Money is not the be-all and end-all. One of the international debates where Europe is playing a key role is in the fight against famine in the world. The recent UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's World Food Summit in Rome is widely described as a failure. How exactly did it fail? In not drumming up enough pledges of financial aid to boost farming in poor countries. There has been a veritable chorus of lamentations from various political groups, the FAO, poor countries that receive aid and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), all of which are falling over each other to slam the paucity of funds pledged. Funding is obviously needed and funding will be provided, although less than requested. Money, however, is not the be-all and end-all. We are only too aware of sorry tales of aid being siphoned off and squandered, and are rightly suspicious about attention being focussed exclusively on finance when other issues are just as decisive, like putting an end to war and armed conflict; poor countries changing their farming practices so that they grow food to feed local people rather than cash crops for export (growing cash crops rather than staples means relying on food imports to feed the local population); protecting the natural habitat; and improving yields. Changing behaviour achieves more than doling out billions more in funding because as we know from experience, much of the extra cash handouts would be siphoned off or squandered.
An expert speaks out. The argument above is not just my personal opinion. I am not quoting arguments in a broadsheet that sometimes reflect a political slant, and I am not quoting farm organisations that sometimes defend vested interests. Instead, I am quoting Olivier De Schutter, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. Along with Jacques Diouf, the FAO director general, he has written a balanced report. In other, more informal, writing, he is less circumspect, and starts by pointing out that “pledges of precise amounts of money are not necessarily proof of success. More important than the amount as such is how the money is used”. He adds: “During the 1970s, many countries in sub-Saharan Africa grew all their own food. Later, these countries decided to grow cash crops (…) and had to buy in food to feed local people from abroad (…) Many developing countries are still tempted to invest in cash crops as a priority” to boost their foreign currency reserves. This is the evil mechanism that I have been criticising in my column for many years now because it plays into the hands of the commodity multinationals that invest in single cash crops for export, along with corrupt local officials, big business and the farmers of rich countries who then supply the food that the poor countries have stopped growing for themselves. Poor countries suffer from both the disappearance of traditional subsistence farming and also having to permanently rely on food from abroad and the monstrous expansion of slums around their big cities as people are forced off the land. This is the policy once defended by the colonial powers and even backed by some big NGOs with campaigns for totally free global trade in food.
Three areas of debate. Changes will have to be made and they will of course be resisted by multinationals and big business (in my opinion, there should be a slimming down or even a phasing out of some of the world food trade), and corrupt politicians will not like the idea, but we have to have the courage to seize the bull by the horns and actually change things. Some developing countries have got the ball rolling (or are trying to at least). Some crucial aspects of fighting hunger are never discussed, or are watered down and surrounded with caveats. Here are three of them:
- Demographics. The glaring silence on this issue seems to pander to political or religious pressure. Pope Benedict XVI has said that population growth does not cause famine, although experts explain it is simply not possible to grow enough food to feed the extra 2.5 billion people expected to swell humanity's ranks over the next 40 years, particularly in the poorest countries. People might disagree but surely it should be possible to discuss the issue. The FAO must stop sticking its head in the sand;
- War and military spending. One war after another has the particularly callous and cruel consequence of being the main cause of famine in the world and seriously aggravating existing famines. Some countries spend most of their budget on arms rather than anything else. The FAO never mentions this;
- Buying up farm land. Vast tracts of farmland in poor countries are being bought up by several giant countries that have almost unlimited cash reserves - China, for example. The food grown on this land is not sold locally but goes back to the country that has bought up the land. The FAO is considering introducing a code of conduct. Strong rules and regulations are a crucial requirement here.
(F.R./transl.fl)