By - - and Jacques Diouf
ROME, Sep 29 2010 (IPS)

With riots in Mozambique and food prices climbing to their highest level in two years, the early Autumn of 2010 made many observers suspect that the world was headed for a repeat of the 2007-2008 food crisis.

On September 1, FAO announced that its food price index had risen five percent in a month to its highest level since September 2008. And the same day rioting over bread, electricity and fuel prices in Maputo ­ uncomfortably reminiscent of the civil strife that broke out in some 20 countries around the world when food prices last soared three years ago.

But todayÂ’s situation is very different from what it was then. While it is true that wheat prices are now 40 to 60 percent higher than a year ago, the food price index is still some 20 percent below its peak in mid 2008.

Meanwhile, unlike in 2007, globally there are now ample stocks of cereals ­ 100 million tonnes more than three years ago. And despite the drought that badly affected Russia’s wheat harvest, prompting the Government to impose an export ban, at global level cereals production in 2010 will be the third highest ever this year.

I believe there is no objective reason for a new world food crisis. Governments should therefore behave responsibly and avoid panic buying and refrain from imposing export restrictions that end up by hurting consumers abroad and their own farmers at home.

TodayÂ’s higher food prices do, however, make it more difficult to bring down the level of undernourishment in the world and achieve the goals on hunger reduction to which the international community has committed.

I refer to the objective of the first Millennium Development Goal to halve the proportion of hungry people across the globe from 20 to 10 percent by 2015, and the 1996 World Food SummitÂ’s target of halving the number of hungry people from its 1990-92 level to 420 million by 2015 also.

FAO’s latest estimate of the number of hungry ­ 925 million ­ is 500 million off that mark. And at 16 percent, the proportion of hungry people as part of total population is six percent wide of the first objective.

And while the number of hungry admittedly dropped 98 million from last year this was due more to renewed economic growth, especially in developing countries, and to food prices that until recently were declining.

It is thus clear that with only a few years left to 2015 the worldÂ’s leaders must act swiftly and resolutely if they are to honour the solemn pledges they made. They must quickly free up the resources to launch the large-scale agricultural investment which is the only way to ensure that the worldÂ’s poor countries are able to feed themselves.

The 1Billionhungry campaign that I launched last May is intended to bring pressure on political leaders to take a bold, hunger-changing initiative. More than 700,000 signatures have so far been collected on a petition calling on them to act and over a million are expected by the end of the year.

I hope and pray they will heed that call for we have little time left. On hunger, the only right number is zero, and we still have a very long way to go. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Jacques Diouf is the Director General of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Excerpt:

By - - and Jacques Diouf
ROME, Jun 10 2009 (IPS)

The World Grain Forum that took place in Saint Petersburg June 6-7 is one in a series of high-level meetings devoted to food and agriculture this year. Such meetings -including the G8 agriculture ministers gathering in Treviso last April and FAO’s conference on How to Feed the World in 2050 next October in Rome- show that powerful momentum is building for resolving outstanding food insecurity issues and establishing a new global agricultural order that can finally ensure that everyone on earth has enough to eat.

Despite a rapidly growing population, expected to top nine billion in 2050, and in spite of advancing climate change which threatens land and water resources in many parts of the world, this planet has the capacity to produce enough food for all its inhabitants.

And yet hunger is on the rise, with nearly one billion people -almost one person in six- hungry today. That is some 160 million more than in 1990-92, the base period for the World Food Summit target of reducing the number of hungry people by half, and represents almost a 20 percent increase.

Much of that hike is due to higher food prices, which rose nearly 60 percent between 2006 and 2008 while grain prices doubled in the same period. At the same time the current global economic downturn is also contributing significantly to deeper poverty and hunger across the world. Preliminary estimates indicate that more than 100 million could be dragged into hunger as a consequence.

Such upheavals are taking place in a global environment that is very different from just a few years ago. We have seen the world move from decades of cheap food to a period of high and more volatile food prices. Also significant, agriculture has witnessed the emergence of important new players, including Russia which now produces as much wheat as the United States and has become the world’s fourth biggest exporter of cereals.

All of which makes it all the more important that we act now to bolster our collective food security -or risk a new and potentially even more dramatic food crisis in the future.

Grains provide the staple foodstuff for much of the world’s population, and therefore will be central to any reform of the global food production and trade system. Hence the importance of the Saint Petersburg meeting, which considered some of the issues below.

Measures to reduce the negative effects of fluctuations in grains supply need to be put in place or reinforced. A combination of risk management strategies, improved financial tools, early reaction mechanisms, and more effective emergency food aid response in crisis situations can go a long way towards preventing the suffering caused by sudden price spikes.

Also to be reviewed is the role of food stocks, which fell to historically low levels, in helping stabilise prices and providing a buffer against crop failures. The lesson we have learned is that we need to carefully weigh their relevance and how they should be administered in the framework of national and global food security.

Similarly, streamlined and equitable trade rules encouraging increased global exchanges are needed, with an end to trade-distorting policies. Production subsidies in rich nations create market distortions and disincentives which discourage many developing countries from investing in their own agriculture. Export restrictions and taxes might ease situations locally but could contribute to price escalation in world markets.

