production.


5. Monoculture and imported foods.


“…the global industrial food system contributes an estimated 44-57% of global greenhouse gases to climate change. In contrast, the world's small-scale farmers – the ones keeping agricultural diversity alive – provide 70% of all food eaten globally, using just 30% of the world's agricultural land……Farmers today and in the future will need to grow a wide diversity of crop varieties to spread their risk and deal with variable amounts of rain, changing temperatures, saline conditions, emerging pests and diseases, as well as a diversity of nutritional and medicinal needs” (Anderson, T. : GM agriculture is not the answer to seed diversity – it’s part of the problem , Poverty Matters Blog, The Guardian, London, 17 October, 2013.)


For a denunciation of the way multinational interests have influenced food (and seed) dependency see Shiva, V. et al, Seed Freedom : A global Citizens’ Report, Navdanya et al, New Delhi, October 2012..


The cost of foods, especially of imported foods, is strongly manipulated by international multinational speculation.


“Goldman [the bank Goldman Sachs] made about $400m (£251m) in 2012 from investing its clients' money in a range of "soft commodities", from wheat and maize to coffee and sugar, according to an analysis for The Independent by the World Development Movement (WDM)….. Goldman makes its "food speculation" revenues by setting up and managing commodity funds that invest money from pension funds, insurance companies and wealthy individuals in return for fees and commissions. The firm invented these kinds of funds and continues to dominate the market, together with Barclays and Morgan Stanley. Swiss trading giant Glencore hit the headlines in August when its head of agriculture proclaimed that the US drought will be "good for Glencore". ( Bawden, T., Goldman bankers get rich betting on food prices as millions starve, The Independent, London, 20 January, 2013.)


12. Research.


Describe the monoculture the closest to your project area.


Human right to adequate food is exercised when “every man, women, or child, alone or in a community with others, has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement.” Suárez S., Emanueli M, Monocultures and human rights, Food First Information and Action Network (FIAN), Heidelberg, and Habitat International Coalition Regional Office Latin America, Mexico City, June 2009, p. 7.


Production of staple foods:


13. Research.


How many people work on the production of staple foods in your project area ?

How many are women and how many are men?

How many hours a day do they work?

How much do they earn?

What are the maximum, median, and minimum revenues?

Who controls the level of the revenues ?

Who supply the seeds?

Who determines their price?

Who supply the fertilisers?

Who sets their price?

What is the level of food security where local  harvests are lower than expected ?


Industrial food production:


14. Research.


How many people are active in industrial food production in your project area?

How many are women and how many are men?

How many hours a day do they work?

How many days a year do they work?

How much do they earn?

What are the maximum, median, and minimum revenues?

Who controls the level of their salaries ?

What is the level of food security where local  harvests are lower than expected?


Some consequences:


15. Opinion.


What effect does employment in the industrial food production sector have on food self-sufficiency of the individuals and families involved?

What percentage of their revenues do they spend on the purchase of foods imported into the area?

Who control the prices of the imported foods?

What are your conclusions?


16. Opinion.


Relate your conclusions to the risk of loss by producers of  control over the food they produce.


6. Dependence for drinking water.


Access to safe drinking water and sanitation facilities are human rights. The right to water was recognised under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.(Human Right to Water), Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR),   General Comment No. 15: The Right to Water (Arts. 11 and 12 of the Covenant), 20 January 2003, E/C.12/2002/11.


For a discussion on the rights to drinking water and sanitation see Realising the Human Rights to Water and Sanitations : A Handbook : Office of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation, New York, August 2014.


Saving Our Blue Future : The human race and our planet need a new water ethic , (Other Worlds, Washington, 26 Feburary, 2014.) proposes a new ethic in four points for the management of the water available  to man and planet Earth :


“First, water is a human right and must be more equitably shared. The United Nations has recognized that drinking water and sanitation are fundamental rights and that governments have obligations not only to supply these services to their people but also to prevent harm to source water. This provides an important tool to local communities as they confront dangerous mines, dams, and fossil-fuel extraction operations around the world.


“Second, water is a common heritage of humanity and of future generations and must be protected as a public trust in law and practice. Water must never be bought, hoarded, sold, or traded as a commodity on the open market and governments must maintain the water commons for the public good, not private gain. While private businesses have a role in helping find solutions to our water crisis, they shouldn’t be allowed to determine access to this basic public service. The public good trumps the corporate drive to make profits when it comes to water.


“Third, water has rights too, outside its usefulness to humans. Water belongs to the Earth and other species. Our belief in “unlimited growth” and our treatment of water as a tool for industrial development have put the earth’s watersheds in jeopardy. Water isn’t merely a resource for our convenience, pleasure, and profit. It’s the essential element in a living ecosystem. We need to adapt our laws and practices to ensure the protection of water and the restoration of watersheds — a crucial antidote to global warming.


