Claudio Schuftan, Guest Editor
As work began on this issue of SCN News the perspective of one of the civil society organizations, FIAN, struck me as being especially sensible1 . FIAN’s perspective prompted me to ask what I feel are some of the key questions that needed to be answered before the World Food Summit: five years later (WFS: fyl) event, originally scheduled for November 2001. I used these questions to probe many of our contributors in a search for plausible, concrete responses.
In my view, most of the questions are addressed in these feature articles. Responses are not black or white, but span all shades of gray. Some of the responses are profound, others are witty, all are interesting. Try to find your own most comfortable shade of gray and take a stand; be counted in this debate. This is not the time for procrastination.
Readers are challenged to carry out a pre-test of their knowledge of the key content and process issues before us in this debate. Try to respond to these questions before reading the articles, and re-examine them afterwards. Try to focus on what is needed to resolve outstanding problems. This could become the basis for active involvement in advocacy.
Was the outcome document of the WFS just one more shopping list of ideas with little follow-up on how to get them implemented?
Reference:
1. Windfuhr M (2001). From the Summit to the ground. Hungry for What is Right. Number 23, August 2001.
|
Claudio Schuftan, Guest Editor. |
aviva@netnam.org.vn |
|
Preparing for the World Food Summit: five
years later |
The worst way to use the time between now and then is to start thinking of a new, lower target than the one set at the Summit. Such thinking should have no place on the agenda of those who believe that hunger is a scourge and that it is high time to take decisive actions to reduce it. The target is both just and feasible. That the target is just is proven by the fact that it was unanimously agreed upon at the Summit.
As regards feasibility and if history is a guide, world agriculture has shown that it is able to produce more without putting excessive pressure on food prices. Worldwide, there is certainly no lack of food to provide everyone with at least a minimum diet. Moreover, resources to aid countries and populations in need are also available. What it takes to reach the target is to set priorities right.
Progress has been made. The number of undernourished (defined by FAO as food intake that is continuously insufficient to meet dietary energy requirements) has fallen from 816m in 1990-92 to 777m in 1997-99 despite population growth, i.e., from 20% of developing countries’ populations in the early 90s to 17% in the late 90s1. Indeed, the rate of reduction in the 90s has been below what would be required to achieve the WFS target. But before we despair, we should consider that a group of 31 developing countries was able to reduce the number of undernourished people by 116m people in the 90s. We should thus take a closer look at what those countries did and learn from their experience. Peace and political stability, investment in agriculture and rural development, overall economic growth, and safety nets were some of the ingredients of their success.
It would therefore be a major mistake if we were to succumb to pessimism based on the lack of sufficient progress towards achieving the target. Lowering the target would send the wrong signal to all those who have been given hope that everything possible will be done to help them. It will also be an injustice to those, alas too few, who not only believe that the target is fair and feasible, but who have devoted their energies to help make the goal a reality.
|
Worldwide, there is certainly no lack of food to provide
everyone with at least a minimum diet |
A key action point towards achieving the target would be the building of a “global coalition to fight hunger”, as proposed by the President of Germany on World Food Day 2001 in Rome. Building such a coalition of governments, civil society organizations (CSOs), international agencies and institutions should be a first priority for the time between now and the WFS: fyl meeting. To build such a cohesive coalition, its partners must not only believe in the common cause, but they should also share their understanding of the major determinants of the problem of hunger and agree on an action plan to meet the goal. A transparent dialogue is essential in this endeavour.
Over five years after the WFS, we are fully aware of the reasons why we are not on track in meeting the target. The main reason has been a lack of political will to follow up on what was agreed in the Summit Declaration, i.e. the political will to follow up on commitments made by 185 governments in 1996.
I certainly do not want to question the seriousness of intentions of those who signed the commitment. However, we should not forget that the Declaration and Plan of Action expressed the collective commitment of those represented to halve the number of hungry in the world by 2015. It could be said that when collective commitments are made, there is a tendency of the parties to pass (at least part of) the responsibility for meeting the commonly-agreed targets onto others. Accountability is therefore needed for political action to meet the target. I believe the time has come for every stakeholder to internalize the commitments made, by, for example, setting national targets for hunger reduction. Setting and meeting national targets would be the responsibility of national governments and their development partners. The global coalition we propose would have to work together to ensure that such targets are indeed met. What are the steps to be taken to rekindle a waning political will?
More than ever, the facts in front of us push us to set priorities to mobilize resources to fight hunger and poverty effectively. Two thirds of the poor and the hungry live in rural areas of developing countries, with agriculture being the basis of their livelihoods. Yet, so far, domestic resource allocation, official development assistance and multilateral lending for agriculture and rural development have not reflected the sector’s crucial role. We firmly believe that the global coalition proposed should make sure that the priorities set for hunger and poverty reduction reflect this important but often forgotten fact.
Reference
1. FAO (2001) The State of Food Insecurity in the World. FAO: Rome.
Hartwig de Haen, Assistant Director-General,
FAO
hartwig.dehaen@fao.org
|
How do civil society organisations help the poor access resources? It is not clear what happens when civil society organizations (CSOs) collaborate with government agencies in terms of what is achieved and who benefits. CSOs do assist the urban poor in levering resources for self-help and in promoting and supporting their advocacy efforts. What is often at stake is the need to overcome subtle forms of state resistance, i.e. bureaucratic inertia, vested interests and local political interests. So when negotiations take place with local politicians, it is usually political support that is exchanged in return for resources such as the provision of services. Yet how transparent, sustainable and democratic are such linkages? How far do CSOs truly represent the needs and interests of the poorest? Or, more simply stated, what impact do CSOs have on poverty? To date, most of CSO activities have been more about the inclusion of community views in governance than about directly fostering pro-poor decision-making. CSOs have spent too little time developing innovative programmes to help the capacity of the poor to tackle their poverty. Excerpted from Beall J and Mitlin D (2001) Beyond
confrontation? Insights Development Research ID21, published by the
Institute of Development Studies. J.beall@lse.ac.uk or
diana.mitlin@iied.org |
|
Five points need to be made on the road to WFS:
fyl |
FAO’s Committee on World Food Security (CFS) pursues the task of monitoring the results of the World Food Summit. The reporting process is just beginning and, so far, is not very effective. States report to the secretariat which then provides the CFS with very condensed summaries of what has been achieved. The CFS does not investigate individual states’ compliance any further, and states so far, is not do not want this to happen either. For example, FAO does not check states’ performance on the right to food and their means of implementing it. At the CFS level, FAO basically highlights "best practices” at country level and presents analytical papers highlighting implementation problems.
The Summit follow-up process has started to give recommendations to countries, however, it has not found a way to discuss conflicts amongst different commitments within the Plan of Action, nor to challenge international policies that conflict with the implementation of the Plan, e.g. trade policy instruments. Consider, for instance, that developed countries, especially those in the EU, are still dumping surpluses on world markets, often with very negative impacts on small farmers in developing countries. Changes in these policies are still pending. On the other hand, through the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) of the WTO and through the directives of structural adjustment policies, many developing countries have opened up their markets for agricultural imports, often with negative consequences for farmers. FAO has made some 14 studies on the impact of the AoA on developing countries describing the potential negative effects of opening markets to products from countries that subsidize their production (as allowed by the AoA). These contradictions have yet to be challenged.
Another example is access to land. In Commitment 2, states had agreed in Rome on very clear language on access to land, reflecting the real need for securing access to land by millions of landless people worldwide. It wording is: "equal access to productive resources such as land, water and credit”. The World Bank, however, is pushing strongly for privatization of land markets and for policies on land reform to be based on markets. A market-based land reform - basically asking the poor to buy land with (subsidized) credits - is miles away from the "equality requirement” of Commitment 2 of the Plan of Action. But this new Bank policy on land reform increasingly dominates national land reform strategies.
|
The reporting process is just beginning and, so far, is not
very effective |
How does the WTO´s Agreement on Agriculture affect small farmers?
During the Uruguay Round, countries agreed to open up national markets and to cut export and national subsidies to the agricultural sector. While many developing countries were initially favourable to this (because they were expecting better access to markets in industrialized countries) more and more have become disillusioned and critical of the agreement.
It is not easy to show the direct impact of WTO’s AoA on small farmers, because often the opening of markets had already been introduced by structural adjustment policies. Nevertheless, the impact of the AoA on small farmers is in many cases dramatic. Small farmers still have to compete with agricultural imports that benefit from export subsidies in industrialized countries. The relevance of this to the right to food is obvious. From a right to food perspective individual access to productive resources is essential. If small farmers produce food or other crops on their lands and lose their markets due to rapid changes in the import regime, they are often squeezed and left with no options. They lose their main source of income and often have no alternative source. Hunger and malnutrition result.