In that context, a successful conclusion of the Doha Round of trade negotiations is essential. Without such an outcome, many of the past distortions and imbalances will continue, setting the scene for future crises. But to ensure world food security, it is important that farmers in both developed and developing countries have an income comparable to those earned by secondary and tertiary sector workers in their respective countries by using non-distortionary support measures.

Boosting investment in agriculture in the developing world -as called for by the High-Level Conference on World Food Security organised by FAO in Rome a year ago- is a key to the achievement of any sustainable global food security.

I am optimistic and believe that the momentum for change we are currently witnessing will soon lead to concrete and effective actions relegating hunger to history. It is an issue of peace and security in the world. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

(*) Jacques Diouf is the Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO).

Excerpt:

By - - and Jacques Diouf
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)

Excerpt:

By - - and Jacques Diouf
ROME, Mar 20 2007 (IPS)

Those who call water scarcity the challenge of the century are not exaggerating. The recent debate over a proposal to recycle waste water for drinking purposes in Australia, the drying of large portions of massive river basins like Lake Chad in Africa and the Aral Sea in Central Asia, the millions of people who struggle to grow crops on drought-stricken farms in Asia, Africa and in the Americas, all reflect the importance of conserving and making more productive use of our water resources, writes Jacques Diouf, Director-General of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Improving the food situation is fundamental to fighting hunger and improving lives on every continent. This means that to turn the tide against water scarcity, farmers must find ways to produce more food with proportionally less water. It takes 1000-2000 litres of water to produce one kilo of wheat and 13 000-15000 litres to produce the same quantity of grain-fed beef. By comparison, the amount of daily drinking water required by one person is estimated at a mere two to five litres. And yet each day, we \”eat\” an average of 2000 litres of water. Thus the effective daily consumption of water per person is 1000 times more than the apparent consumption through drinking. Without water, we can not produce; and without it we simply cannot eat. The planet is thirsty because it is hungry.

The theme of World Water Day 2007 (March 22), Coping with Water Scarcity, is more than simply a way to focus attention on this issue. It is a specific and emphatic call to action.

Water has long been at the top of the priority list for the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the coordinating agency for this year’s World Water Day observance. FAO recognizes that as the number-one user of water worldwide, the agriculture sector must take the lead in addressing the rising global demand for water.

Agriculture accounts for about 70% of the freshwater withdrawn worldwide, because without water there would be no agriculture. The figure is closer to 95% in several developing countries, where roughly three-quarters of the world’s irrigated farmlands are located.

Improving the food situation is fundamental to fighting hunger and improving lives on every continent. This means that to turn the tide against water scarcity, farmers must find ways to produce more food with proportionally less water. It takes 1000-2000 litres of water to produce one kilo of wheat and 13 000-15000 litres to produce the same quantity of grain-fed beef. By comparison, the amount of daily drinking water required by one person is estimated at a mere two to five litres. And yet each day, we “eat” an average of 2000 litres of water. Thus the effective daily consumption of water per person is 1000 times more than the apparent consumption through drinking. Without water, we can not produce; and without it we simply cannot eat. The planet is thirsty because it is hungry.

The rising global population is contributing to an increased demand for water. The world’s population is expected to rise from the current 6.5 billion to 8.1 billion by 2030. To keep pace with the growing demand for food, and taking into consideration an increase in water productivity, it is estimated that 14% more freshwater will need to be withdrawn for agricultural purposes by 2030 in order to obtain the 55% increase in food production needed.

Climate change has raised the stakes. So have successful development and the trend towards urbanization, which have added to the demand for water in agriculture the increased demand for water for industry and people’s homes.

Access to adequate water can be a problem even in areas with plenty of freshwater, but water shortages are most acute in the driest areas of the world, which are home to more than 2 billion people and to half of all poor people. Acute water scarcity affects countries in the Near East and North Africa, as well as Mexico, Pakistan, South Africa, and large parts of China and India.

In recent years there has been growing consensus that international, national and local policies must be coordinated to guide more effectively the use of water resources for agriculture, urbanization and industry.

As far as agriculture is concerned, FAO advocates short-term, small-scale irrigation projects at the village level, including the development of low-cost and relatively simple technologies which can be used by small farmers to irrigate crops. We also need to focus on the long-term future, first by upgrading and improving the management of the facilities and then by working across national borders to develop and protect water basins.

Pilot projects and programmes in countries as diverse as South Africa, Turkey and Mexico have turned to small-scale irrigation schemes or community-based systems for harvesting rainfall and protecting catchments that feed into main waterways. At the same time, FAO has supported inter-regional and river basin programmes which coordinate the responses of several governments or agencies, as in the countries which share the massive Nile River in Africa, which has been compromised by drought and human activity.

Improving agricultural practices and water productivity will go a long way to protecting our water resources for all of our needs. Worldwide, 1.1 billion people do not have access to adequate clean water to meet their basic daily requirements and 2.6 billion do not have proper sanitation. Every day, 3 800 children die from diseases associated with a lack of safe drinking water and proper sanitation.

Access to water is intricately linked to the achievement of most of the Millennium Development Goals, which include halving extreme poverty and hunger by 2015, halting the spread of HIV/AIDS, ensuring primary education for all children, and ensuring environmental sustainability.

