AN unprecedented number of world leaders assembled in Rome in the first week of June for the World Food Summit even as rising food prices were triggering political instability in many parts of the world. Their focus was naturally on alleviating the threat posed by rising prices.
Leaders from developing countries put the onus of the current situation on the policies of the rich countries. The speeches by the Presidents of Brazil, Iran and Zimbabwe reflected this line of thinking. Jacques Diouf, Director General of the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), appealed for a $30 billion fund to revive agriculture in Africa and other parts of the world and to avert conflict over food. Diouf noted that the world had spent $1,200 billion on arms in 2006 while excess consumption of food and wastage in developed countries cost $120 billion.
The Rome summit was supposed to conclude with a clarion call to eliminate hunger and secure food for all. But a lack of consensus resulted in a watered-down resolution that did not fully reflect the concerns of the developing world. The rich countries led by the United States were keener on reducing barriers to trade.
For the establishments of the developed world, food is just another commodity to be traded like clothes and cars. In most developing countries, the right to food is considered a fundamental right. At Rome, the leaders promised to help finance research into new seeds and help small farmers by making fertilizers available at an affordable price. This will be an uphill task, given the acute shortage of water and the high price of oil.
Dioufs appeal for more funding elicited a lukewarm response. Saudi Arabia made a donation of $500 million, just before the start of the summit. None of the other rich countries followed suit. Diouf said that he found it incomprehensible that the food crisis remained unsolved at a time when subsidies worth $12 billion were used to divert 100 million tonnes of cereals from human consumption to the production of biofuels in the developed countries.
Non-governmental organisations had called for a total ban on ethanol output, claiming that such a move would reduce food prices by 20 per cent. The U.S. says that ethanol production has raised prices by only 2-3 per cent. International Food Policy Research Institute, a Washington-based think tank, estimated that ethanol production has raised food prices by 30 per cent.
The FAO and the U.N. have both acknowledged that there is enough food grown in the world to feed all its people. Last year there was sufficient food to provide 2,800 calories for every person. The FAO says that by 2030, with increased agricultural outputs, the projected human population of 8.3 billion could receive 3,050 calories a day. But the policies being implemented by rich countries such as the U.S. have the potential to undermine optimistic predictions.
Haiti, one of the worst-affected countries, was self-sufficient in rice until 1986. That year, the International Monetary Fund forced the country to remove its trade barriers as a precondition for debt waivers. Cheap American rice, heavily subsidised by the U.S. government, soon flooded the Haitian market, killing the domestic rice-growing industry.
John CherianCOMMents
COMMents
SHARE