A systematic look at the consequences of such trade agreements on the right to adequate food is urgently needed. This work should be done by human rights institutions not by the WTO. Additionally, countries must be able to exert the right to restrict their agricultural trade if the right to food is violated and if liberalization endangers small producers.
Countries must have the right to choose the adequate mix of policies to live up to their human rights obligations, including the right to adequate food.
Has the Code of Conduct on the Right to Adequate Food received the attention it deserves?
The idea of developing an International Code of Conduct on the Human Right to Adequate Food originated during the preparation of the World Food Summit in 1996. At that time, several states and many NGOs were dissatisfied with the preparatory documents for the Summit. The idea of focusing more strongly on the right to adequate food and of devoting a specific chapter in the Plan of Action (Objective 7.4) to its implementation was raised by Latin American countries. The idea became one of their main lobbying points during the Summit. The Code was put forward as one of the two in the key demands of the plenary of the parallel NGO Summit in Rome. A few NGOs were mandated to formulate the text of the Code in the course of 1997 and to have it discussed in an international NGO conference. A draft Code of Conduct has been available since September 1997.
During the World Food Summit the demand for a Code of Conduct was included in Objective 7.4 of the Plan of Action with the formulation: “voluntary guidelines for food security for all” can be developed to better implement the right to adequate food. The push for the Code of Conduct was, and is, therefore, a push for a new legal instrument to give the final documents of the WFS more strength. It argues that the implementation and promotion of the right to adequate food must become a central objective of all states in order to put an end to hunger and malnutrition. The drafting group for the Code of Conduct was sure that while the right to adequate food is firmly established as a fundamental right, it needed to be further elaborated to better ensure its implementation.
During the CFS meeting in May 2001 the proposal to develop such a Code was included in the current draft list of the topics to be discussed at the WFS: fyl event. Several countries declared their full support to this initiative during a preparatory conference at FAO in November 2001. The NGOs present openly demanded that the WFS: fyl take the decision to further develop the Code of Conduct on the Right to Adequate Food. The Rome Declaration and the Plan of Action have, therefore, only laid the foundations for international work that allows for a strengthened implementation of the right to food. Yet more lobbying and advocacy work is needed to get states to join the drafting process towards this Code of Conduct. This is a challenge for the WFS: fyl.
|
The right to food concept should also be introduced in the
development of poverty reduction strategy processes |
The follow-up process concerning the right to food had a successful start. Together with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), FAO organized three expert consultations on the right to adequate food to better clarify the content and to identify new means to implement it. The International Code of Conduct on the Right to Adequate Food was one of the important implementation instruments discussed. So far, the follow-up process successfully defined this right and the related state obligations that flow from it. The should also be introduced second step, i.e. a better implementation process of of that right, has to be started strategy processes now. The right to food concept should also be introduced in the development of poverty reduction strategy processes (PRSPs), which the World Bank is currently developing in the highly-indebted poor countries.
How far has the international community gone in fostering the needed political will to fight hunger and malnutrition?
Heads of state were criticized in 1996 for adopting the goal of halving the number of hungry by only 2015. Five years later it is obvious that even this modest goal will not be achieved. FAO tells us there has been some success (slightly reduced numbers underfed in the face of population growth), but now the goal seems less and less realistic. The attitude of many countries attending the recent CFS meetings cannot be characterized as overly enthusiastic. On the one hand, many governments seem to have summit fatigue with all UN Summits of the 90s having their follow-up conferences. The Rome + 5 Summit was given a somewhat different name to help overcome this sentiment. On the other hand, most governments expect that the follow-up summit will not be used to impose new commitments or to create more financial burdens. They will be happy if the urgency to implement the earlier commitments more efficiently is simply reinforced in June. So if the Summit is to become a success, it will be up to civil society to challenge slow and often unwilling governments, and to put the needed political pressure behind the process to resolve constraints to achieving real results.
After five years of implementation of the Plan of Action the results are not encouraging. Governments are starting to recognize that the pace is too slow. The official preparatory process for the WFS: fyl has identified two main issues for the agenda in June: fostering the needed political will to fight hunger and mobilizing resources. The FAO secretariat prepared background documents on these two themes for the CFS last spring and invited comments from NGOs and states (excerpts appear on page 15). We can expect to see revisions shortly. The output of the June summit should be a short and concise political resolution of only a few pages. States have already started to collect ideas and to work on content. The resolution and the process in the next few months and the Summit itself will focus on these two main issues.
Michael Windfuhr, Executive Director,
FIAN-International,
windfuhr@fian.org
|
Of hopes and frustrations Comments from NGOs and civil society organizations involved
in the WFS: fyl preparation process |
Several UN reports coming from different quarters have warned us of the possible negative impacts of continued hunger on economic and political stability around the world The international as well as of the sustain - contradictions among ability of the food system overall. They have also pointed to the need for more concerted actions to guarantee substantial reductions in hunger and poverty rates. Calls have been made for strong partnerships between governments and all relevant social actors. These partnerships are seen as the only way to reach the goals. They would enable a sustainable democratic process of community empowerment.
It seems clear that we are failing the test of putting economic and social development at the service of humankind as a stated goal of promoting human rights and development. In addition, we have yet to put effective strategies into practice. Organizations like the IMF and the WTO have been resistant to working decisively with the UN towards this common goal.
The international system is rife with glaring contradictions among intergovernmental organizations. This reflects not only their different governance mechanisms, but also the different interests which guide and control them. As such, the UN system reflects the internal contradictions of its member governments which themselves often defend contradictory positions in different international fora. This is how civil society assesses the UN and how it explains the difficulties the UN has in coordinating its work both at international and national level.
|
The international system is rife with glaring contradictions
among intergovernmental organizations |
Civil society warned that the Uruguay Round as well as structural adjustment programmes in developing countries were harbingers of grim consequences in terms of household food security. Can the WFS: fyl, with all its assembled leaders, counteract the ominous consequences of the worldwide implementation of a liberalization model of international trade that is inequitable? Can the WFS: fyl dismantle national food security policies that have led to further rural exodus and social exclusion?
Not by accident, over the last few years, have food-related civil society organizations (CSOs) and movements progressively shifted their attention to the WTO forum. Some believe that the fate of people's food and nutritional security is sealed there. In this context, FAO has been weakened in the eyes of many CSOs. This is because FAO is perceived as being out of the loop of influence to fulfil its mission of promoting and protecting food security of people in the international scene. The call on FAO made by the Global Forum on Food Sovereignty (see p 40) to re-establish its mission and responsibility to coordinate the food security effort in the international sphere is symptomatic of this.
The postponement of WFS: fyl to mid 2002 gives us an opportunity not to be missed to correct our course and to position CSOs in a more protagonist role in the updating of national and regional reports for the event. It also gives us an opportunity to concretely build on the interfaces of the WFS follow-up with the ICN and its National Plans of Action for Nutrition with the Earth Summit and with the upcoming UN General Assembly Special Session on Children.
We are all in the same boat. We must take up the challenge and window of opportunity to assess existing means to promote food and nutrition security and to squarely place them in the context of human rights. FAO should take the lead in this effort. If not, the global community may have to set up a new intersectoral governance mechanism capable of bringing together all relevant actors to tackle the real underlying and basic causes of food insecurity, malnutrition, hunger and poverty.
Flavio Valente, Brazilian Forum on Food and Nutritional
Security, and a member of the ACC/SCN Steering Committee representing NGOs/civil
society.
flvalente@tecnolink.com.br
The International Partners for Sustainable Agriculture is interested in food, nutrition, land and sustainable agriculture. These issues need to be addressed simultaneously to resolve problems of food insecurity. It is a struggle to get needed increased attention to these issues and to co-ordinate better with the various single-issue CSOs as well as with the specialized UN agencies that work in the area of food insecurity. We have had good collaboration with FAO, but it takes constant effort to sustain this collaboration at an effective level. Our experience has been that once NGO representatives leave Rome, it is easy for them to go back to the old ways of working and to forget the commitments made.
In our joint work with the UN agencies, the perspectives of each group have been clarified to a degree. This has enriched everyone’s understanding of decision-making processes in key institutions. We have learned that CSOs and UN agencies cannot be lumped together in a homogenous grouping. Because the WFS has a mandate from governments, NGOs have managed to have an official “seat at their table”. This gives NGOs and CSOs a chance to speak up and be heard during the debate, rather than at the end of the day as a token contribution. FAO is mandated to work with accredited NGOs and to engage in a multi-stakeholder dialogue with them as well as with governments. This has created an open arena in which to raise issues and concerns. The issues addressed so far have been of key significance to advance the cause of food, land and agriculture. The rescheduled WFS: fyl will be preceded by the Committee on World Food Security and five regional conferences between January and June 2002. It is up to all of us to make the best of this opportunity and to further link the four issues in our advocacy and lobbying. Although some institutions increasingly recognize the need for linkages, they are often unable or unwilling to address them head on.