But direct access to water for own food production is not possible for every country or region. The international food market serves as an important vehicle for transferring “virtual water” from food exporting water-abundant regions to food importing water-scarce ones. In fact, any importing of food is the equivalent of importing water in a condensed form. An FAO survey estimates, for example, that 86.5km3 of water would be needed to grow the food that is imported into the Near East – more than the annual flow into the region of the Nile River. Virtual water trade is not only potentially beneficial for the importing countries but also for global water management for two reasons. Firstly, one of the main imports is cereals and these can be produced with less water in countries having high water productivity. Secondly, the bulk of the imported grain is produced under rainfed, temperate conditions and is therefore only
’consuming’ soil moisture, and not surface and groundwater that might be allocated to other uses.

As a global community, we have the capacity to go beyond stop-gap responses to water scarcity and to develop sound, ongoing management of our water resources. Turning that capacity into concrete results requires sustained political will, cooperation and funding. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By - - and Jacques Diouf
ROME, Oct 27 2006 (IPS)

We have always said, \”Give people fish and they will eat. Teach them how to fish and they will always eat.\” Today, we also say, \”Help people to communicate and you will change their lives\”, writes Jacques Diouf, Director-General of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Between October 25-27, 500 delegates from across the world met in Rome at the First World Congress on Communication for Development, organized by the World Bank, FAO and the Communication Initiative, and hosted by the Government of Italy to examine how to share knowledge and information through social dialogue. This is underlined by the participation of many eminent policy and decision-makers, scholars, not to mention communications professionals. One of the most tangible contributions of the United Nations family of organizations, of which we are part, has been to help build the infrastructure for social dialogue within and between all the countries of the world. This has been a good investment, it turns out, because social science now tells us that communication lies at the heart of sustainable development. We are not talking about simply governments talking to citizens, an important responsibility though that is, but a horizontal, two-way process that allows governments to listen to people. A dialogue, not a monologue. It implies all participants in society having a voice, not just the powerful. In the past ten years, an entirely new economy worth over two trillion dollars in terms of goods and services has materialized. Information and communications technologies or ICTs have helped a number of emerging nations achieve phenomenal economic growth rates. But the pace at which the new frontiers are advancing also risks widening the gap between those who have access to the new communications technologies and the one billion of the world\’s population who don\’t. And by extension the danger is to further widen the rich-poor divide.

Between October 25-27, 500 delegates from across the world met in Rome at the First World Congress on Communication for Development, organized by the World Bank, FAO and the Communication Initiative, and hosted by the Government of Italy to examine how to share knowledge and information through social dialogue. This is underlined by the participation of many eminent policy and decision-makers, scholars, not to mention communications professionals.

How can we harness the power of communications to speed progress in the fields of poverty reduction, food security, health, governance and sustainable development? We already know from experience that communication and development go hand in hand. They are actually two sides of the same endeavour … reaching across and bringing people closer together.

One of the most tangible contributions of the United Nations family of organizations, of which we are part, has been to help build the infrastructure for social dialogue within and between all the countries of the world. This has been a good investment, it turns out, because social science now tells us that communication lies at the heart of sustainable development. We are not talking about simply governments talking to citizens, an important responsibility though that is, but a horizontal, two-way process that allows governments to listen to people. A dialogue, not a monologue. It implies all participants in society having a voice, not just the powerful.

This realization is all the more significant because the ongoing, revolutionary advances in communication technology are creating enormous opportunities and corresponding challenges in international development. Just as the rise of industry opened a new era two centuries ago, the digital revolution of the last decade has changed the lives of millions, speeding economic growth in many parts of the world, shrinking the world and creating a global marketplace.

In the past ten years, an entirely new economy worth over two trillion dollars in terms of goods and services has materialized. Information and communications technologies or ICTs have helped a number of emerging nations achieve phenomenal economic growth rates. But the pace at which the new frontiers are advancing also risks widening the gap between those who have access to the new communications technologies and the one billion of the world’s population who don’t. And by extension the danger is to further widen the rich-poor divide.

Is it feasible to wire remote villages that lack roads, electricity and running water to the Internet? It can, in fact, be done, but in a globalized world, access to ICTs is not enough. These data networks have to be integrated with more traditional media that have demonstrated their value in promoting development. Radio programmes, produced with audience participation and broadcast in local languages, are a highly effective channel for information to remote areas. Video, other traditional media and interpersonal communication also play an essential role. But while we recognize the need to use the new tools of communication, relying on them is simply not enough. We must understand that communication is also a tool for managing development, that it must be incorporated at the beginning of development initiatives and not just used at the end to disseminate information.

Nowadays it is becoming increasingly clear that Communication is Development. It is as integral to development as economic, social, and environmental analysis. It is critical to achieving better development outcomes and to issues like governance which is not only about changes in regulations and laws, but also about transparency, accountability and access to information. It is also clearly about technology, the realization of which underlies the work of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize winner, Muhammad Yunus, who after pioneering micro-credit founded a company that has already brought cell phone access to three million rural poor cut off from the main phone network.

More modestly, a South African company is offering a commercial email service to people living in remote rural areas in Africa. The system, the company claims, is robust enough, “to work in a cyclone and with baboons swinging from the antenna.”

