Poverty of “economic growth” | Environment

There is a village in the rainforest of Southeast Asia. I have been visiting on and off for more than 40 years, and I have been engaged in anthropological research for a long time. Decades have passed, and I have witnessed an extraordinary process of economic growth that has completely reshaped this village.

On the surface, this may sound like a good thing. After all, we are told that growth is good. We are told that more income can lift people out of poverty and improve their lives. This narrative was instilled into us by development agencies such as the World Bank, and received responses from the media around the world. But what I have witnessed makes this simple story questionable.

The village is located in Sarawak, on the Malaysian side of Borneo Island, which is the third largest island in the world, larger than France or Texas. When I visited Sarawak for the first time in the 1970s, the indigenous communities who lived there had almost no money, but they lived well. Now they are rich and can hardly support themselves. Even if their income increases, they have been in poverty all the time.​​ This is a story of cruel poverty completely obscured by GDP growth statistics.

In the 1970s, Borneo had the widest tropical rain forest outside of Brazil and Central Africa, full of life and biodiversity. People living in the forest and surrounding communities have almost no money, but they control their abundant food supply. They planted their own local rice varieties, supplemented by game meat from the surrounding tropical rainforest and fish from the river. They have a balanced diet and good health, which is impressive.

There are about 350 people in the villages I often visit. They all live under one roof, in a traditional long house typical of central Borneo at the time. An open balcony runs along the side of the house facing the river, while on the other side is a row of family apartments. Along the stream that leads to the hills, their farm is a few hours away from their farm. During the cutting season and then to the harvest season, the farmland was crowded with people and the long house was empty. At other times, it is very lively and vibrant. There is a strong sense of shared history and tradition, including carefully designed seasonal festivals and feasts. No one is starving in the long house.

Since the 1980s, everything has changed. The forests of Borneo are being destroyed at an unprecedented rate in human history. Driven by the capital of West Malaysia, Hong Kong and Japan, the ruthless timber tycoon, with the help and instigation of cunning politicians who sold timber permits to the highest bidder, tore up the forests of Sarawak and hid their wealth in London. Luxury apartment.

The indigenous communities resisted the destruction of the rainforest, but were brutally suppressed. In addition to the police and the army, the timber company also hired thugs to intimidate anyone who tried to obstruct the road. I have heard rumors of violence, but few news have come out because the government strictly controls the visits of outsiders, especially foreign journalists. It is disturbing to think about how easy and thorough this news blockade is.

After the forest was cut down, something that had never happened before: the forest floor became dry. Then it caught fire. The government accused the slash-and-burn farmers, but that was absurd. In the centuries of using this technology in Borneo, the forest has never been burned. Now, during the dry season from March to October every year, thick smog spreads downwind to Thailand. Watching is devastating. The contribution to global warming is immeasurable.

What the fire achieved was that they cleared the land for plantation agriculture. Malaysia and Indonesia account for 85% of the world’s palm oil production, which is used in cosmetics and processed foods. The vast majority of this product grows on the ashes of the tropical rainforest of Borneo, and the cutting company now owns the largest palm oil estate.

With the loss of forests and pollution of rivers, the only way for longhouse people in Sarawak I know to make a living is to work in palm oil plantations and earn meager wages.

A whole generation of young people have become accustomed to life in the timber camp. After finishing the wood processing in an area, if there is a chance, they continue to the camp. Those who have not wandered in the long house are idle and lost. Many people went to coastal cities, lived in shanty towns, and formed a new gangster proletariat.

For the longhouse people, food sovereignty and economic independence have been replaced by cash dependence that they cannot escape now. Their resource base was destroyed, the farming techniques of their grandparents were forgotten, and their precious stocks of seed rice—each family once had its own unique variety—have long been exhausted. The long house has been turned into a labor barracks, and the employer does not spend money to build it.

Surprisingly, all of this is reported smugly as development, “growth,” but this glamorous narrative hides a darker reality. The World Bank reports that poverty has been reduced. However, the increase in income cannot make up for the lost livelihoods of the longhouse people. Nothing can make up for the loss of food sovereignty and economic independence, and of course the loss of tropical rain forests. The entire narrative of poverty reduction is a hoax.

All of this makes me want to know the economic development of other places. The media like to report how China’s economic growth has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But the actual situation is much more complicated. Sociologist Sarah Swider described what she called China’s “new instability”. The choices of migrant workers entering the cities from rural areas are very limited. The workers live in an overcrowded dormitory. They work long hours and have little contact with the outside world. Others survive as temporary workers in informal street markets, and they are powerless to do anything about abuse. Migrant workers have no rights because their legal residence has returned to the countryside.

The GDP data does not tell us the cost of growth. Moreover, just like in Borneo, the real beneficiaries of China’s economic growth are those enterprises and elites who squeeze the labor of the new poor.

The simple story of GDP growth prevents us from seeing the extraordinary social and ecological destruction that growth often brings. We urgently need to abandon this indicator and focus on what is happening in the real world-who wins and who loses, what is gained, and what is lost. Too many things are being destroyed, too fast.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.