Linda Elswick, International Partners for Sustainable Agriculture, ipsa@igc.org
Participation of civil society in the WFS: fyl process has to be assessed from the perspective of NGOs themselves. Even if most of NGOs working in the food security area pay attention to all that happens in the most active international organisations, foremost among them the WTO, their interest in what happens at FAO is limited, except in key situations. This was the case during the World Food Summit. However, WFS follow-up by the non-governmental sector, especially during the World Food Security Committee meetings, was not optimal.
Accredited CSOs are of two kinds: one group is represented by international organizations with a permanent representative in Rome. Representatives based in Rome are often not very specialised in food security issues. The other group is represented by some very specialised and active food and agriculture NGOs/CSOs. This second group is small and those based in the South generally have no means to finance their travel and stay in Rome. It is very difficult to raise funds to cover participation of organizations from the South or from transition countries.
Since 1996, cooperation between FAO and NGOs/CSOs has improved, especially with the organizations of the second group. In particular
Undoubtedly there has been progress, but more needs to be achieved. Cooperation with member governments of FAO needs to be strengthened. Member governments have been far less responsive on the whole. One factor that does not contribute to success in this area is the lack of consistent interest from NGOs/CSOs themselves in follow-up to the Summit Plan of Action. Follow-up at the national level is a critical element; each organization should be in touch with its respective government. In European Union for this regard, should NGOs/ This is an CSOs look to the countries of the European Union for examples of success in this arena? This is an open question.
The range of opportunities for action is greater today than five years ago. NGOs/CSOs now need to mobilize their constituencies more forcefully on food and agriculture issues. They need to keep up their dialogue with peasants, with governments and with UN specialized agencies.
Daniel van der Steen, Collectif Strategies Alimentaires, Belgium, daniel.vandersteen@csa-be.org
A lack of political will to address the most difficult issues and to focus primarily on the most disadvantaged groups is evident in the fact that, in spite of studies showing an alarming impact of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) on food security, no revision of the trade policy aspects of the Summit Plan of Action is foreseen on the WFS: fyl agenda. The historical chance to influence the ongoing Agreement negotiations is basically being given away.
Since 1996, a small number of large corporations have intensified their domination of global agricultural markets. Patents and genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) have accounted for much of their growth. Against a background of consumer protests in many countries, documented economic, environmental and health risks of GMOs and consumers’ readiness to pay premium prices for non-GMOs, research, development and production of GMOs continues to increase. “Feeding the South” is very often the reason given by proponents of GMOs. GMO genes have been detected in fields where they were not even sown. GMO contamination reduces choice. A GMO contamination case in Canada showed that corporations will take farmers to court to retrieve their patented genetic material (in this case in canola seed) even though it cannot be shown how the material got into the fields.
|
...should NGOs/CSOs look to the countries of the European
Union for examples of success...This is an open question |
Since 1996, the issue of universal access to genetic resources has regressed as more and more patents limit access to these resources in an increasing number of countries. The Convention on Biological Diversity has placed genetic resources under national sovereignty; before this, they were considered a heritage of humankind. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources adopted unanimously in November 2001 by FAO members (the USA and Japan abstained) could have mitigated these effects much earlier. However, several countries delayed the proceedings by insisting on provisions aimed at limiting access. Implementation of the new Treaty depends on the willingness of parties to a) allow the free exchange of agricultural genetic resources and delete the provisions of Intellectual Property Rights on these resources, and b) increase the number of crops covered by the Treaty.
The related issue of sharing the benefits of commercial use of plant genetic resources will have a tremendous impact on food security. Optimism among those supporting these issues increased when in early November 2001 a letter from US Majority Leader Tom Daschle asked the US State Department to oppose any provisions that limit farmers’ rights. Senator Daschle’s letter did not change the wording of the Treaty, but it helped to instil optimism.
So far, the WFS: fyl draft Declaration makes no reference whatsoever to genetic resources for food and agriculture. FAO members should now use the opportunity to confirm the objectives of the Treaty and to push for its ratification and implementation.
Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung, gura@forumue.de
While in some countries there is coordination among civil society organizations around the issue of food security, the overall picture is one of weakness and fragmentation. In all truth, there is no evidence of organized national campaigns in support of the implementation of the WFS Plan of Action. One thing missing is an expression of a strong political will of society at large, and civil society organizations as a collective, to do what is needed to ensure food security for all.
Greater coordination, new partnerships and concrete plans of action among civil society organizations are needed to overcome this situation. Some even talk of the need for a whole new social contract. For this we need to facilitate encounters that can consolidate new relationships between social and political activists and make them converge into a broad process of social transformation. But beware, civil society organizations also require some oversight to ensure they play the social function required of them. This is because a devolution of power to the grassroots is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for local processes of collective empowerment to flourish. There is a risk of decision-making power being appropriated by local elites.
Additionally, new forms of partnership have to be fostered between:
Ultimately, achieving freedom from hunger depends on creating opportunities for effective action and on making individual and collective choices within the space created by these opportunities. Thus, the importance of local collective processes and actions to empower all stakeholders - especially women. We need to educate elected officials and members of civil society on the elements of the new social contract and its opportunities. The establishment of private non-profit mechanisms to strengthen these local capacities has been proposed.
SID (2001) From aid to community empowerment: food security as a political project. www.sidint.org/publications.htm
Elena Mancusi-Materi, Society for International Development
|
The symbolism of an international process to addresshunger
in a world of plenty is both hopeful and powerful |
The substantive process has been frustrating though, both nationally and internationally. In Canada, there seems to be a dysfunctional mismatch between the task at hand and the tools proposed. In Canada, it is the Ministry of Agriculture that has the lead role in Summit follow-up, but its ability to influence domestic social policy, official development assistance policy and the national budget is minimal. On the other hand, FAO clearly has expertise in the area of food and agriculture, but has had little authority to lead a major international campaign or process aimed at significantly reducing hunger in its many dimensions. Some Canadian government officials have been committed to the Summit follow-up and cooperation with NGOs. This is hopeful and has strengthened Canadian NGOs’ commitment to the Summit follow-up process. Their efforts have focused on seeking greater accountability to the pledges made by both the Canadian government and Canadian civil society.
We see our challenge as one to find ways to push the substantive process: to use the force of our constituency (representing the public interest in our country) to change the major stakeholders' (governments, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO) political will to more decisively address hunger and poverty worldwide. That is how we understand the tool matching the job, and that is why the debate is sometimes hopeful and sometimes just plain frustrating.
Stuart Clark, Chair, Canadian Food Grains
Bank
s_clark@foodgrainsbank.ca
At the dawn of the new millennium, with all its new wealth, knowledge and technology base, it is critical we take an honest and hard look at the hunger and food security situation of the poorest in India. The poor continue to suffer and to be marginalized even while Indian government commitments are made in global UN conferences that reaffirm the fundamental human rights of the poor and their access to adequate food.
A 1996-97 survey carried out by the National Institute for Nutrition, published just two years ago, revealed the magnitude of the nutrition problem in comparison with earlier surveys in the country. About one half (48%) of households have chronic energy deficiency while 57% of preschool children are stunted. In two decades the proportion of well-nourished preschool children increased from 5.9 to 8.9% only. There are disturbing trends in protein, energy, iron and calcium intake in many segments of the population. Consumption of cereals, millets and pulses in all states is declining in some vulnerable groups while intake of milk, milk products, sugar and green leafy vegetables is also inadequate. During the past five years the infant mortality rate in ten states has stagnated or even worsened. The proportion of low birthweight babies continues to be a high, at 30%.
However, the most significant finding is that nutrition and food security is severely compromised by the prevailing economic development policies. In ten years, the proportion of landless households increased from 30 to 41%. There has been a fragmentation of landholding size that contributes to increased food insecurity. Prices of some agricultural commodities crashed causing distress among poor farmers. The average monthly per capita income increased by the equivalent of only approximately 50 pence at constant prices. Other sources report an increase in suicides, indebtedness, unemployment and migration. Lack of money causes delayed marriages, mass marriages, pawning of household assets and impoverishment. The international community must address the root causes of poverty and hunger, namely social, economic and political injustice.
|
... agricultural practices in India deplete the
soil |
Development strategies which have changed agricultural practices in India deplete the soil of micronutrients. In the meantime, pharmaceutical houses aggressively market vitamins and minerals and influence government agencies to introduce them in mass-based health programmes for women and children. Genetically modified crops and foods are being quietly introduced as well.