But, when baboons swing from antennae feeding Internet to people in remote rural areas, and when governments start to dialogue more with their citizens about development, then the world is indeed changing faster than we suspect. We need to find ways of making sure that those changes, and the momentous advances still in store, best serve the process of development and effectively reach the poor.

As well as supplying seeds for farmers to sow, we can now, through effective communication, also plant the seeds of knowledge and hope among the world’s poor. And in the process, help them to change their lives. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By - - and Jacques Diouf
ROME, Mar 1 2006 (IPS)

Today millions of families are still living in poverty because of a lack of access to land, the most basic production resource, writes Jacques Diouf, Director-General of the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations. The reasons for this injustice have to do with the value that land has had throughout the ages. Land is an essential economic asset in rural societies, but its monetary value is not the only, or even the most important, consideration for millions of people. For indigenous peoples, land is the basis of their identity; it is their home and that of their ancestors, their pharmacy, and their place of work and leisure. In most societies, land means power, status, and membership in a social class. For many women, land is essential to their autonomy. Some of the agrarian reforms implemented in recent years have sought to offer solutions to these problems, with varying degrees of success, but we are still far from having solved the agrarian issue. New worldwide challenges, such as the globalisation of trade, the massive rural exodus to the cities, environmental degradation and civil strife (in many instances caused by the lack of access to, and control over, natural resources) demand urgent, global-level responses.

Land is an essential economic asset in rural societies, but its monetary value is not the only, or even the most important, consideration for millions of people. For indigenous peoples, land is the basis of their identity; it is their home and that of their ancestors, their pharmacy, and their place of work and leisure. In most societies, land means power, status, and membership in a social class. For many women, land is essential to their autonomy.

Land means belonging to a place and to a culture. So when we speak about landless men and women, we are talking about people without a past, without a present and without a future.

Some of the agrarian reforms implemented in recent years have sought to offer solutions to these problems, with varying degrees of success, but we are still far from having solved the agrarian issue. New worldwide challenges, such as the globalisation of trade, the massive rural exodus to the cities, environmental degradation and civil strife (in many instances caused by the lack of access to, and control over, natural resources) demand urgent, global-level responses.

The target date set by the international community in the Millennium Development Goals for halving the number of people suffering from hunger in the world is just 10 years away. Only a renewed global commitment to the world’s poor rural areas will make it possible to break the vicious circle of poverty and hunger in which more than 840 million people live.

FAO, with the support of the government of Brazil, has decided to assume the leadership of this process and is convening an International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD) on 7-10 March in Porto Alegre, Brazil.

The objective of the Conference is to provide a forum for the sharing of knowledge, experience, successes, and difficulties in implementing agrarian reforms in various countries and to reflect together on the future of rural development. The Conference will also try to forge alliances for action among participants.

One of the main lessons learned from the history of agrarian reform is that processes that are not participatory, that do not include all those who have something to say on an issue as crucial as local development, ultimately fail. This is why FAO wanted this Conference to be open to participation by everyone. For many months there has been broad consultation within governments and civil society organisations to select the main topics for the Conference agenda.

The list of issues to be addressed is both long and substantial: how to combine social justice with sustainable development; how to legislate for the specific needs of nomadic and sedentary communities; the role of the State and the market in agrarian reform; promoting green energy sources, such as bioenergy; revitalising rural economies; improving the working conditions of temporary farm labourers; and acknowledging the vital part played by women in agriculture and in conserving natural resources.

At Porto Alegre the debate will centre on groups of themes based on case studies and documents. The Conference will issue a final Declaration and a Plan of Action. Using a system of indicators and voluntary guidelines, a Panel of International Observers will monitor compliance with this Plan of Action in terms of progress made in national and international legislation.

It is no coincidence that Brazil has been chosen to host this Conference: it was exactly 60 years ago that the distinguished Brazilian scientist and politician Josue de Castro published his extraordinary book, ”Geography of Hunger”, on the causes of hunger in his country and in the world. His words have been translated into more than 25 languages and are as relevant today as they were then:

“Underdevelopment is not the lack of development. It is the result of an ill-guided kind of universal development… Underdevelopment is a product of misuse of natural and human resources… Underdevelopment and hunger can only be eliminated from the face of earth through a global development strategy which will mobilise production means in the interest of the community.” We salute his memory. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By - - and Jacques Diouf
ROME, Oct 1 2005 (IPS)

The current bird flu scenario should not cause panic and fear but spur rational and immediate action to fight the disease at its origin: in animals, writes Jacques Diouf, Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. In this article, Diouf writes that avian influenza is first of all an animal disease that requires a veterinary response. The virus can be defeated and contained if countries and the international community work closely together and set up efficient surveillance and disease control programmes. Virus outbreaks in animals need to be detected at a very early stage; infected poultry has to be slaughtered, and animals at risk have to be vaccinated. Affected countries and the international community urgently need to invest more in support of veterinarians and animal health workers, because they represent the first line of defence against the virus. We cannot afford to wait to battle the disease in pharmacies and hospitals, but need to get rid of the virus in infected farmers\’ backyards. Investing in prevention will be cheaper in the longer run than the cure.

