Memorandum submitted by the UK Food Group
SUMMARY
— This submission focuses not so much
on the World Food Programme, per se, but on the need for improved
cooperation, refocusing of goals and reorganisation of tasks between
UN and other international agencies concerned with the governance
of the global food system, including the Food and Agriculture
Organisation. It also comments on the idea of a "one UN"
approach to securing future food supplies, at a time of not only
a food crisis, but also institutional crises in the agencies.
— It provides an historical overview
through a selected overview of the, still relevant, outcomes of
the 1974 World Food Conference and a review of the current context
that mentions the impacts of increased concentration of economic
power in the food system; trade rules; climate change; food and
health; water and waste; and agrofuels.
— It argues that a new approach to
secure future food supplies is needed, one that is based on local
control of food systems, securing locally-procured and accessible
grain stores and building on the knowledge of the world's main
food providers—small-scale producers—that defends
their production systems, which work with nature. The multilateral
agencies will need to work more effectively together and with
States and meso-level institutions to implement such approaches.
— Finally, this submission proposes
a number of actions that the IDC could take including proposing
a meta-evaluation of the key global food agencies, subsequent
consultation at national and regional levels on the results of
such an evaluation and the formulation in a global meeting of
proposals for an inclusive body, comprising both State and Civil
Society actors, that could provide oversight, coherence and accountability
of the different agencies.
— It also suggests that the IDC may
wish to follow carefully the processes on Aid Effectiveness and
the review of DFID's 2005 agriculture policy that need to consider
institutional coherence and cooperation.
THE UK FOOD
GROUP
The UK Food Group is the principal civil society
network in the UK on global food and farming issues and is the
UK focal point for many European and International networks. It
represents BOND (British Overseas NGOs in Development) on these
issues. Members of the UK Food Group include both large and smaller
NGOs that work on development and environment issues related to
food and farming, as well as farmer-centred NGOs. The UK Food
Group organises the annual World Food Day event on 16 October
in the UK. The secretariat is located in Sustain: the alliance
for better food and farming.
SUBMISSION
1. The UK Food Group welcomes the interest
of the IDC in these vitally important issues at a time of heightened
concern about future food availability, price, quality and control.
In a warming world, securing supplies of sufficient, healthy and
affordable food is a major challenge for all.
2. Some of our members have specific experiences
of work with the World Food Programme (WFP), and Oxfam, for example,
has submitted evidence on these to the IDC. This submission will
complement this and principally focuses on the opportunities in
the UN system and other global food agencies, more widely than
the WFP per se, for changes in normative and programme activities
that could help address future food challenges, as highlighted
among the issues to be covered by this enquiry:
— Cooperation between the WFP and other
UN Agencies, for example the Food and Agriculture Organisation.
— The prospects for a "one UN"
approach in meeting food security needs.
3. It seems clear that the current individual
institutional approaches to addressing global food problems are
not effective—a new approach is needed. Recent critical
evaluations of the five most important food and agricultural agencies
which have a combined annual budget of around $7 billion (FAO,
IFAD, World Food Program, CGIAR, and the World Bank's agricultural
work) are challenging the governance and budgets of each institution.
Major financial and institutional changes may be decided this
year (ETC Group, 2008). The IDC enquiry is timely, in this respect.
4. The conjuncture of current food and energy
price rises (FAO, 2007) are, to some extent, similar to those
experienced in 1972-73 which resulted, inter alia, in the 1974
World Food Conference and subsequent changes in the global governance
of the world's food system to realise goals that sadly were not
realised. A brief overview of the outcomes of this Conference
may help in understanding what is still needed to address the
problem of securing world food supplies. By presenting these points
it may also provide an indication of the systemic problems in
a world food system that has perhaps been subordinated to realising
other goals, such as economic growth facilitated by inequitable
trade systems, with consequent negative impacts on food, farmers
and other food providers and the environment.
1974 WORLD FOOD
CONFERENCE
5. The World Food Conference proposed the
"elimination of hunger" and, recognising the then US
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's pledge that "within
a decade, no child should go hungry to bed" adopted a Universal
Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition which
commences: "Every man, woman and child has the inalienable
right to be free from hunger and malnutrition in order to develop
fully and maintain their physical and mental faculties".