“Finally, I deeply believe that water can teach us how to live together if only we will let it. There is enormous potential for water conflict in a world of rising demand and diminishing supply. But just as water can be a source of disputes, conflict, and violence, water can bring people, communities, and nations together in the shared search for solutions.”


Some countries have enshrined the right to water and sanitation at national level. For details see The Rights to Water and Sanitation in National Law website, Water Aid and Others, London.


Public-private cooperation is an economic paradigm supported by the United Nations agencies and by neo-liberal governments over the past 30 years. It appears likely that section 8 of the Millennium Goals was inserted to negate in practice the effects of objectives 1-7.  In any case, the purpose of section 8 appears to be the maintenance, and even the reinforcement, of the status quo of the currently dominating development aid system.


“Privatizing water systems to cover budget shortfalls forces future generations to pay for current financial imprudence and mismanagement. The schemes provide a cash advance of future water revenue to pay for current financial needs. Privatization is borrowing against the future.” Borrowing Trouble : Water Privatization is a False Solution for Municipal Budget Shortfalls, Food & Water Watch, Washington, 04 April, 2013, p. 8., pointing out that:


“Many privatizations around the world have failed. World Bank data show that nearly 60 concessions and leases of water and sanitation systems — about 15 percent of all such deals — have been canceled  or are in distress in low- and mid-income countries.” (p. 9, citing the World Bank, Private Participation in Infrastructure Database at, concluding that :


“Water rate increases that accompany privatization deals should be considered a “wolfish tax which is cloaked in the garb of a sheepish fee” (p. 12)


“Numerous studies have established that private operators of water and sewer systems are no more efficient than public operators, and that privatization does not reduce costs.” (p. 14, citing numerous qualified references under footnote 171).


Cases of intervention by multinational operators in the drinking water sector in developing countries are widespread. The consequences of it have been disastrous, especially where long-term monopolist concessions have been awarded to multinationals for the distribution of drinking water in large towns in poor countries. Drinking water has become an exploitable commercial product instead of being recognised as a basic unalienable human right.


There is now an on-going trend to remunicipalise water supply services and bring them back under public control. For a list of  180 cases see Lobina, E. and others, Here to Stay : Water Remunicipalisation as a Global Trend, Public Services International Research Institute (PSIRU) with Transnational Institute and Multinational Observatory, Greenwich, November 2014. Key finding 3 on p. 3 states :


“....the factors leading to water remunicipalisation are similar worldwide. The false promises of water privatisation that have led to remunicipalisation include: poor performance of private companies (e.g. in Dar es Salaam, Accra, Maputo), under-investment (e.g. Berlin, Buenos Aires), disputes over operational costs and price increases (e.g. Almaty, Maputo, Indianapolis), soaring water bills (e.g. Berlin, Kuala Lumpur), difficulties in monitoring private operators (e.g. Atlanta), lack of financial transparency (e.g. Grenoble, Paris, Berlin), workforce cuts and poor service quality (e.g. Atlanta, Indianapolis). ”


Read the report on Global Water Security by the (US) Defense Intelligence Agency et al,  Intelligence Community Assessment IC 2012-08, Washington, 02 February, 2012.


“Many economists advocate the privatization of  water services to generate funds for water infrastructure and better manage water demands. However, properly run government water utilities can also provide excellent services and generate sufficient revenue to sustain their  water infrastructure. Although water privatization has been successful in many  countries, it can threaten established use patterns by increasing the costs of water or transferring ownership of water sources to private companies without proper local governance structures. Privatization also makes water supply vulnerable to market forces which  can conflict with societal expectations. In many developing agricultural areas around the world, farmers pay nothing directly for water use and often view water charges as expropriation of water rights acquired with the land. Privatization can lead to instability, as people become unable to afford water and/or become restive as they perceive their right to water being threatened. ” (p. 10)


Having said that, the authors conclude :


“Active engagement by the United States to resolve water challenges will improve US influence and may forestall other actors achieving the same influence at US expense.” (p. 11)


This conclusion must be read in connection with main point A. on p. iii) of the introduction to the document :


“We assess that during the next 10 years, water problems will contribute to instability in states important to US national security  interests. Water shortages, poor water quality, and floods by themselves are unlikely to result in state failure. However, water problems - when combined with poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions - contribute to social disruptions that can result in state failure.”


17. Research.


Document the case of concession of monopolist rights to the distribution of drinking water which is closest to your chosen project area.

What are your conclusions ?


18. Opinion.


Relate your ideas on monopolist rights to drinking water  to the risk of loss of control by local populations of their rights to drinking water.


   First block : Poverty and quality of life.

Index : Diploma in Integrated Development  (Dip.Int.Dev)

 List of key words.

 List of references.

  Course chart.

 Courses available.

Homepage Bakens Verzet.


Creative Commons License.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-commercial-Share Alike 3.0 Licence.