The role of the state is being eroded. Between 1990 and 2000, in Karnataka, expenditures on nutrition interventions declined 4.3% a year (in real terms) adversely affecting nutrition support services. World Bank loans are negotiated for health and nutrition programmes while structural adjustment and global trade agreements increase economic vulnerability and food insecurity of a large majority.
In this context, the Indian Peoples Health Charter adopted by a representative countrywide group in a National Health Assembly in Calcutta in December 2000, expressed concerns and made concrete demands regarding agriculture, trade, pricing and public health. The global Peoples Charter for Health adopted by the Peoples Health Assembly in Dhaka in December 2000 raised similar concerns. A worldwide movement is now being organized to systematically follow-up on these issues.
At the beginning of 2002 and over five years after the WFS, there are more unanswered questions than there are answers. Where exactly are we in relation to the 1996 Plan of Action? Where do we see economic and social rights taking central stage in the struggle against hunger and malnutrition? What is being done to address the root causes of malnutrition and the ineffectiveness of nutrition programmes currently implemented? What is the international community doing to address the added threats posed by the HIV/AIDS pandemic food security of poor people? Can collective peoples rights (as much as individual human rights) and social accountability of the big players be put squarely on the agenda? These are urgent issues for a more assertive civil society.
Drs Thelma and Ravi Narayan, Community Health Cell, Bangalore, India, sochara@vsnl.com
|
The Power of Civil Society Advocacy The scale and speed with which debt has been reduced for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs) at a time when the formal stance of most developed country governments has been towards a reduction in aid is, to a very large extent, attributable to the effectiveness of the advocacy campaign led and orchestrated by the Jubilee 2000 Coalition. Amongst the reasons for the success of Jubilee 2000 are: Ending hunger in the world is a cause which could provide the driving force for an equally effective international movement driven by civil society. The costs of not eradicating hunger are staggering. A failure to address the problems of hunger and malnutrition frontally is likely to frustrate the achievement of the now well accepted goal of poverty alleviation. Yet eradicating hunger has not been formally singled out either in the International Development Goals or as an objective for Poverty Reduction Strategy Processes (PRSPs) thus failing to address hunger and malnutrition as issues on their own right. The reason probably lies in the fact that hunger is an extreme instance of market failure and governments committed to neoliberal policies fail to accept that that compels them to compensate for this market failure. Embarking in actions to raise poor people's income is not enough; redistributive measures (e.g. land reform and progressive taxes) are needed: they are less costly and can be enacted quicker. But the widespread political bias against redistributive measures has been hard to overcome: “reasons beyond our control” are a weak excuse to take any longer. What is needed is a renewed determination on the part of governments to implement the straightforward measures which they endorsed at the WFS. Fortunately, many people throughout the world are strongly committed to seeing a global society which is managed more equitably, and they are prepared to use all possible measures to make their voice heard by those in power. It comes as a natural, then, that these members of civil society should monitor the performance of governments in fulfilling their pledges at the WFS. Committee on World Food Security of FAO (2001). Fostering
the political will to fight hunger. 27th Session. FAO: Rome. |
|
WFS: fyl The Underlying Issues |
The WFS target of halving the number of hungry people by 2015 was based on an FAO estimate of food available for human consumption at the country level. Over five years have gone by since the Summit in 1996. How is the world community doing in meeting this ambitious target? The short answer is: not so well, but there is huge variation from one region to another. Achievements against the global target are monitored by FAO, and a database in maintained in Rome for this purpose.
The baseline estimate of the number of people with insufficient access to adequate food in 99 developing countries with populations greater than one million in the period 1990-92 was 816m. FAO’s latest three-year average estimate is 777m in 1997-99.
According to latest estimates only about one third of the countries tracked actually recorded a decline in the number of underfed since the WFS. These declines amounted to 98m people no longer counted as hungry. However, in countries with estimated increases in the number of underfed, these increases amounted to 58m people. The net reduction (1991 to 1998) for the developing world is approximately 40m people. At this rate of decline, it will take 60 more years to achieve the WFS target of reducing the number of hungry to about 400m, rather than the 14 years left until the 2015 deadline.
If we look at the percentage of the population estimated to be underfed, the same developing countries together have moved from 37% in 1969-71 to 20% in 1990-92 and to 17% in 1997-99. Changes in the proportion of underfed provide a measure of performance that is independent of the influence of population growth. During the 90s, some 58 of the 99 developing countries reduced the percentage underfed. However, in 18 of these countries the fall coincided with a rise in absolute numbers. In short, the decrease in the proportion underfed in these countries has not been sufficient to offset the effect of population growth. India is a case in point: from 1991-98, the estimated percentage underfed declined from 25 to 23% but the number rose by 11m, owing to rapid population growth. The table (below) provides information on changes in numbers and proportions by region and sub-region.
The largest reductions in numbers is seen in the East Asian region, which includes China. Per capita dietary energy supply increased in China from2710 kcals to 3040 kcals during the 90s, translating into 76m fewer people underfed. This occurred during a period of rapid and relatively equitable aggregate economic growth in China. In the same region, hunger actually increased in the DPR Korea from 3.4m to 8.8m over a similar period. South Asia (comprising Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka) experienced a fall in the proportion underfed; however, the rate of improvement was insufficient to affect overall numbers which rose to 303m. Central Africa recorded an increase in both numbers and percentages. Most of the increase of 17m came from the Democratic Republic of the Congo which has suffered from war and chaos over the entire time period.
Changes in numbers and proportions underfed by region in the 90s
|
Region |
Number of countries |
Total population in 1997-99, millions |
Change in number and prevalence underfed in total population,
1990-92 to 1997-99 |
Current estimate of number underfed, millions |
||
|
Millions |
% |
|||||
|
East Asia |
6 |
1,336 |
- 71 |
-6 % |
128 |
|
|
SE Asia |
8 |
502 |
- 12 |
-4 |
66 |
|
|
South America |
12 |
336 |
- 9 |
-4 |
33 |
|
|
West Africa |
14 |
211 |
- 6 |
-5 |
32 |
|
|
North Africa |
5 |
140 |
+ 1 |
0 |
6 |
|
|
Southern Africa |
11 |
85 |
+ 3 |
-5 |
37 |
|
|
Cent. Am.& Carib. |
12 |
161 |
+ 4 |
+1 |
20 |
|
|
Near East |
11 |
239 |
+ 7 |
+1 |
27 |
|
|
East Africa |
9 |
199 |
+12 |
-1 |
86 |
|
|
South Asia |
5 |
1,283 |
+14 |
-2 |
303 |
|
|
Central Africa |
6 |
78 |
+17 |
+15 |
40 |
|
|
Total Countries |
99 |
4,565 |
- 40 |
- 3 % |
777 |
|
Over the past decade the total number of chronically underfed in the developing world has fallen by about 40m. However, the average rate of decline has continued to slow, reaching only 6m per year, compared with 8m reported by FAO in 1999. Consequently, the annual reduction required to reach the target by 2015 has grown from 20 to 22m people per year. The gap is widening.
David C Wilcock, FIVIMS Coordinator,
Office of the Assistant Director-General, FAO,
Rome.