The virus is currently spreading westwards along the flyways of wild birds and it has arrived at the front door of European countries. We can expect that it will reach the Middle East and countries in Africa in the very near future.

The current bird flu scenario should not cause panic and fear; instead it calls for rational and immediate action to fight the disease at its origin — that means in animals.

Avian influenza is first of all an animal disease that requires a veterinary response. The virus can be defeated and contained if countries and the international community work closely together and set up efficient surveillance and disease control programmes. Virus outbreaks in animals need to be detected at a very early stage; infected poultry has to be slaughtered, and animals at risk have to be vaccinated. Reducing avian influenza in animals contributes directly to protecting people’s health.

Developed countries have all the means and tools to immediately respond to an avian influenza outbreak.

FAO is more concerned about the epicentre of the disease in Southeast Asia, where the virus has become endemic and where some countries are facing heavy virus infection. Furthermore, the potential spread of the virus to African countries could be a disaster because of their relatively weak veterinary and human health infrastructures.

Bird flu should not make us feel powerless. Affected countries in Southeast Asia are proving that the virus can be successfully contained. Thailand has obtained an impressive reduction of outbreaks through massive investment in controlling the disease in poultry, using slaughtering and improved surveillance and active disease search. In Viet Nam, improved on-farm hygiene, farming practices, poultry movement controls, and vaccination campaigns will reduce the frequency of bird flu outbreaks. Several countries such as Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, and Japan have eliminated the disease rapidly after the occurrence of new outbreaks.

To win the battle against bird flu, close contacts between humans, domestic poultry and wildlife have to be limited; chickens, ducks, and other domestic species need to be kept apart; poultry production must be separated from wild birds to the greatest extent possible; and wildlife markets, especially wet markets in Southeast Asia where wild and domestic animals are kept in cages next to each other, need to be strictly monitored.

Veterinarians are at the frontline of the bird flu battle. They have the knowledge to detect the virus and apply immediate countermeasures. Regrettably, most of the public discussion focuses on the human health aspects of bird flu, while the often weak state of veterinary services in many poor countries is being ignored. Affected countries and the international community urgently need to invest more in support of veterinarians and animal health workers, because they represent the first line of defence against the virus.

FAO and the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) have developed a detailed global strategy for the control of avian influenza in animals and have calculated the cost of implementation at about USD 175 million, to support surveillance, diagnosis, and other control measures, including vaccination. We are still facing a serious funding gap and have only received around USD 30 million to date from Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United States.

Countries at risk and the international community need to act rapidly to control avian influenza at source in animals. We cannot afford to wait to battle the disease in pharmacies and hospitals, but need to get rid of the virus in infected farmers’ backyards. Investing in prevention will be cheaper in the longer run than the cure. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By - - and Jacques Diouf
ROME, Jun 1 2005 (IPS)

Almost nine years since heads of state and governments representing 186 countries gathered at the World Food Summit pledged to half hunger by 2015, progress is insufficient, writes Jacques Diouf, Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. In this analysis, Diouf writes that in three of the four developing regions, more people were undernourished in 2000-2002 than in 1995-1997. Only Latin America and the Caribbean achieved a modest reduction in the number of hungry people. While the main responsibility for addressing poverty and food insecurity in the developing countries remains with the countries themselves, their efforts can only be fruitful within a favourable international environment. Indeed, we have seen expressions of solidarity and strong commitment to address the problem of food insecurity and poverty. Unfortunately, there is still a notable gap between commitments and action. The urgent measures that need to be taken at the international level include: creation of a fair and equitable international trading environment and the reduction and cancellation of the debt burden of the poorest developing countries. The recent announcement by the G8 finance ministers to write off more than USD 40 billion of debts of 18 African countries is a step in the right direction. But we still need to enhance international development assistance in conformity with relevant international commitments and to reverse the negative trend of resource allocation to the agriculture sector.

Almost nine years have elapsed since heads of state and governments representing 186 countries gathered at the World Food Summit (WFS) in Rome in November 1996 and solemnly pledged their political will and commitment to eradicate hunger, with an immediate view to reducing the number of undernourished people by half no later than 2015. At the Millennium Summit, in September 2002, more than 155 countries endorsed the objective of the WFS.

Regrettably, we have not progressed enough towards the WFS objective. In three of the four developing regions, more people were undernourished in 2000-2002 than in 1995-1997. Only Latin America and the Caribbean achieved a modest reduction in the number of hungry people.

Our latest estimates indicate that 852 million people worldwide were undernourished in 2000-2002 — 815 million in developing countries, 28 million in the countries in transition, and 9 million in the industrialized countries.

The slow overall progress nevertheless conceals both positive and negative developments. On the positive side, more than thirty developing countries, with a total population of over 2.2 billion people, have reduced the prevalence of under-nourishment by 25 percent and have made significant progress towards achieving the WFS target. These countries show that rapid progress is possible and thereby give us reason for hope.

Also on the positive side, even if we exclude China and India, which contributed significantly to the overall progress made during the 1990s, the rest of the developing countries together saw a stabilization in the number of undernourished people during the second half of the last decade. At the same time, the proportion of undernourished people in the population of these countries declined from 20 percent to 18 percent.