6. It declared that "It is a responsibility
of each State concerned, in accordance with its sovereign judgement
and internal legislation, to remove the obstacles to food production
and to provide proper incentives to agricultural producers . .
." including " . . . the mobilization of the full potential
human resources, both male and female, in the developing countries,
for an integrated rural development and the involvement of small
farmers, fishermen and landless workers in attaining the required
food production and employment targets."
7. The Declaration also proposed that the
"effort to increase food production should be complemented
by every endeavour to prevent wastage of food in all its forms."
8. Further it said: "All States should
strive to the utmost to readjust, where appropriate, their agricultural
policies to give priority to food production, recognizing, in
this connexion, the interrelation between the world food problem
and the international trade."
9. Mindful of the need for sustained production
of food, the Declaration also highlighted the need to conserve
the environment upon which all food production from land and waters
depends. "To assure the proper conservation of natural resources
being utilized, or which might be utilized, for food production,
all countries must collaborate in order to facilitate the preservation
of the environment, including the marine environment. (United
Nations, 1974)
10. The 20 resolutions of the 1974 Conference
included recommendations for the development of the UN's Rome-based
food and agriculture agencies, namely the reconstitution of WFP's
governing body as well as the establishment of the World Food
Council (WFC), the International Fund for Agricultural Development
(IFAD) and the FAO Committee on World Food Security (CFS).
11. This Conference led, in turn, to an
International Undertaking on World Food Security, adopted by Food
and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), and
other proposed international instruments and systems, some of
which, such as the Global Information and Early Warning System
[on food supplies] managed by FAO, are still operational. For
more detail, see the recent book by John Shaw on the history of
world food security since 1945 (Shaw, 2007).
12. The 1996 World Food Summit and the subsequent
reviews in 2002 and 2006 made similar pledges, absorbed into the
first Millennium Development Goal (MDG 1), but this time only
to reduce hunger, not eliminate it, and with lighter or absent
commitments to other necessary pre-conditions identified by the
1974 World Food Conference for a world free from hunger. Hunger
continues, seemingly inexorably, to increase—now at over
850 million people (FAO, 2006).
CURRENT CONTEXT
13. The current context differs in some
substantial respects from that of 1974, not least increased population
and changing demographics. In a recent study, the need for sustainable
management of the global resource base emerged as an issue of
fundamental importance, with constraints on the supply of oil,
water and land demanding particular attention (Chatham House,
2008). To this list of resource constraints we would add the rapid
erosion on-farm of agricultural biodiversity and its component
genetic resources for food and agriculture from which all food
is produced.
14. In addition, we raise five points that
currently have significant impact on the global food system, affecting
price, quality, livelihoods and the environment: a) Increased
concentration of economic power in the food system supported by
intellectual property rights systems and trade rules; b) Climate
change; c) Food and health; d) Water and Waste; e) Conversion
of food production resources to produce agrofuels.
15. Economic and political control of the
food chain has increased dramatically in the past 30 years. A
few companies now dominate any food commodity marketing chain
and food retailing is increasingly concentrated in most countries
(UK Food Group, 2003). In the current decade alone the ten largest
agricultural seed corporations have increased their control over
the global seed market from some 30% in the year 2002 to nearly
60% in 2006 (Mulvany, 2005; ETC group, 2007).
16. This control is to some extent facilitated
by trade rules, especially those of the World Trade Organisation
including its Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and the agreement
on Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs),
among others. Intellectual Property Rights systems have skewed
agricultural research towards patentable processes and the restricted
use of protected agricultural genetic resources (Tansey and Rajotte,
2008). Furthermore, bilateral and regional trade agreements, such
as Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), can discriminate against
the interests of local food producers, national food systems and
environmental integrity (Bertow and Schultheis, 2007).
17. Climate change is now accepted as a
reality and all necessary steps to mitigate and adapt to it must
be undertaken in order to limit the impact of global warming and,
in this context, to safeguard food production. More than three
quarters of the Earth's land surface has been reshaped by human
activity. Agriculture, in the widest sense, is the major user
of terrestrial ecosystems and, through the use of sustainable
agricultural practices, could enhance ecosystem functions. However,
especially through the production and use of artificial nitrogenous
fertilisers, agriculture is identified as a major contributor
of Green House Gases (GHGs) and opportunities to modify the agricultural
environment to stabilise, and not worsen, the global climate need
to be maximised (IPPC, 2007).