david.wilcock@fao.org
|
Snapshots from the Committee on World Food Security of
FAO, In 1998, some 792m people in developing countries (18% of their population) and 34m in the developed world remained chronically hungry. Further, there was widespread evidence of land degradation and inequity in access to food, water and technology. FAO is concerned that chronic hunger is perceived as less urgent a problem than other social maladies the world over. Few countries have approached the issue of chronic hunger with the determination and commitment required to achieve the WFS goal. There are signs of public indifference and of wavering commitment reflected in a reduction in resources being made available to fight hunger. Food security is linked to international fair trade practices. Globalisation has had major repercussions on the livelihoods and food security of farming populations worldwide. It has raised the risk of marginalization of countries making them uncompetitive in world markets rife with trade barriers (tariffs, quotas) and hampering them in attracting investments. Moreover, countries are now more vulnerable to external shocks. Reductions in market protection on the part of developed countries and in restrictions on the international movement of labour could do much for the achievement of the WFS goal. A careful examination of the adequacy of current institutional arrangements to address major global challenges to food security is needed to prevent crises and to react with speed and on the scale required to limit the damage already being done. This is not easy in the face of the progressive ratcheting down of the resources available internationally for better and more timely responses. To reach food security, we need the world to mobilize public/private and internal/external resources towards strengthening the productivity and productive capacity of the agricultural sector. Most resources are traditionally mobilized by the farmers themselves provided the incentives are right and the government provides the needed infrastructure. Thus government expenditure remains indispensable. But, in reality, public expenditures on agriculture are lower in the countries with the highest levels of malnutrition. The cost of providing just the food required for those undernourished to be fed at a minimally adequate level has been estimated at around $13 per capita per year, for 800m persons. This means $10b per year. Overall investments in agriculture and supporting the infrastructure and services needed to meet the WFS objective to halve malnutrition by 2015, are estimated at $180b per year; the current levels of investment fall short by some $30b/yr. To help 80 of the most food insecure countries investments are needed in the order of $1.4b/yr (+/- $17m per country). Less than one fifth of this is available now. Reports of the Committee on World Food Security are
available on FAO’s website, www.fao.org |
For we should not forget:
follow-up to the International Conference on Nutrition
(ICN)
Guy Nantel
It has been almost a decade since the International Conference on Nutrition in Rome. It is appropriate to look back and see if the momentum created by this key event is still alive today. Has the ICN achieved its objective of keeping nutrition at the forefront on the development agenda? Records at FAO show that as of August 2001, 121 countries had National Plans of Action on Nutrition (NPANs) that were either in advanced draft form or considered final. Among the final ones, some have been officially adopted by the concerned government. However, FAO does not have their exact number because there is no reporting requirement to that effect. The number of countries with NPANs in each region is given below. In addition, some countries, such as certain Pacific Islands and Caribbean countries, with no NPANs are now formulating theirs.
|
|
countries |
|
Africa |
39 |
|
Near East |
12 |
|
Asia and the Pacific |
27 |
|
North America and Europe |
14 |
|
Latin America and the Caribbean |
31 |
Judgement as to what may be considered a “final” NPAN is difficult, because NPANs vary considerably and do not lend themselves to easy comparison. Situations, priorities and hence strategies to be adopted are understandably very different from one country to another. Some countries have officially adopted their plan of action, but may be weak on implementation. Others may only have a draft document, and this draft plan is actively implemented. Some countries are developing district or provincial plans. Still others are working on their third national plan update.
Another problem which has complicated record keeping has been that, in some countries, NPANs have been developed by the health sector without linking actions to agriculture. In others, NPANs centre around food security and agriculture without any links to health. Final documents may thus be sent to either WHO or FAO so that each agency ends up with a different collection. In the past, occasional efforts have been made to match WHO and FAO records. However, the situation is constantly changing. Both agencies continuously receive new or updated plans and draft plans.
Over the last three years WHO has organized new rounds of joint WHO/FAO follow-up workshops. Workshops were held in Kuala Lumpur for the Western Pacific region in November 1999, in New Delhi for South Asia in December 1999, in Ouagadougou for Francophone African countries in October 2000, in Damascus for the Eastern Mediterranean region in November 2000, and in Harare for Anglophone African countries in March 2001.
In preparation for the workshops, WHO regional offices sent questionnaires to member countries to enquire about the status of the formulation and implementation of NPANs. Unfortunately, the questionnaires varied from one region to the other so that the results were not readily comparable. However, the questionnaires did stimulate sound country preparations for the workshops.
The most important outcome of the ICN follow-up workshops has been heightened awareness of the impediments to progress in improving the nutritional status of populations. Each workshop made recommendations to deal with these impediments. Not surprisingly, there were many similar recommendations from the different regions. The main messages that emerged were:
In the end, the success of a national plan for nutrition should best be assessed on the basis of their impact on the nutritional status of a country’s population, and not on the document itself. After all, these are plans for action and it is the success of such actions that really counts.
To come back to the initial question as to whether the ICN process is still alive today, the answer must be yes, because the NPANs remain important resource documents for nutrition projects and programmes. They have also been revived in the context of the World Food Summit process because NPANs can be integrated to become national plans of action for food security and nutrition. In this context, FAO’s Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Mapping System (or FIVIMS) initiative provides a base for monitoring country situations.
ICN follow-up workshops may have exhausted their capacity to further stimulate and accelerate progress. They risk becoming routine. Yet, at the WFS world leaders recommitted themselves to reduce hunger by 20m people yearly. Due to a slowdown in the rate of reduction this figure has been revised upwards. To accelerate progress, it is now imperative to improve the performance of NPAN implementation strategies. Key to this will be stimulating extensive community mobilization. Ultimately, beneficiaries have to develop their capacity for self-help and communities need to become self-reliant. Without long-term and clearly-articulated political support for the expressed needs of communities, it is doubtful that community-based initiatives can become truly sustainable. Therefore, to achieve the goals of the ICN and the WFS and to effectively address priority issues, greater political support will need to be given to policies that will effectively foster community mobilization and capacity development.
Guy Nantel, Senior Nutrition Officer, Food and Nutrition
Division,
FAO, Rome. guy.nantel@fao.org
|
Defining energy requirements FAO, together with WHO and the UNU, convened an expert consultation on energy requirements in November 2001 in Rome. The consultation was chaired by Eileen Kennedy. One outcome of the consultation is an updated definition of requirement. The experts felt that it was necessary to modify the definition of requirement used in the 1985 report Energy and Protein Requirements (WHO Technical Report Series no. 724) in several ways. The word “individual” will be removed from the new definition because requirements are for population groups and not individuals. The term “economically and socially” will also be removed. Many women, particularly those in developing societies, expend large amounts of energy on activities which would not be traditionally defined or thought of in terms of economic activity. The new definition will read: “Energy requirement is the amount of food energy needed to balance energy expenditure in order to maintain body size, body composition and level of necessary and desirable physical activity, consistent with long-term good health. This includes the energy needs for optimal growth and development in children, and the deposition of tissue or secretion of milk during pregnancy and lactation consistent with good health. The recommended level of energy intake for a population is the mean energy requirement of the individuals who constitute that group.” Source: Summary of recommendations from the Expert
Consultation on Energy Requirements (mimeo). |
|
WFS: fyl The Underlying Issues |
It was 27 years ago when, for the first time, world leaders accepted the collective responsibility of the international community to abolish hunger and malnutrition within a decade (Rome World Food Conference, 1974). The promising ideas of the 70s (like full employment, food security, small farmer agriculture, income distribution, education, housing and drinking water) were then relegated in priority and liberalisation and privatisation were presented as the panacea for all economic ills. The role of state was condemned as the source of all problems and the market was the main instrument for reviving growth which, if sustained, was going to take care of all the social problems. The age of globalization had arrived. But it was not very successful in reducing poverty, so, 27 years later, we need a new development paradigm which recognizes the role of the state in protecting the rights of the weaker and poorer segments of the population and in meets their basic needs
We have to recognize that social problems are not simply inevitable costs of structural adjustment and that sustainable development does not just mean development with environment. It cannot be financed merely from residual financial resources that the adjustment process may spare using the standardized one size fits all policies advocated by the IMF that restrict demand and thereby increase poverty and unemployment. In the existing policy framework, as for example spelled out in several national poverty reduction strategies under the auspices of the World Bank/IMF, there is no fiscal space for implementing truly pro-agriculture and pro-poor policies. The global trading and financial system is working against the longer-term interest of low-income countries and their poor people. WTO policies not only reduce the share of developing countries in global agricultural trade, but also weaken their incentive system for increasing domestic production.
|
The global trading and financial system is working against
the longer-term interest of low-income countries and their poor people |
Sartaj Aziz, Senator and former Agriculture Minister, Finance Minister and Foreign Minister, Pakistan
Views from international NGOs
Bread for the World
What we need is to increase effective, poverty-focused development assistance. We also need to improve international goal-setting in three respects. We need to better integrate and coordinate goal-setting processes and measure progress. We need to estimate and agree on how much additional development assistance it would take to cut hunger in half by 2015. Finally, we need to add the cutting-hunger-in-half goal to the industrial countries’ Development Assistance Commitment. Remember that nutrition programmes allow us to reduce hunger more quickly than poverty alleviation programmes in general. We should agree on political strategies first and only then follow-up with serious and coordinated political organizing.
David Beckmann, President, Bread for the
World.
bread@bread.org
Oxfam GB
We see the empowerment of women, the harnessing trade for employment, income and food security and access to productive resources and employment for women as high priorities. Women are moving out of agriculture at a slower pace than men and, as a result, women’s representation in the agricultural labour force in developing countries has been on the increase since 1980. The burden of investing in household food security is disproportionately borne by women. The often invisible services, investments, paid and unpaid work provided by women requires special consideration. International organizations can play a critical role in helping governments identify the menu of choices available or required. Targets that are too simplistic have misrepresented the complexity underlying food security and have even distorted policy. Political will wanes as targets are missed.