The change in trends in Sub-Saharan Africa was particularly encouraging. Indeed, during the second half of the decade, the rate of increase in the number of undernourished people in the region slowed from 5 million per year to 1 million per year, and the proportion of undernourished fell from 36 to 33 percent.

However, while the positive developments give us some reason for optimism, a large number of countries have seen no progress and often a worsening of hunger since the WFS base period. While the successful countries show that we can do better in our fight against hunger, the situation of the latter countries –along with the inadequate overall progress – underline that we must do better in the fight against hunger.

The persistently high levels of undernourishment worldwide not only constitute a morally intolerable situation; they also impose heavy costs. Hunger and undernutrition diminish the ability of human beings to learn, develop their abilities, and work. Many risk remaining in a poverty trap. The latest FAO report about world food insecurity underlines that undernourishment and deficiencies in essential vitamins and minerals cost more than 5 million children their lives every year; and that every child affected by chronic hunger stands to lose 5-10 percent in lifetime earnings.

So far, overall progress in reducing chronic hunger has fallen behind the pace required to cut the number of hungry people by half by 2015. The situation calls for more focussed and concerted action.

In the thirty countries that showed progress against hunger, agricultural Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent over the 1990s, compared to an average of 2.2 percent for the developing countries as a whole. This underlines the importance, in the developing countries, of giving absolute priority to sustainable agricultural growth and on focussing on raising the productivity of small farmers.

Also, ensuring basic democratic and human rights, good governance, and people’s participation in the political, social, and economic spheres are essential conditions for political stability and for implementing effective strategies to eradicate poverty and food insecurity. Unfortunately, the number of food emergencies caused by conflicts and natural disasters every year has more than doubled over the past two decades. By the end of 2004, there were 35 countries requiring emergency food assistance as a consequence of food supply crises arising from conflicts, droughts, economic crises or from a combination of these factors.

While the main responsibility for addressing poverty and food insecurity in the developing countries remains with the countries themselves, their efforts can only be fruitful within a favourable international environment. Indeed, we have seen expressions of solidarity and strong commitment to address the problem of food insecurity and poverty. Unfortunately, there is still a notable gap between commitments and action.

The urgent measures that need to be taken at the international level include: creation of a fair and equitable international trading environment and the reduction and cancellation of the debt burden of the poorest developing countries. The recent announcement by the G8 finance ministers to write off more than USD 40 billion of the debt of 18 African countries, in a move led by British prime minister Tony Blair, is a step in the right direction.

But we still need to enhance international development assistance in conformity with relevant international commitments and to reverse the negative trend of resource allocation to the agriculture sector, to ensure in particular adequate investment in water control and rural infrastructure. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By - - and Jacques Diouf
ROME, Oct 1 2004 (IPS)

World Food Day, October 16, presents an occasion to reflect on the nature and extent of hunger in the world today, which affects more than 840 million people, writes Jacques Diouf, Director General of the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO). In this article, Diouf writes that this year FAO has decided to stress the importance of biodiversity for the world food supply, present and future. What this means is that the conservation of the varieties of plants and animals that we have today is fundamental to preserving an array of essential natural processes, from pollenisation by insects to the regeneration of soil with microorganisms. It also means that we must create the conditions for plants and animals to be better able resist blights and disease. The reduction of biodiversity seriously jeopardises world food security. The food supply is growing ever more vulnerable, and opportunities for growth and innovation are growing fewer in agriculture, the capacity of which to adopt to environmental changes is weakening.

World Food Day, October 16, presents an occasion to reflect on the nature and extent of hunger in the world today, which affects more than 840 million people.

This year the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) has decided to stress the importance of biodiversity for the world food supply, present and future.

What this means is that the conservation of the varieties of plants and animals that we have today is fundamental to preserving an array of essential natural processes, from pollenisation by insects to the regeneration of soil with microorganisms. It also means that we must create the conditions for plants and animals to be better able resist blights and disease in order to better insure that all people have access to the foods that they need, always.

Despite the great variety of vegetable and animal species that exist today, fourteen species of mammals and birds supply 90 percent of the animal products people eat, while a mere four species –wheat, rice, corn, and potatoes– provide half of the total vegetable intake.

In addition to conserving the range of existing species, it is very important that we conserve the genetic diversity of each particular species. As we know, modern agriculture encourages farmers to adopt single high-yield strains of plants and animals. However, when biodiversity is compromised, the risk of the erosion of the genetic patrimony increases. In contrast, the use of a wide spectrum of genetic diversity makes it possible to improve plants and animals such that they are able to adapt to changing conditions. In addition, this diversity provides science with the raw materials to produce a range of varieties and crops that are disease-resistant or right for difficult climates.

Given the importance of biodiversity, it is very worrying that it is in danger. The reduction of biodiversity seriously jeopardises world food security. It should be recalled that about three quarters of the genetic diversity of agricultural species have been lost over the last century. Moreover the range of livestock that have made a major contribution to food security and rural development are also rapidly diminishing. From the 6300 known animal species, 1350 are in danger of extinction or are already extinct.

As a consequence, the food supply is turning ever more vulnerable, and opportunities for growth and innovation are becoming fewer in agriculture, the capacity of which to adopt to environmental changes like global warming or the appearance of new blights or diseases is weakening.