18. The health dimensions of the food system
are being brought into sharp focus. Not only is there increasing
hunger, there is also a pandemic of type II diabetes in many developing
countries resulting from rapidly increasing over consumption of
rich diets—the so-called `nutrition transition'. Some estimates
put the number of obese people at twice that of the chronically
malnourished. It is not a matter of quantity, per se, but also
of quality of food that is required for a healthy food system.
There is a need to break down the barriers in thinking between
nutrition and environment, safety and plentiful supply, quantity
and quality . . . about a diet and food system which meets all
these goals and does not mine resources to give plentiful supply
today to the detriment of tomorrow (Lang, 2007).
19. The negative impacts of inequitable
controls over water supplies are exacerbated by the trend towards
privatisation and resultant skewing of allocation away from those
most in need. Much water is incorporated in food, especially fruit
and vegetables, that is increasingly being thrown away, with estimates
in the UK of some 30% wastage (Arce, 2008).
20. The diversion of productive land and
food crops to the production of agrofuels, especially for transport,
is increasing and is given incentives in some countries, including
the European Union, through mandatory "biofuel targets",
leading to food price pressures.
A NEW APPROACH
TO SECURE
FUTURE FOOD
SUPPLIES
21. Many of the recommendations of the 1974
World Food Conference are still valid, especially in respect of
a) the inalienable right to be free from hunger; b) agricultural
policies to give priority to food production with the proper conservation
of natural resources being utilized, or which might be utilized,
for food production; c) the removal of the obstacles to food production
and the provision of proper incentives to agricultural producers;
d) the involvement of small farmers, fishermen and landless workers
in attaining the required food production and employment targets;
and e) the prevention of wastage of food in all its forms. However
the institutional architecture proposed and subsequent global
governance systems implemented were inadequate to realise these
goals.
22. A new approach to securing future food
supplies is needed, supported by radically changed national, regional
and international norms, rules, policies, practices and governance
structures.
23. This new approach to solving the food
crisis can be found from the deliberations of the world's main
food providers—small-scale food producers—who argue
that the necessary knowledge and skills are available to produce
food in sufficient quantities to feed everyone and especially
the hungry but it is institutional, policy and regulatory frameworks
that discriminate against such solutions. For example, African
smallholder farmers' organisations often assert that Africa could
feed itself if national and global policies changed to support
them rather than be dictated by export-led growth policies fuelled
by perverse subsidies (Nærstad, 2007; ROPPA, 2006).
24. This proposition of small-scale farmers,
pastoralists, fisherfolk, indigenous peoples and others is for
a radically different food system based on food sovereignty. It
is becoming more widely accepted, including by some States, eg
Bolivia (WFP, 2008). Food sovereignty includes the legal Right
to Food and to produce food and increases democracy in localised
food systems, which maximise the efficiency of resource use and
minimise waste. Food Sovereignty addresses all the key issues
raised by the 1974 World Food Conference. It focuses on food for
people; values food providers; localises food systems; puts control
locally including over land, water and genetic resources; builds
local knowledge and skills; and works with nature. Food sovereignty
is substantially different from policies for achieving world "food
security", which can be exclusionary and are silent on where
the food comes from, who produces it, or how and under what conditions
it has been grown (Windfuhr and Jonsén, 2005; Nyéléni
2007, 2007a, 2007b).
25. Such approaches can also address problems
related to climate change. The adaptive capacity and mitigation
impacts of multi-functional, biodiverse, small-scale food production
systems are highlighted by small-scale farmers themselves. (Via
Campesina, 2007).
26. The importance of science and technology
for developing the multifunctionality of agriculture in improving
the environment and sustaining long-term food production is recognised
in a recent international assessment (IAASTD, 2008). A redirection
of research and development towards ecologically-based biodiverse
agriculture could be prioritised, but global intellectual property
rules undermine this (Tansey and Rajotte, 2008).