Stewart Wallis, International Director, Oxfam GB
|
The burden of investing in household food security is
disproportionately borne by women. |
Globalization is something that is happening as a consequence of forces outside of the control of any country. As the probability of financial crises increases with globalization, the poor will face additional risks. Developing countries will thus need policy instruments to protect the livelihoods of their rural poor from import surges. In the current WTO agricultural negotiations, they may legitimately insist that industrialized countries first reduce the high levels of subsidization and protection of their agriculture. Deteriorating environmental conditions brought about in part by globalization may reinforce existing vicious cycles of conflict over resources, as well as humanitarian crises. It is the poor who will pay the higher price for delays in actions to protect the environment. Complaints in industrialized countries about developing countries enjoying unfair trade advantages from presumed lax environmental regulations (which, if true, would have only local effects) appear inconsequential when compared to the larger responsibilities of rich countries in shaping global environmental conditions that adversely affect some of the poorest of the planet. Developing countries are being told time and again to put their houses in order, but it is difficult to maintain a well-kept house in a neighbourhood in turmoil - and the shape of that neighbourhood is basically defined by industralized countries.
Eugenio Diaz-Bonilla, Research Fellow, IFPRI. e.diazbonnila@cgiar.org
Myths are seductive. When the facts make a compelling case for action, myths must be buried, because myths stifle our collective appetite for action. We read that numbers of malnourished preschool children are going down. Maybe, but we cannot be so sure. For a large number of countries there are no decent data and we have to rely on guesswork. Looking only at countries for which there are good data on trends, a decidedly less rosy picture emerges. Malnutrition is going down only in 31 out of the 58 developing countries that have good data over time. The remaining 27 countries are witness to growing numbers of wasted and stunted children. Overall, for these 58 countries, the number of malnourished children has dropped from 137 in the 80s to 131 million in the 90s.
At that rate, goals for in household food security halving the number of borne by women. malnourished children will only be accomplished by 2094.
Private markets fail parents who want to invest in the nutrition of their children. The economic costs of malnutrition may exceed 3.5% of GDP. Is this loss a big deal? In the absence of malnutrition, after ten years, GDP would be 41% higher than it will be with malnutrition.
After twenty years, it would be double. Give me a good reason why policymakers are not asked Are the children growing? as opposed to Is the economy growing? Seattle? we need to stop the violence and retain the energy, sustaining it and channelling it with solid empirical evidence that explodes myths and liberates action. We need to become better activists. A billion seconds ago, there were one billion fewer malnourished infants on the planet. Thing about it, one malnourished infant per second. We need to do much better in the next billion seconds.
Lawrence Haddad, Director, Food Consumption and Nutrition Division, IFPRI. l.haddad@cgiar.org
A view from a transnational corporation
What do the poor in rural areas need to increase agricultural productivity? To make agricultural productivity gains self-sustaining, private enterprise and a transition from public assistance to private enterprise in rural economies are needed. The rule of law, enforceable contracts and a stable government free of corruption are also a must. Governments need to wring out overvalued exchange rates, export taxes and domestic industrial protection that raise farm input costs. They also need to curb corruption, ensure civil order, provide broad access to risk capital and facilitate the resolution of property rights disputes, as well as to invest in human capital and physical infrastructure. Public or parastatal monopolies need to give way to entrepreneurial competition and job creation. More transparent capital markets and more progressive labour standards are required to stimulate investment and to protect against worker abuses. In some quarters, even the thought of private foreign investment seems anathema. This point of view needs rebutting. Peasant economies need to be transformed by the infusion of capital and new ideas. Eventually, self-sustaining economic development must connect with the private global marketplace. Global food and agricultural companies can help developing countries incorporate needed safety, handling and quality practices in an effort for them to gain access to developed markets. Most large companies already make it a practice to bring their first world standards with them.
Trade-based food security can be a critical supplement to local production. An open food system enhances food security. The world will need to double its food production and to do this will require wider access to new production technologies, including biotechnology. Knowledge-intensive agricultural systems, broadly disseminated, are the only way the world can feed all its people better. For those who work on the frontiers of feeding all people better, agricultural biotechnology is an essential tool. Today’s often sterile confrontations on this need to give way to a more productive dialogue.
Globalisation is raising standards for people, products and plants. Economic development creates new consumers, people with the income to translate their needs and wants into effective demand. Aid recipients eventually become consumers with purchasing power, calling forth markets that bring new choices and opportunities. Excessive inequality deserves to be disciplined, but the benefits of economic development also need to be acknowledged. Private globalization need not be just about creating private wealth; it also can harness talents and resources to make whole communities better. The better response is not to block globalization but to channel it through the right choices.
Robbin S. Johnson, Senior Vice President, Corporate Affairs, Cargill Incorporated
|
Technology will continue to be a powerful tool for human
development |
Sub-Saharan Africa is the only region in the world in which the number and percentage of children who are malnourished is expected to rise rather than fall over the next twenty years. The continue to be long-term solution to food human development insecurity is beyond production of additional food. It is to address rural livelihoods in general. The pastoral livelihood systems have received little attention with dwindling support from governments. This is a system that needs more attention. The rural poor have little or not access to the kind of information that will allow them to adjust their production systems thus giving them a narrow choice of options to increase their incomes. Farmers are expected to do farming using their own (meagre) resources and locate their own marketing outlets. Those who can find alternatives opt out of farming to get better opportunities in town. To develop sustainable agricultural models for fragile ecosystems, lessons should be learned from the people themselves. We have to learn more from the actors themselves as to how they have coped with risk over time. Greater involvement of people should also be encouraged in research work so as to identify gaps as people see them.
Mercy Karanja, Chief Executive, Kenya National Farmers Union.
A view from a private foundation
We must increase the cost-effectiveness of development cooperation in agriculture and in other sectors as well. Technology has been, and will continue to be, a powerful tool for human development and poverty reduction. All responsible actors should do their best to create more political and financial support for public research.
Klaus Leisinger, Executive Director, Novartis Foundation for Sustainable Development.
A view from a UN organization, IFAD
To fight hunger, the lack of political will is more important than the lack of capacity and economic resources. Political will does not come from heaven, nor from summits or conferences. It is driven by pressure from below and must derive from those who are poor and hungry. To build up this pressure, the poor must organise themselves and build institutions that serve them. It is the hungry who have the need and the will to fight hunger. There can be no sustainable answer to hunger that is not at the same time a sustainable answer to poverty. Rural poverty persists, in part because of an unsupportive policy and institutional environment in which the poor have no major influence. It is difficult to foresee a major reduction in food insecurity until such time as poor rural people exercise much greater power over the policies and institutions that are critical to them. Since the principal responsibility for food security lies in the hands of the poor, reducing hunger requires empowerment of the poor. They have to be able to develop their own institutions serving their owns interests. They have to influence other institutions through hard political bargaining. Resources without empowerment are not the answer. Governments are more likely to take an active part in fighting hunger when they are under pressure from the poor.
Ultimately, poor men and women have to direct the rules of the game. The donor community is in a position to influence all these factors, providing the means and facilitating the dialogue between community-based organizations and governments. However, donors, like developing country governments, are not fighting hard enough and are not demonstrating the political will equal to the challenge. The words are all there, empowerment, decentralization, capacity building, good governance. But the deeds are still lacking. The reality of development cooperation has to change. It must be provided within the framework of assistance to the self-organisation of the poor. The creation of greater political accountability to the poor, and focusing resources in areas that the poor themselves consider critical for their livelihoods. The quantum leap towards millennium targets still lacks the commitment of the national and international communities.
Klemens van de Sand, Project Management Department, IFAD.
