FOOD 2030 - A NATIONAL REPORT WITH GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS

PREAMBLE Demand for food and energy will jump 50% by 2030 and for fresh water by 30%, as the world population tops 8.3 billion. Climate change will exacerbate matters unpredictably. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) predicts widespread water shortages across Africa, Europe and Asia by 2025. The amount of fresh water available per head of population will decline sharply during that time. The issue of food and energy security rose high on the political agenda last year during a spike in oil and commodity prices, but then slipped in priority with falling prices. At present, 30-40% of all crops are lost due to pest and disease before they are harvested, and future droughts and increasing salinity will affect growth and produce.

In this issue, we highlight the British Government’s new Food Strategy, released January 5th, 2010. It is a timely document, with implications for both the UK and the rest of the world.

UK GOVERNMENT’S NEW FOOD STRATEGY
A National Report with Global Implications
On January 5th, 2010, the UK Government released its new food strategy: Food 2030: How we get there is the first of its kind in over 50 years, and the UK’s first food security assessment. The report states observes that "the natural environment and the economy are intrinsically linked", and discusses issues ranging from how to create a sustainable food system locally and globally, to the challenges of rising global demand for food and how food contributes to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

"We need to think differently about food," said Prime Minister Gordon Brown in his Foreword to the report, produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2008 was a wake-up call to world governments, as food prices rose sharply for the first time in a generation, provoking riots in some parts of the world. Many countries have reacted to protect food supplies in the face of climate change, a growing world population, and the spectre of “sudden shocks” such as natural disasters or price spikes.

[Ed Note: In Haiti, people are already reduced to eating mud cakes (clay with little added nutritional content); the January 13th 2010 earthquake will further exacerbate this extreme situation.]

As Secretary of State for DEFRA Hilary Benn states: “…the consequences of the way we produce and consume our food are unsustainable to our planet and to ourselves… we are at one of those moments in our history where the future of our economy, our environment, and our society will be shaped by the choices we make now.” Food production, he continues, must occur “without damaging the air, soil, water and marine resources, biodiversity and climate that we all depend on". For the UK, the aim by 2030 is to ensure that consumers are informed, can choose and afford healthy, sustainable food; that this demand is met by profitable, competitive, highly skilled and resilient farming, fishing and food businesses, supported by first class research and development. Food security is ensured through strong UK agriculture and food sectors, and international trade links with EU and global partners which support developing economies.

Globally, the report calls for a fairer international trade system that addresses import restrictions and subsidies, and the support of fair trade products, will work towards food that is produced, processed, and distributed to feed a growing global population in ways which:

o use global natural resources sustainably
o utilizes a low carbon food system which is efficient in using resources – any waste is reused, recycled or used for energy generation
o enable the continuing provision of the benefits and services that results from a healthy natural environment
o promote high standards of animal health and welfare
o protect food safety
o make a significant contribution to rural communities, and
o allow for global leadership on food sustainability.

Sustainability is a central theme throughout the document, but with the onus for this left mostly up to consumers. More government regulation and intervention may be required, given that many consumers will find it difficult to change food purchasing habits; otherwise, the agribusiness will find new ways to appeal to consumers without truly changing their activities. Related target areas:

 education to help consumers know how and where food is produced and how to grow and cook it themselves;
 programmmes to provide schoolchildren with opportunities to grow food;
 the public sector would lead by example and purchase healthy and sustainable foods.

A broader understanding of sustainability is advocated that would address GHG emissions, water use, animal welfare, and supporting rural communities in the UK and in developing countries. The report suggests that the previous focus on ‘food miles’ was too narrow, as the transportation of food only accounts for 9% of the carbon footprint of a food product.

Food 2030 repeatedly links what is happening in the UK and the need to support communities in the developing world regarding resource use, improving technologies, purchasing fair trade products. Such endeavours could benefit communities by supporting farmers, improving infrastructure and supports, and mitigating the impacts of climate change. Or, such support could amount to another “Green Revolution”, benefiting the few and disadvantaging the many.

