THE FOOD CRISIS AND THE WRONG SOLUTIONS

By Jacques Diouf and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

ROME, Jul 28 2008 (IPS) - The structural solution to the problem of world food security is an increase in productivity and production in the low-income food-deficit countries. This would require, in addition to official development assistance, innovative new solutions. To this effect, it is necessary to develop partnership or joint-venture agreements between, on the one hand, those countries that have the financial resources and on the other, those that possess land, water and human resources, writes Jacques Diouf, Director-General of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). In reality, what is happening is a propensity for one of the two parties to take over the role of the other. Land acquisition and long-term farming leases appear to be favoured by foreign investors. Even in certain countries where land is an asset like any other exchange commodity and is used as a refuge against currency devaluation, protests from farm workers and indigenous populations are frequent. In other cases, the appropriation and distribution of land have become a source of latent conflict. If one adds to this the emotional, or sometimes, mystical value of what constitutes one of the bases of national sovereignty, you can easily imagine the risk of a social outcry when such land falls into foreign hands.

It is worth mentioning here the many initiatives taken recently in Latin America, in Africa, in Asia and in Eastern Europe, the implementation of which in certain cases give reason for considerable concern and require the rapid adoption of corrective measures. In effect, some negotiations have led to unequal international relations and short-term mercantilist agriculture.

The objective should be to create mixed societies in which each side contributes on the basis of its own comparative advantage. One would provide financing, administrative skills and the guarantee of product markets. The other contributes on the basis of land, water and manpower. Complementarity in technical, economic, financial, fiscal and legal expertise, together with knowledge of the ecological, social and cultural environment would constitute a solid basis on which to share both the risks and the benefits of long-term cooperation.

In reality, what is happening is a propensity for one of the two parties to take over the role of the other. Land acquisition and long-term farming leases appear to be favoured by foreign investors.

Even in certain countries where land is an asset like any other exchange commodity and is used as a refuge against currency devaluation, protests from farm workers and indigenous populations are frequent. In other cases, the appropriation and distribution of land have become a source of latent conflict. If one adds to this the emotional, or sometimes, mystical value of what constitutes one of the bases of national sovereignty, you can easily imagine the risk of a social outcry when such land falls into foreign hands.

The problem is a very real one and in global terms, taking into account the role of speculation and increasing prices for land in a world where, between now and 2050, production will have to double in order to meet, inter alia, world population growth and tºhe needs of the emerging countries.

The exploitation of natural resources for the sole purpose of achieving financial profitability is hardly favourable to the kind of production that preserves the soil’s mineral and organic reserves and prevents such practices as burning and deforestation. It does not allow for the correct use of fertilizers and pesticides which would otherwise provoke pollution. It does not encourage the coexistence of crop and grazing lands, nor crop rotation that would be needed to restore the soil’s biological and nutritional properties that are taken up by plants. The risk is of creating a neocolonial pact for the provision of non-value added raw materials in the producing countries and unacceptable work conditions for agricultural workers.

It is therefore necessary to avoid any misinterpretation of what otherwise would be good idea. These direct foreign investments in agriculture should allow the creation of jobs, income and food, enabling at the same time friendship among nations. For this reason, FAO believes that the time has come to give deep thought to creating the conditions to ensure the success of international ‘joint-ventures’ for food production. But what would be the guarantees for the two sides concerned; the necessary incentives; the legal status; the most appropriate conditions for production, processing and trade; the most appropriate type of contracts for workers as well as the economic benefits for the State, for small farmers and for the private sector?

In order to answer to these questions, an inter-disciplinary internal brainstorming is needed as well as expert consultations among centres of excellence, with a view to organizing an inter-governmental discussion in a neutral forum such as FAO. The adoption, by consensus, of an international reference framework would allow us to avoid the problems that are gathering on the horizon of global food security and would help us take advantage ­albeit with a sense of proportion­ of the opportunities resulting from expanding agricultural demand. “To govern is to foresee” on both the national and international levels. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)