All the above are excerpted, with permission, from discussion notes circulated during the IFPRI 2020 Conference on Sustainable Food Security for all by 2020, held in Bonn, Germany, September 2001.
|
A comment from civil society on the 2020 Conference and its Vision: Back to basics At the 2020 Conference sponsored by IFPRI scientists and politicians asked what tools could effectively be used to alleviate hunger in the world. Most put their hopes in high-tech solutions and advocated modern biotechnologies. The invited audience could participate in the discussions mainly via 'digivote', a hand-held electronic devise used by the German parliament. It turned out that two per cent of the several hundred participants and four per cent of the speakers were farmers. By far too few to speak of an adequate involvement of those affected. But were the concepts advocated and presented by the think tanks of international agricultural research and policy really visionary? For instance, to whom are organizations such as IFPRI, which design strategies for worldwide food security, accountable? Is there a glimmer of hope that they, and the management of transnational corporations, can come up with a silver bullet for entire regions of the world where every day millions go to bed hungry? NGOs from the North and the South doubt that mainstream agricultural policy is really focusing enough on small farmers. With their knowledge and experience, small farmers have the capacity that has secured food for people for many centuries and in many places. If constraints are removed and the incentives are right, they can still do so today. This potential was considered by only a few of the speakers. Many claimed that small farmers' approaches were outdated. The mantra of the market dominated the conference. Little room was given to critical questions concerning the deregulation of trade, the fixation on high-tech solutions and the role transnationals play in the food system. Again, more technical than political solutions were offered to solve the problem of world hunger. Today, agro-ecological approaches that are adequate to the various social, cultural and economic location-specific realities offer a good potential for food security. This know-how must be supported politically and spread by means of appropriate educational and training activities. Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung, www.forumue.de
gura@forumue.de |
|
Point/counter-point Trilogy Food Security: Which institutions must act? Robert Paarlberg |
To achieve sustainable food security for all, new actions will have to be taken by a wide range of local, national and international institutions both in the public and in the private sector. What should be the division of labor among these institutions?
The most logical division of labor between these institutions is for inter-governmental organizations (IGOs) to provide the global public goods needed to end hunger (e.g., open international food markets, an efficient international famine early warning system, a capacity to deliver timely international famine relief and a well-financed international agricultural research system), while local authorities and national governments provide the necessary local or national public goods. These would include internal peace, rule of law, a stable macroeconomic environment, public health services, universal public education, an adequate rural transport and power infrastructure and a national agricultural research system.
Private companies will never have an incentive to provide such goods. While some international and national NGOs and CSOs may have an incentive to provide such goods, they will seldom have the financial resources or authority to do so. Profit-making companies and not-for-profit NGOs can play a valuable role once these public goods have been provided (once markets are working, once the roads have been built). However, the public goods most needed for societies to escape hunger must be provided by public sector institutions.
In the two regions of the developing world where hunger is still highly prevalent (South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa) the most important public goods now being under-supplied are local or national public goods, rather than global public goods. By implication, local and national governments have greater room and hence the greater obligation to improve their performance. At the global level, IGOs are now delivering some necessary public goods with considerable success. Negotiations conducted in the WTO have helped to keep international food markets relatively open. Organizations such as FAO have developed significant famine early warning capabilities. International food aid organizations such as the World Food Programme have a strong record in getting food to countries facing short-term emergencies (provided the governments of those countries cooperate and those countries are free of violent internal conflicts). The international agricultural research centers of the CGIAR have put a significant quantity of internationally usable agricultural research into the public domain. The supply of these global public goods is not completely adequate, but it has been enough to help most geographic regions reduce hunger dramatically. In regions where hunger remains acute, such as South Asia and Africa, global public goods deficits are less significant than public goods deficits at the local or national level.
In South Asia, hunger persists despite the availability of a dependable international food trading system. In fact, hunger persists here in part because some governments in this region have made it a policy (in the name of "self-sufficiency") not to use international food markets. The states of South Asia import only two per cent of their (inadequate) internal grain consumption from world markets. Governments in this region have also made it their policy, for years, to avoid foreign direct investments by transnational corporations. South Asia receives only about one eighteenth as much foreign direct investment as the low and middle income countries of East Asia. Given such weak connections between the region and most global markets, hunger in South Asia is hard to attribute to globalization or to some deficit in global governance.
The hunger that persists in South Asia today has origins which are primarily local. In many cases the problem traces back to low farm productivity within rural communities that are situated in non-irrigated dryland areas. These disadvantaged farming communities have not yet found a way to make their land productive. Grain yields on non-irrigated land in India average one third the yield average on irrigated land. Non-irrigated farming in India still accounts for 67% of total cultivated area and struggles to support 40% of the country's vast population. Improving the productivity of these poor dryland farming communities will require substantially larger investments by local and national governments in agricultural research, rural infrastructure and human capital (gender-equal).
In recent decades national governments in South Asia have done a better job of delivering important public goods to their own citizens. As a consequence, rural income has increased and hunger is now finally in numerical decline. The prevalence of child malnutrition in South Asia fell from 61% in 1985 to 49% by 1995. The trends in Africa are not yet so favorable. In Sub-Saharan Africa the prevalence of adult hunger is now greater than in South Asia (34% versus 23% according to FAO) and with population growth the total number of hungry people in Sub-Saharan Africa continues to increase.
Africa's hunger problems are once again mostly local in their nature. Sub-Saharan Africa has been bypassed by many of the new forces of globalization. Whereas Africa in colonial times was deeply integrated into global commodity markets, Africa today is actually retreating from export trade. Africa's total volume of exported coffee, groundnuts, palm oil, and sugar has been shrinking. Its exports are actually smaller today than thirty years ago. Total foreign direct investment flows into Sub-Saharan Africa have also become negligible, equaling less than one percent of the developing world total. Africa does rely on imports for a slowly growing share of its total grain consumption, but many of these imports are now arranged as food aid or financed through development assistance rather than commercial export earnings. The outside world gives Africa roughly 2.8m tons in food aid and roughly $11.3b in net official development assistance every year. Despite the availability of such global public goods, the number of hungry people in Africa continues to rise.
Hunger persists in Africa today not because of global market malfunctions, but instead because of low productivity growth within Africa's own farming sector. In Africa, food and farm production per capita is declining. This makes Africa dramatically different from the rest of the world. FAO data indicate that, between 1970 and 2000, in the developing countries as a whole, per capita food production increased by 51%, but in Sub-Saharan Africa per capita food production decreased by 9%. When it comes to ending hunger, some advocates like to argue that "food production isn't the problem". However, lagging agricultural production clearly is a problem in Africa because it translates so directly into lagging rural income growth, persistent poverty and hence persistent hunger.
Farmers in Africa have had trouble increasing their productivity mostly because of public goods deficits at the local or national level. In too many countries in Africa national governments have failed to provide essential public goods such as internal peace, rule of law, protections for individual or community property, adequate rural infrastructure (e.g., feeder roads) and sufficient investments in agricultural research. These missing public goods at the national level are holding Africans back. Farmers in Africa hesitate to invest in more productive farming techniques so long as underfunded national agricultural research and extension agencies are unable to demonstrate the promise of those techniques. They hesitate to move beyond traditional subsistence crop production to growing higher value crops so long as poor road systems and high transport costs make it impossible to purchase inputs (such as fertilizer) at a low price or sell commodities into the local market at a high price. They also hesitate if the roads are not safe from militia solders or bandits, or policemen demanding bribes.
When national governments fail to deliver the essential public goods necessary for domestic food security, CSOs, NGOs, and international NGOs may try to fill the gap. NGOs are good at working alongside governments, but they seldom have the ability to replace governments. NGOs are not good at keeping or restoring peace in societies divided by violent conflict, or protecting property and enforcing rule of law, or making the research and infrastructure investments needed to supply the rural poor with science-based technology options, or providing an integrated infrastructure for delivery of water, power, and rural transport. NGOs can provide important assistance in the delivery of supplemental services to the poor if governments provide a conducive environment. When national governments fail, NGOs will usually not be a sufficient answer.
To conclude, it is national governments (in South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, or elsewhere) that must now take primary responsibility for ending hunger. Hunger has been reduced rapidly in East Asia primarily through successful public goods supply actions by national governments, not through foreign aid, global governance, or a proliferation of NGO projects. Yet outsiders are not free from responsibilities. Mobilizing financial and technical resources is one thing outsiders can do. It would help if these resources were focused on local or national public goods investments rather than on simple relief (which does not solve long-term problems) or on what is sometimes called "structural adjustment." Rather than conditioning so much international assistance, lending or debt relief on the pursuit of "policy reform" (which often reforms policies only partly, or only temporarily, or not at all) the donor community should refocus on financing public investments in tangible goods, such as infrastructure, human capital, and research. And most of all, instead of cutting back on international assistance to agriculture, donor governments should increase that assistance.
|
The rich dictate to us they will buy our raw materials and
the prices they will charge us for manufactured goods. |
Robert Paarlberg, Professor of Political Science, Wellesley College, and Associate at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, USA. rpaarlberg@wellesley.edu
Counterpoint 1 from Sub-Saharan Africa:
I have read Robert Paarlberg’s ideas on which institutions should do what to achieve sustainable food for all. Some of his views are, at the very least, controversial and such views about Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) must be addressed to set the records straight.