For this reason, global efforts to conserve plants and animals in gene banks, zoos, and botanical gardens are of utmost importance. Efforts on various fronts to conserve the biodiversity of the world’s oceans, lakes, and rivers are also crucial as these are threatened by over-fishing and environmental damage. We must also do everything possible to save our forests, which are immensely useful to us but are shrinking at an alarming rate. Forests provide food to both people and animals, energy in the form of wood, and essential oils, rubber, resins, and latex, which contribute to the diversification of local economies.

The preservation of biodiversity itself implies the protection of various kinds of ecosystems, including habitats for insects, microbes, fungi, and other organisms, as well as bees and birds, whose activity is intricately interconnected with plants and the land.

Today we are celebrating the immense wealth of biological diversity and its potential to eradicate hunger from the world. We hope that this World Food Day will provide an optimum occasion to honour all farmers, fishermen, shepherds, and breeders, men and women from around the world, who for the 10,000 years since the advent of agriculture have protected and enriched the great patrimony of genetic resources. We also hope that on this day we will focus on the 840 million people suffering from hunger and recognise that biodiversity is a key ally in our survival. The protection of biodiversity is something we cannot allow ourselves to forget. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By - - and Jacques Diouf
ROME, Jul 1 2003 (IPS)

The silent tragedy of the HIV/AIDS epidemic is ravaging many rural areas of developing countries and jeopardising the human right to food of millions of people, writes Jacques Diouf, Director-General of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Hunger and poverty, aggravated by HIV/AIDS, create a vicious cycle. Where farmers and their families fall sick, they cultivate less land and shift to less labour-intensive and less nutritious crops; agricultural productivity decreases, and food insecurity and malnutrition rise. In this article for IPS, the author writes that while agriculture offers no cure for the HIV/AIDS infected, it can contribute to prevent and mitigate the crisis. Labour-saving technologies such as lighter ploughs and tools that can be used by older children, women, and the elderly and improved seed varieties that require less labour for weeding need to be developed.

The silent tragedy of the HIV/AIDS epidemic is ravaging many rural areas of developing countries and jeopardising the human right to food of millions of people. Around 70 percent of the population of the most affected countries live in rural areas.

At the beginning of the epidemic, HIV/AIDS was predominantly an urban problem, affecting more men than women and those with relatively high incomes. Now the epidemic is rapidly spreading in the rural areas, hitting mostly women and the poor. Currently, around 30 million of the 42 million people living with HIV/AIDS can be found in sub-Saharan Africa.

HIV/AIDS is dramatically changing the social and economic fabric of many rural communities. It poses a heavy burden on millions of people who are infected and their families, both in terms of their capacity to produce and to buy food. FAO estimates that AIDS has already killed around 7 million agricultural workers since 1985 in the hardest-hit countries in Africa and that 16 million more may die before 2020. Some countries could lose up to one quarter of their agricultural labour force by that year. The epidemic depletes the region of its food producers and farmers.

Hunger and poverty, aggravated by HIV/AIDS, create a vicious cycle. Where farmers and their families fall sick, they cultivate less land and shift to less labour-intensive and less nutritious crops; agricultural productivity decreases, and food insecurity and malnutrition rise. In southern Africa, for example, the pandemic has aggravated hunger and chronic undernutrition and reduced resilience in surviving drought.

If parents fall sick or die, the responsibility for growing food often rests with their children and the elderly. Around 12 million African children have lost one or both parents to HIV/AIDS. Many lose their parents before learning how to farm, prepare food, or fend for themselves. Not surprisingly, severe hunger and malnutrition among orphans has already been reported.

Traditional safety nets are collapsing in the worst-affected communities, where families and neighbours become too burdened to help each other with food, loans, a hand in the fields, or care of orphans.

HIV/AIDS is increasing in rural areas also because many people living in the cities and migrant workers return to their home villages when they become sick. At the same time as these former migrant workers stop sending money home, medical bills and funeral expenses increase. As the number of productive family members declines, the number of dependants grows.

On the other hand, where hunger and malnutrition increase, people are often forced to leave their villages and migrate to the cities for work, contributing to the spread of the virus.

In social and economic terms, the HIV/AIDS epidemic hits women hardest, poor rural women in particular. Women generally shoulder the burden of caring for the sick and dying, which diverts their energies from agricultural production, child care, and work that would provide income. The result is household food insecurity and declining nutrition and health. And in some societies, women who become widows lose their access to land and property, which can lead them to engage in commercial sex as their only means of subsistence.

The epidemic is also placing a heavy burden on the elderly, who increasingly have to take care of sick adults and of feeding and educating their grandchildren, orphaned at an early age. In communities where large numbers of adults are dead, agriculture simply cannot continue with “business as usual.”

While agriculture offers no cure for the HIV/AIDS infected, it is in a unique position to mitigate some of the effects of the epidemic. Labour-saving technologies such as lighter ploughs and tools that can be used by older children, women, and the elderly and improved seed varieties that require less labour for weeding need to be developed. Seeds that can be planted at different times of the year will give farmers more flexibility in periods of acute labour shortage. Techniques, or varieties, that cut down the time needed to weed, can reduce women’s labour.

