SCIENCE: Researchers Unite to Unearth Key to Food Security

By Stephen Leahy Reprint | | Print |

Stephen Leahy

BROOKLIN, Canada, Aug 28 2003 (IPS) - Governments, the World Bank and NGOs such as Greenpeace and Oxfam have agreed to participate in a global review of the role of science and technology in farming, a project they say could reshape approaches to future food security issues.

Central to the assessment would be an analysis of 10 communities to try to determine the necessary ingredients for food security at the local level.

"This is a first and unique chance for a global bottom-up check on what is really needed and what is not to ensure food sovereignty for all and the survival of the planet," says Benedikt Haerlin of Greenpeace International.

”We need to solve the problem of why there are still 800 million people who go to bed hungry every night even though there’s plenty of food today,” adds Bob Watson, the World Bank chief scientist who initiated the review.

"We also know we have to double food production in the next 25 to 50 years. Can it be done in an environmental and socially sustainable manner?" he asks.

Finding solutions to such global problems requires bringing together the best experts from all corners of society, says Watson – science, farming, government and civil society – to assess current knowledge and inform policy makers about what is known and unknown.

The assessment approach is based on other successful international reviews that Watson has worked on, such as the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Montreal Protocol on protecting the ozone layer.

Because farming is site specific, he says, "we want a bottom-up perspective. What does the farmer think his challenges are? And how do you integrate that local knowledge with institutional knowledge from universities and government research labs?"

For the past seven months a steering committee of 55 stakeholders headed by Watson travelled the globe asking representatives from a multitude of sectors involved in food production whether an assessment was needed and what its scope should be.

In August, the committee, which included NGOs, governments, research institutions, consumer and farmer organisations and the private sector, agreed that the global assessment should proceed.

The project defines agriculture broadly to include aquaculture, livestock and even forestry, as it pertains to food security. But financing of the 15-million-dollar, 30-month assessment remains uncertain.

The project would be guided by a multi-stakeholder bureau, with decisions taken by governments in plenary meetings, open to all the stakeholders.

"It’s the fairest type of international forum," Haerlin told IPS.

"It’s a very ambitious undertaking," he added, but essential because current efforts are failing to feed the world. Even the World Bank now realises that a solid agricultural base is necessary to drive the economy of any country, he says.

"There is a new willingness to invest in agriculture. But where is the best place to put that investment?"

According to the steering committee, "over 35 billion dollars is spent annually on agricultural research. We need to know if this money is well spent and where best to target our efforts."

While the review would consider very contentious issues such as intellectual property rights, transgenics (including genetically modified, or GM, foods), and the role of organic farming, participants have agreed to assess these issues on the basis of evidence rather than ideological beliefs, Watson said.

"We will look at the data on the environmental and health impacts of transgenics, as well as the economic and social implications. And if there isn’t enough data, we’ll say so."

Haerlin says the world’s food problems are too important to get bogged down on arguing over such issues. "There is wide agreement on some basic things, including the need to incorporate traditional knowledge into the review."

The assessment would intensively examine 10 rural communities to understand the agro-ecology and the needs and problems of local people. Results from each site would be compared to see what does and does not work to produce food security.

One impact that will not be assessed is trade. "We’re not going to look at world trade issues, such as agricultural subsidies," Watson says. ”That would duplicate work being done by the World Trade Organization.”

"I was impressed the assessment will take an ecological approach, including looking at the impacts of climate change on farming," says Brian Halweil, senior researcher at the Washington-based Worldwatch Institute.

Halweil, who attended one of the regional meetings, told IPS that taking a bottom-up approach would ensure that biotechnology or organic agriculture will not get all the attention as possible solutions to world hunger.

But he said he worries the assessment will repeat previous work and produce yet another expensive analytical report that does not stimulate changes on the ground.

It will also be difficult to make real changes to agriculture without dealing with northern governments’ supports to their farmers, he said. "It will be hard to make real changes in agriculture with the current subsidies situation."