There is an old joke that when a man in New York sneezes, a man in Delhi catches a cold. Globalization has merely amplified this. Now, when a bank in New York sneezes, factories in Shenzhen cough, farmers in Kenya lose sleep, programmers in Bengaluru check their phones in anxiety, and someone in Iceland starts discussing the end of civilization.
The modern world is wonderfully connected—and therefore wonderfully vulnerable.
Globalization is, at its heart, the shrinking of distance. Goods cross oceans, capital crosses borders, ideas cross cultures, and information crosses the world before a government office has finished drafting its press release.
It has created opportunities on a scale previously unimaginable. Yet the same invisible threads that connect the world can also strangle it. Globalization is therefore neither a boon nor a bane. Like most powerful human inventions, it depends upon the hands that use it.
The blessings of globalization are difficult to deny. It has expanded trade and created enormous markets for goods and services. A farmer can sell produce beyond his village; a craftsman can reach customers abroad; a young Indian engineer can work for a company headquartered thousands of kilometres away without leaving her bedroom. Countries such as India have benefited enormously from the expansion of information technology, business-process services, pharmaceuticals and global supply chains.
Globalization has also carried knowledge across borders. A medical discovery in one country can save lives in another. Scientific communities can collaborate across continents. Students can attend courses offered by universities they may never physically visit. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the world saw both the power and the necessity of international scientific cooperation. The virus travelled globally with remarkable efficiency; fortunately, knowledge travelled almost as fast.
Perhaps the greatest gift of globalization is cultural exchange. Food, music, literature, cinema and ideas have ceased to respect customs officers. A Japanese anime can become popular in India; an Indian film can find an audience in South Korea; yoga can travel from ancient India to modern gyms across the world. Such exchanges can weaken prejudice by replacing the imagined “foreigner” with an actual human being.
Globalization has also contributed to poverty reduction by integrating developing economies into world markets. Hundreds of millions of people have gained access to employment, consumer goods, technology and better standards of living. In this sense, globalization has been one of the great engines of economic transformation.
But every engine has exhaust.
The first danger is inequality. Globalization may enlarge the economic pie, but it does not guarantee that everyone receives an equal slice. Highly skilled workers, multinational corporations and owners of capital often capture a disproportionate share of its benefits. Meanwhile, workers in vulnerable industries may find their jobs disappearing because production has moved to cheaper locations. The global market can reward efficiency while showing little sympathy for the man who has just discovered that his efficient replacement is a machine.
The second curse is the weakening of local economies and cultures. When global brands enter every street corner, small producers may struggle to compete. Traditional crafts can disappear under the pressure of mass-produced goods. Cultural exchange is admirable; cultural replacement is something else. A world in which every city has the same shopping mall, the same coffee chain and the same fast-food menu may be globally connected but culturally rather boring.
Then comes the environmental paradox. Globalization has encouraged production, transportation and consumption on an unprecedented scale. Goods are manufactured in one country, assembled in another, packaged in a third and sold everywhere. The result is economic efficiency accompanied by carbon emissions, resource depletion and ecological stress. The planet, unfortunately, does not recognize the distinction between a profitable supply chain and an unprofitable one.
Globalization has also created new forms of vulnerability. The pandemic demonstrated how disruption in one part of the world can paralyse production elsewhere. Semiconductor shortages, energy crises, wars and geopolitical tensions have shown that excessive dependence on distant suppliers can become a strategic weakness. What once looked like efficiency can suddenly look like fragility.
The digital dimension makes the paradox sharper. The internet has democratized information, but it has also democratized misinformation. Social media connects families and strangers, but it can also connect extremists, conspiracy theories and angry mobs with extraordinary speed. A lie can travel around the world before truth has found its spectacles.
There is, however, a temptation to respond to these problems by rejecting globalization altogether. That would be like burning the library because one of its books contains a bad idea. The answer is not isolation but intelligent integration.
The future requires a globalization that is more inclusive, sustainable and humane. Governments must invest in education and skills so that workers can adapt to changing economies. Social security must protect those who lose jobs through technological or economic disruption. International institutions must address tax avoidance, climate change, pandemics and financial instability. Supply chains must become resilient rather than merely cheap. And economic growth must be measured not only by the volume of goods produced but also by the quality of lives created.
India has a particularly important role in this transformation. As a large democracy with a young population, a growing economy and deep civilizational diversity, India need not choose between complete openness and complete protectionism. It can pursue strategic integration: welcoming technology, investment and global markets while protecting vulnerable communities, local industries, cultural diversity and ecological interests.
Mark Twain might have observed that civilization is the art of getting what we want without getting what we deserve. Globalization is a magnificent example. We wanted cheaper goods, faster communication, greater mobility and wider opportunity—and we received them. We also received inequality, cultural homogenization, ecological damage and global crises capable of arriving at the speed of a click.
The challenge, therefore, is not to decide whether globalization is a blessing or a curse. It is both. Fire cooks our food and burns our house; the ocean carries ships and drowns sailors. The moral question is not whether we should abolish fire or drain the ocean, but whether we possess the wisdom to use them.
Globalization has made humanity more connected than at any other point in history. The real test is whether it can also make humanity more cooperative. If it can, globalization may become not merely the triumph of markets over borders, but the triumph of human imagination over distance. If it cannot, we may discover that the world has become one village—and that, unfortunately, everyone in the village has learned to shout at once.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
- Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition, a collective of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway governments, came up with a $1 billion fund.
