#3: The Normative Argument
There seems to be a question whether we should move beyond having normative arguments, that is to debate "what the world should look like." I am a firm believer in normative reasoning underpinned by scientific evidence, and avoiding dogma, politics, or manipulation. I say this because there is a false dichotomy in Suriname pitching carbon credits versus Mennonites. Instead, we should be arguing for land rights and sound agricultural policies. In case it is not clear where I stand, this is what I believe in:
Point 1. There is a legitimate fear that the government will not grant land rights if it succeeds in getting payments for carbon credits. I base this argument on two facts. First, the same people who are advising the government on carbon credits also represented the government internationally arguing AGAINST land rights for the Saamaka People. Second, if the government had put the same effort in implementing the ruling of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to grant Saamaka land rights (and others) as they had put in preparing the UN-REDD documents for carbon credits, we would not be having this discussion.
Point 2. We are a net food importer, have one of the highest food price inflations in the world, and have one of the lowest areas under agricultural production. We can do better. Suriname could, for example, invest in sweet potato and cassave production, and gradually replace imported flour. Similarly, Suriname could replace the import of all fats and oils for cooking and soaps by planting 3,000 hectares of palm oil and investing in our own industry. In a 2010 study, we concluded that ten farms of 300 hectares each, when strategically located, could provide employment opportunities and achieve this objective. These are just a few examples. We must develop a sound long-term agricultural strategy that is just and sustainable. If that means increasing our current 0.2% of agricultural land by 1-2%, then this is justified.
Point 3. We have to decolonize our development policies, including our agricultural development strategy. Our country is founded on a racist plantation-agriculture capitalist colonial model. Sadly, we continue to be trapped in a colonial mentality. As Raj Patel argues in his book (2011) we know the price of everything and the value of nothing. A colonial mindset expresses itself in different ways. For example, we beleive that we must commodify our river waters and forests and sell them to the highest bidder. Or, worse, we run cost-benefit analyses (CBA) to decide what to do with them.
The careful listener of Mr. Elias's interview (see my last post ), should have noticed that he did not argue against the conversion of 500,000 hectares of primary forest to agriculture. Instead, he argued that the government should base its decision - whether or not to deforest - on a CBA analysis. If agricultural production, Elias argued, is worth more than standing forests, e.g. carbon credits, - and it is - then we should convert the forest to agriculture (see the 18-minute mark in this link ). This faulty reasoning is based on two fatal assumptions in CBA analyses. First, wrong discount rates always make short-term gains outweight long-term sustainability. Second, externalizing social and environmental costs means that the true costs to human health and the environment are not fully considered. Instead, we should base our decisions on sound agricultural policy (Point 2 above).
领英推荐
Decolonizing agricultural development also means that we must stop growing crops for European taste buds as we have done for hundreds of years. This includes growing soybeans or maize for Dutch cows or cocoa for Swiss chocolate. We must invest in our own food sovereignty and food value chains. We must grow local crops as much as possible using agricultural methods that work in tropical environments. This generally implies that trees are part of the solution.
Point 4. There are no silver bullets and one size fits all solutions. Beware of the spindoctors who are spewing falsehoods, preaching dogma or trying to silence debate.
So, when the government of Suriname grants land rights to indigenous people and local communities, and when we develop sound agricultural policies to provide healthy, nutrient-dense, diverse foods at affordable prices for local communities using agroecological principles, it no longer matters if the work is done by Surinamese farmers, Mennonites, or any other immigrants. Until then, we have to continue making scientifically informed arguments and not fall back on using lies and manipulation.
It is too easy to vilify Mennonites. Much easier than making normative arguments based on scientific facts. Just look at the murderous regime of Hitler against Jews, or the racist arguments of Trump against Mexicans. Both used lies against social groups in order to manipulate the public and gain power. At a time when innocent people are being slaughtered in Gaza, can we afford to turn our anger towards Mennonites instead of to a government that is failing to make sound policies and build transparent institutions?
It may seem naive to believe in normative arguments in our post-truth world. However, I strongly disagree with anyone who claims that normative reasoning is "helping the bad guy." If we stop normative reasoning, we stop believing in the possibility of a just world, and we might as well stop fighting for land rights, gender equality or ending child labor.