According to Paarlberg, the most important public goods that are under-supplied in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia (where hunger is still highly prevalent) are local or national in nature. Paarlberg sees the mechanisms of globalization as the vehicle for ending hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa and advocates market liberalization and export-oriented agriculture with WTO keeping the food markets relatively open. In reality, what we see here is that unlimited access of goods and especially capital to these countries is nothing but a new form of colonialism leading to the ongoing exploitation of the working class. It is abundantly clear to us here that free markets only benefit the powerful and rich countries (and local elites) to the disadvantage of the poor. We have more sympathy for an alternative strategy, i.e., give true support to small farmers to protect them from the exploitation they are currently subjected to.
Paarlberg further posits that Sub-Saharan Africa has been bypassed by many of the new forces of globalization whereas Africa was deeply integrated into global commodity markets during colonial times. The point needs to be forcefully made that globalization has had negative effects on Africa’s food security.
As the late Mwalimu Nyerere said, in world markets, we are price takers and not price makers. Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa earn much less for the same products compared to what producers earn in developed economies. The rich dictate to us the prices at which they will buy our raw materials and the prices they will charge us for manufactured goods. This is a double neo-colonial injustice for the prospects of development in Africa. Globalization has also weakened the power of many African states to fulfil their obligations to their people and to bargain with creditors. Globalization takes place under the aegis of governments of the North and transnational corporations and their agents by proxy in the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank so many of our governments end up (directly or indirectly) protecting the interests of large transnational corporations rather than those of their people.
According to Paarlberg, hunger persists in Sub-Saharan Africa independently of the forces of globalization. Instead he blames low agricultural productivity. But how can the two be de-linked, I ask? Let us be clear. Globalization is a major cause of hunger and malnutrition in Sub-Saharan Africa. Market liberalization has resulted for us in a revised form of colonialism. Those who control the global economic system manipulate the markets to serve their own interests. Countries in this region have virtually no control over the conditions imposed on them from outside their borders. The solution has to start by somehow looking inward, i.e. by putting more food in the internal markets, limiting food exports and imports and promoting small farms and small scale agri-businesses with access to affordable credit, especially for women. African governments that export crops earn foreign exchange, but the poor farmers are not its beneficiaries.
Finally, Paarlberg concludes that productivity does not increase because SSA governments have failed to provide peace, rule of law and property protection. He even suggests that farmers in SSA hesitate to grow higher value export crops, because of bribes they purportedly have to pay. I submit that this is very simplistic thinking. Bribe taking, if and when it exists at all is the least of the problems affecting agricultural productivity. The core issues to be addressed are those of equity and justice: giving small farmers a fair deal and appropriate incentives and subsidies. True, there is no peace in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa because Africa is still seen as a big estate that can be looted from within and without. Wars in Africa are no longer fought on ideological grounds. In this context, we need to discuss Sub-Saharan Africa's debt burden that has impoverished most households and provided a fertile ground for conflicts.
We must not only be concerned about the outcome, we must examine the process. This is a major fault in Paarlberg’s submission. The future of Africa has grave implications for the rest of the world, because democracy and prosperity in any part of the world is seriously threatened by the persistence of poverty, hunger and food insecurity on the African continent.
Tola Atinmo, Professor of Human Nutrition, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. atinmo@skannet.com
Counterpoint 2 from South Asia:
In my view, Paarlberg’s article starts out with two fundamental mistakes. One, he applies reductionist analytical methods to complex, human scale problems, and two, he advocates standard, across-the board solutions that have shown not to work in the past fifty years.
It must first be understood that the food security of a nation does not automatically mean food security of all its citizens, most of all the poor. Institutions, be they national or international, cannot provide food security. Only communities and people can. History shows us that before colonialism, communities in Asia, Africa and South America (or even in the so-called first world), though only having subsistence economies, had reasonable food security. Chronic food insecurity clearly is a colonial and post-colonial phenomenon. (Witness the archetypal Bengal famine which was not due so much to lack of infrastructure, but more to a changed cropping pattern imposed to fulfil the needs of the then rulers). This is not to glorify the pre-colonial period since discrimination based on caste, class and gender have all played their part -- but no one starved systematically, day-in, day-out. The social capital of ‘trust and concern for each other’ commonly present in pre-colonial communities as a result of people’s networks was subsequently lost primarily due to the introduction of capitalist modes of production, distribution and consumption.
Certain other claims of Paarlberg’s piece also have to be countered. One, hunger cannot be directly attributed or linked to over-population. Bengal, during the famine, was not over-populated. The poor, then and now, have their own good reasons for having large families since it is their only social security. Also, being more often than not landless, their only asset has been labour. Their logic can make sense if one were in their shoes: the bigger the family, the more the income. Two, in India as elsewhere, it has been proven that smaller land holders, with the participation of the entire family, do much more intensive agriculture and thus are more productive than larger farms. The primary problem has been the introduction of export crops such as sugar cane, mulberry for silk production, fruits, long stemmed cut flowers or grain to feed European beef. A decade back, when sub-Saharan Africa was reeling under one of its severe droughts, it was still producing and exporting vegetables for the European market. The secondary and more insidious problem has been the marketing of produce and the role played by middlemen. Local middlemen have now been replaced by national and transnational corporations who dictate what crops should be grown, when and for what market, controlling processes all the way down to the production and distribution of seeds. Bear in mind that two large corporations hold a 70% market share in agricultural seeds.
At present India has a buffer stock of staple food of 60m tons and a good enough road and communications infrastructure.
In spite of this, pockets of hunger and severe malnutrition persist, mainly because of caste and class considerations and a distinct lack of political will. In a situation such as this, the ‘dependable international food trading system’ that Paarlberg advocates for South Asia cannot be the solution, but will more likely become part of the problem. Consider further the rush to patent life forms such as rice, the prevailing export priorities and the centralization of knowledge, research and resources. They effectively obliterate community participation and ownership and thus, self reliance!
Do we need more arguments? Here are some more. The destruction of global environmental resources on a massive scale only for the sake of profit (much of tropical Africa, the Amazon basin and Borneo to name a few) also reduces access of the poor to their traditional resources of food, fuel, fodder and herbal remedies. The introduction of industrial agricultural methods with massive monetary inputs in terms of fertilizer, pesticides and machinery with ever diminishing returns results in massive under employment and unemployment. These factors also contribute to a loss of food security. Moreover, never for a moment forget the role of wasteful Western life styles and the greed of transnational corporations.
While foreign direct investment is always welcome, it does not always bring commensurate prosperity (and food security) to the recipients. The East Asian tigers themselves will attest to this. Indonesia, where a quarter million children are at risk of hunger and malnutrition is a case in point. India is fortunate that foreign direct investment has been regulated and kept within manageable limits.
The clear message that Paarlberg conveys about global governance is surprising to me. There is well-documented evidence (at least since the early seventies) of increased maternal deaths in Latin America, infant deaths in Africa and starvation deaths in South Asia as a direct result of the structural adjustment programs of the IMF. In South Asia, conditionalities such as the reduction and removal of subsidies for public education, health and agricultural services and for the public distribution system have sharply reduced access of the poor to the only public services that are on offer. Correlation between this and vital indices are under study, but are likely to be adverse. These facts do not put the blame on external forces alone. The role of national bourgeoisies whose priorities are not the priorities of the majority cannot be overlooked.
There are two distinct approaches that are needed. On the one hand, the poorer countries have to set their house in order, build viable and participatory democratic institutions, reduce obstacles such as corruption and make the bureaucracy more effective and governance more transparent and accountable to the people. The latter would presumably make for distributive justice. On the other, we ask of the richer countries: i) don’t give us aid or charity, rather give us a just price for our products; ii) remove unjust tariffs and restrictive trade practices, make for a level playing field; iii) nurture global democratic economic systems, not globalization; iv) rein in and regulate your destructive transnational corporations; v) stop destroying our environment for the sake of profit and wasteful lifestyles; vi) remove restrictions on immigration and use our labour, often our biggest asset, justly; and vii) make knowledge and information accessible and available to all for genuine progress. Keep in mind that any society is only as strong as its weakest link. As Mahatma Gandhi said, “the world has enough for everyone’s need, not for every one’s greed”.
Prem Chandran John, Consultant in International Health, Madras, India. hariprem@eth.net
|
The ACC/SCN 29th Session A Symposium on Nutrition in the Context of Crisis and Conflict will take place on Tuesday 12 March. Speakers include: Soha Moussa of Tufts University will give the Dr Abraham Horwitz Memorial Lecture on Keeping Schools Open: School feeding in crisis and conflict For further details , agenda and registration see our
website: http://acc.unsystem.org/scn/ |