Women also need equal rights to land, credit, and education. Small-scale water-harvesting, irrigation, and drainage systems are needed to make year-round agricultural production more secure. Attention must be paid to improving the nutrition of the HIV/AIDS infected, which can help the body fight the disease. By maintaining body weight, a good diet can support drug treatments and prevent malnutrition. Home gardens as well as poultry production can contribute to better nutrition and income generation at the same time.

Together with the World Health Organisation, FAO has recently published a manual on nutritional care and support for people living with HIV/AIDS. FAO is supporting countries in developing and promoting less labour intensive agricultural techniques, including conservation agriculture. The organisation promotes farmers field schools, where farmers learn about methods to defend their crops as well as AIDS prevention.

The international community has a responsibility to assist governments and rural communities in developing strategies and actions for dealing with the epidemic. HIV/AIDS is a long-term emergency and it will intensify with time. A food security response to the epidemic is imperative. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

By - - and Jacques Diouf
SAO PAULO, Feb 1 2003 (IPS)

Brazil has set itself the goal of eliminating hunger within four years and, in President Lula\’s first week in office, decided to postpone the 700-plus million-dollar purchase of jet fighters to help pay for it, writes Jacques Diouf, director-general of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). In this article for IPS, Diouf writes that Brazil\’s greatest enemies are the poverty and hunger within its borders, not military threats from its neighbours. It is in everyone\’s interest, rich and poor, to eliminate hunger. In the view of the FAO, hunger is as much a cause as an effect of poverty. As long as large numbers of the population are hungry — and thus unable to study or work properly and likely to die young — it is fanciful to assume that it will reach its full potential for economic growth. Getting rid of hunger is not simply a moral obligation but also an investment that is bound to generate very high returns on the relatively modest sums involved. In the global war against hunger, everyone will be a winner. Brazil is now showing the world that if you are really determined to eliminate hunger, it is both possible and not excessively costly.

Brazil, under the presidency of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has got its priorities right. It has set itself the goal of eliminating hunger within four years and, in President Lula’s first week in office, decided to postpone the purchase of jet fighters (700-plus million dollar) to help pay for it.Brazil’s greatest enemies are the poverty and hunger within its borders, not military threats from its neighbours.

Brazil is one of the most unequal countries in the world. The top 20 percent of the population earn 60 percent of the country’s income, while the bottom 20 percent survive on less than 4 percent. In 1999, 44 million Brazilians –more than a quarter of the population– were living in absolute poverty, with a daily income of just over a dollar a day, and recent figures suggest that this number is now over 50 million.

In spite of the fact that Brazil is a major exporter of agricultural products, such as coffee, sugar, and soy beans, a significant portion its population are chronically hungry and malnourished. A large number of the absolute poor spend almost all their earnings on food and still do not have enough to eat, especially if they have debts.

Some economists question whether Brazil can afford to get rid of hunger, pointing to the enormous fiscal difficulties facing the new government. But in electing Lula by such an overwhelming majority, the people of Brazil showed that they share his priorities and are prepared to make the required sacrifices.

In fact, there probably won’t be any need for sacrifices, because it is in everyone’s interest, rich and poor alike, to eliminate hunger. In the view of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), hunger is as much a cause as an effect of poverty. As long as large numbers of the population are hungry –and thus unable to study or work properly and likely to die young– it is fanciful to assume that it will reach its full potential for economic growth. Eliminating hunger is not simply a moral obligation but also an investment that is bound to generate very high returns on the relatively modest sums involved. In the global war against hunger, everyone will be a winner.

In launching its Zero Hunger Project, Brazil has established itself as the leading nation in this war, which was declared at the World Food Summit in Rome in 1996. Though it has got off to a slow start, many other countries may be inspired by Brazil’s example and join forces in the International Alliance Against Hunger, launched at the June 2002 Summit in Rome.

The Zero Hunger Project was built on very sound conceptual foundations. It recognises that low income is the main cause of chronic hunger and therefore provides an income supplement through a debit card system. To stay in the programme, beneficiaries have to show that funds have been spent on basic food items and cooking fuel, and — if they are not indigent — provide proof that their children are in school and that adults have enrolled in a training programme which will improve their employability or livelihood and thus reduce their dependence on future help.

Another innovative feature of the project is that it aims to use the extra demand for food which it creates to stimulate more production by small farmers, among whom there is a high incidence of poverty and hunger. This helps both poor consumers and producers.

International support for the Zero Hunger Project is already strong. Well before the new government took office, a joint team from FAO, the World Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank strongly endorsed the goals and underlying concepts of the project Hans Kohler, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, also lent his support during a visit to Brazil last December.

At the invitation of the President, I visited Brazil in the second week of February to hold first-hand consultations with the new government as to how FAO and the international community can best work together to help Brazil achieve its goal of eradicating hunger within 4 years. But I shall also be anxious to see what the rest of the world can learn from Brazil’s lead and explore how the Brazilian vision can be applied elsewhere.

In a world in which farmers have managed to more than meet the food needs of a global population which has doubled from three to six billion in the last 40 years, it is absurd that anyone should go hungry, yet about 800 million people still do. Brazil is showing the world that if you are really determined to eliminate hunger, it is both possible and not excessively costly. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt: