Email 
Print 
Is hunger really about not producing enough food?
Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.
A farmer works with his sons in a cotton field in Korhogo, northern Ivory coast, July 2007. REUTERS/Luc Gnago
Nothing is more humiliating than hunger, U.N. Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon said this week at a world conference on rising food prices. Delegates in Rome are discussing what they take to be the root cause of the problem - not enough investment in agriculture. But is that really what's behind this hunger crisis? And will the kind of investment they're talking about actually help the world's poorest farmers and their families? Since the surge in agricultural productivity in the 1960s and 1970s, investment in farming technology has declined. Conferees in Rome are being told that more than a billion dollars in rapid impact investment and food aid are needed in the short run, and more over the next decade. Simultaneously the Islamic Development Bank has been meeting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and has voted $1.5 billion to spur agriculture among that bank's poorest members, including Niger and Mauritania in West Africa. No doubt the impact of rocketing food prices threatens the health and wellbeing of hundreds of millions of people. High prices for basic foods are undermining the stability of nations only now emerging from conflict, such as Liberia and Kenya, and they have helped to spark the anti-immigrant riots in South Africa. Ban Ki-moon is right: it is also humiliating only to be able to buy your family's rice by the cup rather than by the bag. But a spoonful of history is necessary to aid policy makers' and donors' digestion of all this talk of cups and bags and metric tons, dollars, pounds and euros. In Africa during the 1980s there was a failed strategy to combat hunger called "production first." I saw it up close and documented its impacts in Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Botswana, and Lesotho and wrote about it in a book called "Power and Need in Africa". All the investment in crop improvement, mechanisation, irrigation benefited wealthy farmers and some middle-sized farmers - as well as an army of highly paid foreign consultants, contractors, and makers of machinery. Production did increase, but so did hunger among those unable to benefit because they had no land or too little land or were too far away from district headquarters to benefit from farm extension. Others couldn't access credit. Ninety percent of farm extension time in those days was going to the top ten percent of farmers ranked by wealth. So in 2008 and the decade to follow, will massive increases in farming investment rescue the U.N.-set Millennium Development Goal to reduce hunger and halve the number living on less than one dollar a day by 2015? Is lack of investment in agricultural productivity the root cause of hunger? The answer is clearly no. In the past few years fertiliser subsidy in Malawi has increased production of the stable, maize, but poor governance means that the parliament is often deadlocked and farmers remain under the threat not only from more variable and uncertain weather but from untimely disbursement of fertiliser funds. A long history of rural poverty means that rapid deforestation continues because the poor make charcoal for sale to supplement their meagre incomes. In the long run, fertiliser input won't be able to keep up with the resulting soil erosion, and there is no sign that Malawi will ever be able to afford input subsidies without external donor support. The current price spike has many causes. These include a catastrophically low rice harvest due to drought in Australia - a major exporter - and increased grain demand as a growing worldwide middle class eats more meat. The diversion of land and food to biofuel production are also implicated, along with speculation and high oil prices. Investment in agro-production will not solve all these problems. If the delegates in Rome are serious about battling hunger and not just further enriching chemical companies and agro-engineering corporations, they will seek to support small farmers around the world with a call for land justice. They will provide money for investment in health care and soil conservation. Meanwhile, yes, of course, food aid needs to be provided so that the children of small farmers in stress don't have to drop out of school. In countries such as North Korea and Somalia food aid is a life or death matter, and it has become much more expensive for the U.N. World Food Organisation to purchase and to deliver. But don't confuse the price crisis with the hunger crisis. In 1976 Susan George published a book called "How the Other Half Dies." She documented how the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation has become a lobbyist and tout for big agricultural machine companies and firms producing agro chemicals. In the 1980s, the author of "Diet for a Small Planet" exposed a series of myths about hunger, including the idea that production is the answer. She campaigned for democracy as a cure for hunger with the NGOs she formed. Nobel laureate and economist Amartya Sen went further in exploding the myth that hunger is about lack of production in his 1981 book "Poverty and Famines". Let's not forget so soon. Let's use this opportunity for a sea change in the way that small farmers are supported - building on their local knowledge and skill, providing them with access to health care, education for their children, clean drinking water, credit and removing the huge U.S., European, and Japanese subsidies to their own farmers that block market entry by small farmers in Africa and elsewhere.
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
12 responses to “Is hunger really about not producing enough food?”
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
Leave a Reply
When you submit a comment to us we request your name, e-mail address and optionally a link to a website. Please note where you submit a website address, we may link to it via your name. By sending us a comment, you accept that we have the right to show the comment and your name to users. Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily. Additionally, if you would like your comment removed at anytime, you'll have to use this e-mail address when you contact us. To remove a comment at any time please e-mail us at blogs-(at)-reuters-(dot)-com (address obscured to avoid spam) specifying who you are and what you would like removed. We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information. We reserve the right to edit comments in order to maintain the quality of the comments, and may not include links to irrelevant material. We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous. Reuters will use your data in accordance with Reuters privacy policy. Reuters Group is primarily responsible for managing your data. As Reuters is a global company your data will be transferred and available internationally, including in countries which do not have privacy laws but Reuters seeks to comply with its privacy policy.
All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content in this article, including by framing or by similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
Ben Wisner is a hazards expert with the Environmental Studies Programme at Oberlin College, Ohio, and Benfield Hazard Research Centre at University College, London.