- LEAF is supported by transnational corporations (TNCs) like Unilever plc, Amazon.com, Inc, Nestle, Airbnb, Inc as well as Emergent, a US-based non-profit.
- The world lost more than 10 million hectares of primary tropical forest cover last year, an area roughly the size of Switzerland.
- Ending tropical and subtropical forest loss by 2030 is a crucial part of meeting global climate, biodiversity and sustainable development goals. Protecting tropical forests offers one of the biggest opportunities for climate action in the coming decade.
- Tropical forests are massive carbon sinks and by investing in their protection, public and private players are likely to stock up on their carbon credits.
- The LEAF coalition initiative is a step towards concretising the aims and objectives of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism.
- REDD+ was created by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It monetised the value of carbon locked up in the tropical forests of most developing countries, thereby propelling these countries to help mitigate climate change.
- It is a unique initiative as it seeks to help developing countries in battling the double-edged sword of development versus ecological commitment.
- The initiative comes at a crucial time. The tropics have lost close to 12.2 million hectares (mha) of tree cover last year according to global estimates released by Global Forest Watch.
- Of this, a loss of 4.2 mha occurred within humid tropical primary forests alone. It should come as no surprise that most of these lost forests were located in the developing countries of Latin America, Africa and South Asia.
- Brazil has fared dismally on the parameter of ‘annual primary forest loss’ among all countries. It has lost 1.7 mha of primary forests that are rich storehouse of carbon. India’s estimated loss in 2020 stands at 20.8 kilo hectares.
- Between 2002-2020, Brazil’s total area of humid primary forest reduced by 7.7 per cent while India’s reduced by 3.4 per cent.
- Although the loss in India is not as drastic as in Brazil, its position is nevertheless precarious. For India, this loss is equivalent to 951 metric tonnes worth carbon dioxide emissions released in the atmosphere.
- It is important to draw comparisons between Brazil and India as both countries have adopted a rather lackadaisical attitude towards deforestation-induced climate change. The Brazilian government hardly did anything to control the massive fires that gutted the Amazon rainforest in 2019.
- It is mostly around May that forest fires peak in India. However, this year India, witnessed massive forest fires in early March in states like Odisha, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Mizoram among others.
- The European Union’s Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service claimed that 0.2 metric tonnes of carbon was emitted in the Uttarakhand forest fires.
- Implementation of the LEAF Coalition plan will help pump in fresh rigour among developing countries like India, that are reluctant to recognise the contributions of their forest dwelling populations in mitigating climate change.
- With the deadline for proposal submission fast approaching, India needs to act swiftly on a revised strategy.
- Although India has pledged to carry out its REDD+ commitments, it is impossible to do so without seeking knowledge from its forest dwelling population.
Context:-
At the recently concluded Leaders’ Summit on Climate in April 2021, Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition, a collective of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway governments, came up with a $1 billion fund plan that shall be offered to countries committed to arrest the decline of their tropical forests by 2030.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]What is LEAF Coalition?
Why LEAF Coalition?
Brazil & India
According to the UN-REDD programme, after the energy sector, deforestation accounts for massive carbon emissions — close to 11 per cent — in the atmosphere. Rapid urbanisation and commercialisation of forest produce are the main causes behind rampant deforestation across tropical forests.
Tribes, Forests and Government
Disregarding climate change as a valid excuse for the fires, Indian government officials were quick to lay the blame for deforestation on activities of forest dwellers and even labelled them “mischievous elements” and “unwanted elements”.
Policy makers around the world have emphasised the role of indigenous tribes and local communities in checking deforestation. These communities depend on forests for their survival as well as livelihood. Hence, they understand the need to protect forests. However, by posing legitimate environmental concerns as obstacles to real development, governments of developing countries swiftly avoid protection of forests and rights of forest dwellers.
For instance, the Government of India has not been forthcoming in recognising the socio-economic, civil, political or even cultural rights of forest dwellers. According to data from the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs in December, 2020 over 55 per cent of this population has still not been granted either individual or community ownership of their lands.
To make matters worse, the government has undertaken systematic and sustained measures to render the landmark Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 ineffective in its implementation. The Act had sought to legitimise claims of forest dwellers on occupied forest land.
Various government decisions have seriously undermined the position of indigenous people within India. These include proposing amendments to the obsolete Indian Forest Act, 1927 that give forest officials the power to take away forest dwellers’ rights and to even use firearms with impunity.
There is also the Supreme Court’s order of February, 2019 directing state governments to evict illegal encroachers of forest land or millions of forest dwellers inhabiting forests since generations as a measure to conserve wildlife. Finally, there is the lack of data on novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) deaths among the forest dwelling population;
Tardy administration, insufficient supervision, apathetic attitude and a lack of political intent defeat the cause of forest dwelling populations in India, thereby directly affecting efforts at arresting deforestation.
Way Forward
Tuntiak Katan, a global indigenous leader from Ecuador and general coordinator of the Global Alliance of Territorial Communities, aptly indicated the next steps at the Climate Summit:
“The first step is recognition of land rights. The second step is the recognition of the contributions of local communities and indigenous communities, meaning the contributions of indigenous peoples.We also need recognition of traditional knowledge practices in order to fight climate change”
Perhaps India can begin by taking the first step.