Sources:
HM Government. Food 2030: How we get there. Released Jan 2010. http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/food/pdf/food2030strategy-summary.pdf
Manitoba Alternative Food Research Alliance. Evaluating Food 2030, Jan 6, 2010. http://www.localandjust.ca/?p=432
Christine McGourty. Global crisis 'to strike by 2030'. Mar 19, 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7951838.stm.
Tom MacMillan. Hilary’s contradiction casserole. Jan 5, 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/05/hilary-contradiction-casserole-can-worms.
Food Ethics Council. Food security. http://www.foodethicscouncil.org/topic/Food%20security. Accessed Jan 14, 2010.
Food Ethics Council. Food poverty. http://www.foodethicscouncil.org/topic/Food%20poverty. Accessed Jan 14, 2010.
Food Ethics Council. Hunger. http://www.foodethicscouncil.org/topic/Hunger Accessed Jan 14, 2010.

DISCUSSION: Looking back: how far have we really moved ahead? Defined at the 1996 World Food Summit, food security: “… exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”. Leaders at that meeting committed to tackling hunger. By June 2009, however, the world’s hungry had increased to 1.02 billion people.

In the aftermath of high global food prices in 2008, amid growing concern about the effects of climate change on agriculture, much of the focus shifted to boosting food production. Yet, people go hungry because they cannot afford to eat rather than because there is no food available, and agricultural investment could exacerbate problems unless it is focused on reducing economic inequalities.

For examples: increasing meat and dairy consumption in the fastest growing economies will increase pressure on supplies; the roles played by financial speculation and biofuel promotion on the 2008 price hikes shows how developed country politics, consumption and spending power, not food production, adversely impact hunger globally.

Despite increasing choice and affordability of food in some countries, many people eat “what they can afford”, not what they “want” let alone what nutrition “experts” tell them they “should”. Food poverty means that an individual or household isn’t able to obtain healthy, nutritious food, or can’t access the food they would like to eat. This often results in lower nutrient intake, bad dietary patterns, hunger, low fruit and vegetable consumption and problems accessing food. The resulting poor diets lead to heart disease, obesity, diabetes and cancer, and inadequate levels of many vitamins and minerals. Obesity is now a sign of poverty in rich countries, as hunger is in poor countries.

Food poverty and economic poverty are linked. Policy-makers often view food security as a strategic issue of national security, dependent on logistics and global trade relations. At global level, how to feed a growing population that demands more resource-intensive diets, while tackling climate change and environmental degradation, are key questions of food security.

Envoi: According to a 2002 report from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), global food production will continue to exceed population growth through 2030, but hundreds of millions of people in developing countries will remain hungry, and many environmental problems associated with agriculture will remain serious. Although growth in demand for food will be lower and population growth will slow, agricultural pressure on natural resources will continue to increase, albeit at a slower pace, and agricultural trade deficits in developing countries will increase drastically. Because most of those in extreme poverty live in rural areas, giving rural people better access to land, water, credit, health and education is essential for alleviating poverty and hunger, according to the report.

International trade plays an important role in achieving these aims, the agency says, calling for greater agricultural trade liberalization, better access to OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) markets, the elimination of export subsidies and the reduction of tariffs. The FAO recommended openness toward international markets, investments in infrastructure, promotion of economic integration and limits on market concentration to make globalization work for the poor.

Citing Asia as a region where globalization has generally led to progress in reducing poverty, FAO notes that… " it has also led to the rise of multinational food companies with the potential to disempower farmers in many countries". "Developing countries need the legal and administrative framework to ward off the threats while reaping the benefits".

Source: World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030 http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20020820/28440_story.asp

WORLD DEVELOPMENT CALLS FOR INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURE 2008

PREAMBLE: The World Development Report 2008 (reference link below) calls for greater investment in agriculture in developing countries. This annual World Bank report warns that the sector must be placed at the center of the development agenda if goals of halving extreme poverty and hunger by 2015 are to be realized.

o While 75% of the world’s poor live in rural areas in developing countries, a mere 4% of official development assistance goes to agriculture.
o In Sub-Saharan Africa, a region heavily reliant on agriculture for overall growth, public spending for farming is also only 4% of total government spending and the sector is still taxed at relatively high levels.
o GDP growth originating in agriculture is about four times more effective in raising incomes of extremely poor people than GDP growth originating outside the sector.

Said World Bank Group President Robert B. Zoellick: “At the global level, countries must deliver on vital reforms such as cutting distorting subsidies and opening markets, while civil society groups, especially farmer organizations, need more say in setting the agricultural agenda.”

In this issue we focus on Malawi as a Case Study of the role of new subsidies to enhance agricultural production, despite decades of donor proscription not to subsidize, and take note of a World Trade Organization investigation into the use by the United States of truly massive trade-distorting farm subsidies in violation of international commerce rules.

Reference : World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTWDRS/EXTWDR2008/0,,contentMDK:21410054~menuPK:3149676~pagePK:64167689~piPK:64167673~theSitePK:2795143,00.html

Case Study - ENDING FAMINE IN MALAWI
After a disastrous corn harvest in 2005, almost 40% of Malawi’s 13 million people needed emergency food aid. Move forward to 2007, and Malawi is selling more corn to the UN’s World Food Programe than any other country in southern Africa. Farmers explain the extraordinary turnaround with one word: fertilizer.

Over the past 20 years, the World Bank and some rich nations Malawi depends on for aid have periodically pressed this small, landlocked country to adhere to free market policies and cut back or eliminate fertilizer subsidies, even as the USA and Europe extensively subsidized their own farmers. But after the 2005 harvest, the worst in a decade, Bingu wa Mutharika, Malawi’s newly elected president, decided to follow what the West practiced, not what it preached, reinstating and deepening fertilizer subsidies.

The country’s successful use of subsidies is contributing to a broader reappraisal of the crucial role of agriculture in alleviating poverty in Africa and the pivotal importance of public investments in the basics of farm economies: fertilizer, improved seed, education, credit and agricultural research. Malawi’s leaders long favored fertilizer subsidies, but reluctantly acceded to donor prescriptions, often shaped by foreign-aid fashions in Washington, that featured faith in private markets and antipathy to public intervention.

In a withering evaluation of the World Bank’s record on African agriculture, the bank’s own internal watchdog concluded in October not only that removal of subsidies had led to exorbitant fertilizer prices in African nations, but that the bank itself often failed to recognize that improving Africa’s declining soil quality was essential to lifting food production.

In Malawi, deep fertilizer subsidies and lesser ones for seed, abetted by good rains, helped farmers produce record-breaking corn harvests in 2006 and 2007. An independent evaluation, financed by the USA and the UK, found that the subsidy program accounted for a large share of this year’s increase in corn production. The harvest also helped the poor by lowering food prices and increasing wages for farm workers.

Malawi’s determination to heavily subsidize fertilizer and the payoff in increased production are beginning to change donor attitudes, say economists who have studied Malawi’s experience. The UK (DFID) contributed $8 million to the subsidy program last year. Bernabé Sánchez, an economist with the agency in Malawi, estimated the extra corn produced because of the $74 million subsidy was worth $120 million to $140 million. The US, which has shipped $147 million worth of American food to Malawi as emergency relief since 2002, but only $53 million to help Malawi grow its own food, has not provided any financial support for the subsidy program, except for helping pay for the evaluation of it. Over the years, the USAID has focused on promoting the role of the private sector in delivering fertilizer and seed, and saw subsidies as undermining that effort. But Alan Eastham, the US ambassador to Malawi, said in a recent interview that the subsidy program had worked “pretty well,” though it displaced some commercial fertilizer sales. And the World Bank now sometimes supports the temporary use of subsidies aimed at the poor and carried out in a way that fosters private markets.

In Malawi, bank officials now support Malawi’s policy, though they criticize the government for not having a strategy to eventually end the subsidies, and... say there is still a lot of room for improvement in how the subsidy is carried out. “The issue is, let’s do a better job of it,” said David Rohrbach, a senior agricultural economist at the bank. Though donors are ambivalent, Malawi’s farmers have embraced the subsidies. And the government moved this year to give its people a more direct hand in their distribution.

Source: Adapted from the article by Celia Dugger. Ending Famine, Simply by Ignoring the Experts. New York Times Dec 2, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/world/africa/02malawi.html

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION INVESTIGATION INTO US SUBSIDIES
GENEVA (AP) — The WTO has opened an investigation into whether the US was violating international commerce rules that limited subsidies to American farmers, three days after the US Senate approved a $286 billion farm bill. Brazil and Canada, frustrated by US resistance to cutting back on subsidies, asked the WTO to condemn Washgton for exceeding permitted levels of what it called trade-distorting handouts to American producers of crops like corn, cotton, rice, soybean and wheat. The panel is expected to issue a first ruling in 2008. The dispute system often takes years before a final decision is reached, but can force countries to change their legislation or face billions of dollars in retaliatory sanctions. The battle over farm subsidies could become a landmark dispute for the WTO because Brazil’s complaint includes payments for ethanol production. The trade body has largely steered clear of energy issues in its 12-year history.

Source: Bradley S. Klapper. Associated Press. December 18, 2007