04 Jun 2008 11:53:59 GMT
The world farming community must switch to organic methods. Conventional farming has failed the poor and we should be very wary of the claims of those promoting GM crops. Nor is the issue one of food security, but of the need to sequester carbon dioxide to reduce global warming. A 30 year study by the US Rodale Institute found that whilst organic methods sequestered carbon dioxide, conventional farming does the opposite.
04 Jun 2008 14:46:07 GMT
PROBLEM PROMISCUITY! PARENT PRODUCE MORE KIDS THAN THEY CAN FEED! MARGARET SANGER SAID THAT 60+ YEARS AGO.
04 Jun 2008 15:25:38 GMT
The Namibian Government has recently budgeted for 2,4 Namibian Dollars to be spent on its National Defence Force and less than a million Nam Dollars for Agriculture. Training of resettled farmers is almost non-existent. Food Aid is normal practice and will increase continuously
05 Jun 2008 12:39:13 GMT
When it comes to food and energy such as oil, yes it should be subject to supply and demand forces, but not speculators such as pension funds and bank run funds. If you are not a bonified user and can take delivery you should not be allowed to buy. These large funds buying futures contracts are playing havoc with people's lives, with many starving. This is morally wrong and should be outlawed.
05 Jun 2008 12:39:54 GMT
the prices r spiking like crazy all around the world, governments r imposing strict polcies and rules on their citizens this eventually will drive the whole world into a furnel of wars. It has nothing to do with the lack of investment in agricultural productivity. I believe it's weak and destructive strategy taken by the states.
05 Jun 2008 16:26:15 GMT
It is all so plain and simple. LOVE THY NEIGHBOR. If you do then you will help them, not judge them. Unfortunately everything in this world today is based on one principle--"They want your money". Think about it--do you know anyone or thing that does not want your money? The world waste alone is enough to feed all so that no one goes hungry. In the US we take better care of our pets than any other humans..........
11 Jun 2008 09:30:50 GMT
Hunger is a condition when you do not get that which your body needs, weather it is food or ideals. The denial of either makes those you want to oppress weak and dependant upon your generousity. So often the use of food rationing is used to make profit or dependence by individuals, country officals and nations. That we loose sight of what our religious leaders have taught us about Gods words and needs. We do not have to be of the same faith to believe in the same God. And his commands, for they are very basic. Love your neighbor as yourself, give him aide out of generousity, so that he may be able to aide himself. Do not lie nor bare witness falsely against him so that he may parish. So him the truth and lead him on the good path of God. We do waste more than is needed. Every nation looks for the the profit off owning your dependency upon them. Their is no simple answer only hope.
11 Jun 2008 09:31:55 GMT
If farming machinery were easily accessible to ordinary farmers, then food shortages would have been a thing of the past. Most farmers in Africa use the hoe, which cannot help curb hunger. Governments must do their best to introduce to the smallholder farmers implemets to make their work simple. The use of manure should be encouraged.
14 Jun 2008 18:29:43 GMT
I knew that the global warming hypocrisy would come into this somehow; any half educated person nowadays knows this is a scam brought to you by governments to fleece people. The real problem is our world wide governments have elected to starve us of our own resources in turn this is starving the world. Greed fist people second. The real answer is build a coop of farm machinery for the poor to share. Bring oil prices down to reality by drilling until technology has the answers and become affordable to the world. It is always about the greed of the rich and famed to fleece the little person.
14 Jun 2008 18:31:20 GMT
Speaking from personal experience:
I grew up in rural Western Washington. My grandparents had a 20 acre richly productive organic farm (back when that was thought to be "backwards") in Elma. Most of it was fields for horses and organic beef. But the few acres of garden ground was black and rich. Without the produce from that garden, my family would have struggled to eat on our poor soil farm closer to the ocean at Copalis Crossing. My mom would even pack all 7 of us kids in our Chevy Suburban and head over the mountains (the real mountains) to Eastern Washington to pick crates of fruit. When we got home we would spend days peeling peaches or apples and canning them. We would never have taken a handout from the government, but we always picked food from my grandparents garden whenever we visited. Even after purchasing a Kubota tractor, we never could get our red clay soil to produce much except evergreens. My grandmother is still alive (she will be 89 years old this December; my grandfather died a few years ago at 92) and she is still planting her garden (it's just much smaller now and there are no horses or cows in the fields). Because of the importance I place on raising my own food, I always have a small food garden - even if it is in pots on a balcony (our last apt) or in pots on a cement patio (our current apt). I have strong the feelings for my family farm. It's not the equipment; it's the soil. It's not subsidies, it's families who love their land and want opportunities to produce enough food to feed their families and sell some for income. They need protection from others (including gov't over-taxing), opportunities for natural soil improvers, local irrigation, and most importantly, sustainability without outside intervention. These are just some thoughts from personal experience (they're the best kind of thoughts - better than philosophy or politics!). Why don't you ask the local farmers what they need the most?15 Jun 2008 18:01:56 GMT
i totally agree with Melissa, i wish the people from their own experiences are being asked about to do and what they want and what the solutions are coz after all its the people and the citizens that matter and who want to live and survive.. unfortunately, this is not the case in this world its what the governments decide and think the best!! is what happening which in my opinion a total desaster on the whole world..
22 Jun 2008 22:38:03 GMT
I would like to add also that in the end the biggest threats will not come from Islamists or Revolutionaries or Jihadists. State policies and the inflation taking place in the world especially in the poor areas and the upsurge of prices for certain basic commodities will push for 'Populace' movements from strikes and riots that could lead into real chaos.