The energy shock and world food crisis in 2007-08 followed by the economic melt-down in October 2008, created professional puzzlement and shook public confidence in the robustness of the global food system. Appreciation grew of global connectedness, and the interdependencies of energy, economy, security, climate, biodiversity and food. Whether this represents a collapse or burst of a bubble remains to be seen.
Even if this downturn is short-lived, the world's nations generally have failed to deliver on the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and have fallen short at the halfway point towards UN Millennium Development Goals. In addition to the freedom of religion and expression, humans have a right-to-life provided by access to food, clean water and health services (Kent 2005, Wenche and Kracht 2007, Anderson 2008). Countries go to war to protect freedom but do little to provide for critical basic needs. This is a collective failure but attention typically turns to those who appear to be in control. The Bretton Woods institutions – the International Monetary Fund and World Bank – have been branded elitist clubs whose neoliberal policies unleashed the turbo-capitalism that precipitated the current global economic crisis (Stiglitz 2003, 2006).
The cascade of factors that lead to food price trends and surges, especially the most recent one, are not that certain (Alexand ratos, N. 2008, Singh 2009). Rapid economic development in India and China has been accompanied by the expected change in dietary habits and lifestyle. Biofuels have diverted land and crops from food production. Drought in major food producing regions such as Australia and speculation on commodity markets add additional complexity. Despite the dynamic, this changing profile of supply and demand has challenged the food system’s ability to adapt, worsening the lives of the world’s bottom billion (sensu americana). The gap between rich and poor (stuffed and starved) has widened (Patel 2007).
Jeffrey Sachs (2007) computes the divide as one million to one. The current tally of billionaires worldwide is just under 1000. Assuming investment returns on their assets at $350 billion, these 1000 people earn as much as the world's bottom billion - hence the million to one gap. This figure stirs a range of emotions from admiration to injustice. The question is how it will affect the assumed dynamics of populations and resources and more importantly world security.
People often wonder what it will be like in 30 to 50 years and usually take some reassurance that it may simply require some adjustment of expectations. But attention must turn to people who live in profound poverty and face persistent hunger. The real issue is whether world order can be maintained if these numbers swell (Pinstrup-Andersen and Shimokawa 2008, Sachs 2008). Starvation, strife, and genocide indicate that the threshold has already been exceeded.
Apparent indifference to the present and confidence in the future might be related to the success of the green revolution and the expectation that production will follow its exponential rise. One flaw in this optimism is that analysts use the aggregate corner total of commodities [faostat.fao.org] when attention should properly focus on the differences among nations. The World Food Program’s hunger map [www.wfp.org] chronicles the crisis.
Conflict and other problems affecting the distribution of food may be beyond agrologists’ sphere of concern. But remedial solutions particularly enhancement of local food production capacity are certainly within our sphere of professional competence. In response, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) supports a world network of research institutes that recognize that solutions for the poor may be different than for the mainstream agricultural economy (Shah and Strong 2000). Clearly, advanced technologies can play a significant part but the focus must be on comprehensive solutions based on an understanding of the conditions under which people live.
“Food is not a commodity like others. We should go back to a policy of maximum food self-sufficiency. It is crazy for us to think we can develop countries around the world without increasing their ability to feed themselves.”– Bill Clinton, World Food Day 2008
The cascade of factors that lead to food price trends and surges, especially the most recent one, are not that certain (Alexand ratos, N. 2008, Singh 2009). Rapid economic development in India and China has been accompanied by the expected change in dietary habits and lifestyle. Biofuels have diverted land and crops from food production. Drought in major food producing regions such as Australia and speculation on commodity markets add additional complexity. Despite the dynamic, this changing profile of supply and demand has challenged the food system’s ability to adapt, worsening the lives of the world’s bottom billion (sensu americana). The gap between rich and poor (stuffed and starved) has widened (Patel 2007).
Jeffrey Sachs (2007) computes the divide as one million to one. The current tally of billionaires worldwide is just under 1000. Assuming investment returns on their assets at $350 billion, these 1000 people earn as much as the world's bottom billion - hence the million to one gap. This figure stirs a range of emotions from admiration to injustice. The question is how it will affect the assumed dynamics of populations and resources and more importantly world security.
People often wonder what it will be like in 30 to 50 years and usually take some reassurance that it may simply require some adjustment of expectations. But attention must turn to people who live in profound poverty and face persistent hunger. The real issue is whether world order can be maintained if these numbers swell (Pinstrup-Andersen and Shimokawa 2008, Sachs 2008). Starvation, strife, and genocide indicate that the threshold has already been exceeded.
Apparent indifference to the present and confidence in the future might be related to the success of the green revolution and the expectation that production will follow its exponential rise. One flaw in this optimism is that analysts use the aggregate corner total of commodities [faostat.fao.org] when attention should properly focus on the differences among nations. The World Food Program’s hunger map [www.wfp.org] chronicles the crisis.
Conflict and other problems affecting the distribution of food may be beyond agrologists’ sphere of concern. But remedial solutions particularly enhancement of local food production capacity are certainly within our sphere of professional competence. In response, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) supports a world network of research institutes that recognize that solutions for the poor may be different than for the mainstream agricultural economy (Shah and Strong 2000). Clearly, advanced technologies can play a significant part but the focus must be on comprehensive solutions based on an understanding of the conditions under which people live.
Food security closer to home The Arctic is facing a crisis in food security and few Southerners see it coming. Northern indigenous people were brought into the cash economy by the fur and marine trade of the 19th century. In the mid-20th century they were settled in scattered communities to provide schools, health centers and other services. Growing populations in these centers required substitution of country foods by imported food which was expensive and often inferior quality. Nutrition-related health problems such as diabetes rose sharply. Industrial activity outside of the North has contaminated Arctic food chains and contributed to climate change which has had a particularly dramatic effect in the Arctic. The cascading effect of climate and melting ice has changed access to country foods. Zoonotic diseases are emerging because of this redistribution creating both resource and human health issues. Northern people have always dealt with cycles of food abundance but never at this scale. Local economic activities arising from extraction of energy, minerals and diamonds provide employment, incomes and access to imported foods. In some cases, these industries have contributed directly to further declines of country food resources. People with jobs and the ability to buy all-terrain vehicles and fuel are among the few who can still access country foods. Fortunately, the tradition of food sharing contributes to meeting the needs of the elderly, handicapped, and jobless. Adaptive options for local people have narrowed. Living in different worlds creates clashes in expectations. Notably, food safety and quality standards are imposed on northern communities. The will of southern people also is being imposed on the way wildlife is harvested undermining traditional ways of life. What should a food security safety program for the Arctic look like? How can abundance of and access to country foods be sustained? What are the options for greater local food production as climates and environments change? What food safety policies and standards are appropriate for the special circumstances of the North? |
- Lessons
