The Ticking Food Bomb

The globe confronts a perfect storm of challenges this century: climate change, rising inequality, limited fossil fuels and a growing population that put pressure food and water supplies. If population expands to 9 billion as expected, food demand will double by 2050 even as the rate of growth in the agriculture sector declines. Nations, fully aware, recognize that food shortages and price hikes contribute to instability, but continue to delay taking action, explains Nayan Chanda, YaleGlobal editor, in his regular column for Businessworld. The G-20 accounts for 65 percent of all farmland, yet its wealthier members balk at tackling speculation. For national leaders, global governance is more an emergency Band-Aid than a means for developing long-term sustainable solutions, Chanda observes: “As the rich countries dither, the world is on course for an unprecedented crisis.” And the leaders of wealthy nations should know by now that crisis rarely stops at borders. – YaleGlobal

The Ticking Food Bomb

By 2050, when the world’s population is expected to reach 9 billion, demand for food will double – while the rate of growth in agricultural production could slow to less than 1 percent
Nayan Chanda
Friday, July 8, 2011

Recognition of a problem is, in theory, the beginning of a solution. But the behaviour of countries trying to collectively address the world’s largest problems shows the huge gap between awareness and action.


Talking about global governance has become fashionable among a section of political leaders and commentators, but they have not, so far, resulted in any concerted effort to produce global solutions other than emergency Band-Aid. The climate change summit at Copenhagen in 2009 ended in failure, as did the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species in Doha the following year. The recent report of the International Energy Agency shows that since 2009, the level of greenhouse gases has reached a record high and another report by the Conference of Parties for the Convention on Biological Diversity warned about the rapid disappearance of species.


Last week, the meeting of G20 agriculture ministers to address global hunger ended in a whimper. All agreed that high food prices create instability, but as usual, the short-term interests of the stakeholders trumped the long-term problem of hunger.


The first ever meeting of G20 agriculture ministers convened by France stemmed from rising worries about the crisis in 2007-09, when sky-rocketing 
food prices triggered more than 60 riots and threatened many countries’ stability. The number of hungry in the world rose from 800 million to 1 billion. The factors that created the crisis remain today, and food shortages are among the factors behind the ongoing unrest in Arab streets. According to the World Bank, since June last year, food price volatility has pushed 44 million more people to join the ranks of the poor.


When France took over the presidency of the G20, it pledged regulation of fluctuating food prices a priority. As the G-20 accounts for 65 per cent of all farmland and 77 per cent of global grain output, its decision could significantly influence the situation. In November, major international institutions and NGOs were tasked with developing policy recommendations on how to protect the most vulnerable. A high-level group that included FAO, World F
ood Program (WFP), IMF, World Bank, WTO and OECD duly produced a report and a set of recommendations. However, after two days of closed-door negotiations at the first-of-a-kind meeting, the ministers kicked the can down the road.


While acknowledging disagreements over the result of speculation on 
food prices, the report concluded that increased participation by non-commercial actors could have “contributed to the formation of price bubbles in some situations”. However, there was no appetite among the developed countries to rein in the financial sector. Instead, they repeated an earlier agreement by finance ministers to study limiting the number of contracts that speculators can hold.


Instead of tackling speculation — a move opposed by developed countries — the ministers recommended establishing an Agricultural Market Information System. It is hoped that transparency would discourage speculation. Even the recommendation about limiting import and export restriction by countries was accepted in a watered down form. During the 2008-09 crisis, several countries banned exports of key crops, fuelling fear and hiking up prices. The G20 meeting agreed that only humanitarian organisations such as WFP would be exempted from 
food export restrictions.


Arguing that the production of biofuels pushed up prices of 
food, the expert report recommended an end to diversion of food crops to biofuel. The US, the world’s biggest corn producer, encourages — through mandate and subsidy — the diversion of as much as 40 per cent of corn crops to produce ethanol. American officials argue that the impact of diversion is negligible, as only a small percentage of food was diverted to ethanol production. The fact is, both political parties of the US remain beholden to corn farmers in politically key states, like Iowa, an important bellwether in the run-up to the 2012 Presidential election.


As the rich countries dither, the world is on course for an unprecedented crisis. By 2050, when the world’s population is expected to reach 9 billion, demand for 
food will double. The steadily declining rate of growth of agricultural production, as FAO warns, could slow down to less than 1 per cent.


The US has hailed the G20 agriculture ministers meeting as a “historic union”, but it might prove historic for a different reason — for the disunity it displayed.

 The author is director of publications at the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, and editor of YaleGlobal Online.

ABP Pvt Ltd Publication Copyright © All rights reserved

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.