27. The need to enhance diversity and maximise
ecosystem functions in farmer-led food production systems is also
recognised by UN bodies including FAO and the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) (Shand, 1997; Mulvany and Arce, 2008). At a recent
meeting, FAO called for such a "biological intensification"
of agriculture rather one that is "chemically-dependent".
28. Notwithstanding the above, there is
still the need for publicly-controlled strategic national and
regional stores of locally-sourced basic grains that can be drawn
upon in emergency when local food stores are insufficient, inaccessible
or lost. In addition to providing strategic food supplies in emergencies,
they can act as a buffer against speculative attempts to control
the market for short-term gains. This important service should
not be left to a "free" market nor be privatised. In
this regard, the WFP, regulated by an effective, revised, FAO-based
Food Aid Convention, could have an important role (IFPRI, 2007).
IMPLICATIONS FOR
THE UN'S
ROME-BASED
FOOD AGENCIES—RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE
IDC
29. There is clearly a need for radical
change in the global governance of the food system towards one
that is environmentally benign and socially just and recognises
the value of local food providers, enhancing their links with
consumers—a system that improves local control over what,
and how, food is produced, stored and provided, realising the
Right to Food. The institutional failures that prevented the implementation
of the 1974 World Food Conference's recommendations cannot be
repeated.
30. To achieve the necessary changes, the
multilateral agencies, while retaining their independent processes,
functions and mandates, will need to work together more effectively
and in a coordinated fashion with States, that have legal powers
and obligations, including extra-territoriall obligations (eg
to realise the Right to Food), and meso-level institutions, that
are key to effective actions on the ground, to implement such
approaches that will ensure sufficient food supplies in the short
and long-term.
31. The Rome-based UN agencies—FAO,
WFP and IFAD—could provide this function but only if there
were a reorganisation of their tasks, a strengthening of their
normative and monitoring capacities and with synergistic support
from other agencies such as the World Bank and the CGIAR. One
way forward could be the creation of a new "oversight body"
that includes State and Civil Society actors, including the social
organisations of food providers and consumers. Such a body should
draw on best practices for meaningful and decisive inclusion of
Civil Society in its deliberations.
32. The IDC might wish to consider recommending
that Governments and the Secretariats of the food agencies undertake
a relatively rapid "meta-evaluation" of all of the global
food and agricultural agencies together, building on their recent
individual evaluations and assessing their effectiveness in addressing
hunger and their long-term impact on policies for a fairer and
more equitable, effective, healthier and environmentally benign
global food system.
33. The results of this meta-evaluation
would need to be discussed widely in regional consultations and
the results brought together in global meeting. The process for
this consultation could be mandated to, for example, the FAO that
has the regional structures within which this could be achieved.
34. One possible outcome of the global meeting
might be the creation of an "oversight body" for the
UN and other food agencies and those with policies and programmes
that impact on the food system, with powers to implement changes.
This could oversee: a) the reorganisation of departments between
agencies, improving their capacity to support sustainable small-scale
production, local storage and provision; b) an increase in their
accountability; c) a reduction in duplication; and d) coherent
governance to achieve the elimination of hunger and a secure,
healthy, environmentally benign and socially just global food
system, through the normative functions of each agency. The creation
of such an "oversight body", with appropriate powers,
might prove the most effective form for a "one UN" approach.
It would not replace existing agencies but would provide a mechanism
for improving performance.
35. The IDC may also want to provide input
to and study the results of the 3rd High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness,
to be held in Accra in September 2008, at which there will be
debates about the quality of aid to agriculture. In this regard,
the IDC may wish to learn from the civil society campaign for
More and Better aid to agriculture that has developed principles
for good agricultural aid. To support these principles and practices,
the campaign argues that aid to agriculture should:
— facilitate provision of sufficient,
safe, nutritious food;
— put emphasis on income strategies,
peoples' livelihoods, local production systems, local markets,
fair trade, fair and good distribution systems, protection of
markets where needed to enhance national and local food security,
and avoid the use of food aid where it will threatened the market
for local products;
— support realization of land reform,
water rights and unrestricted access to genetic resources for
food and agriculture and wider agricultural biodiversity for smallholder
farmers; exclusive fishing zones for artisanal fisherfolk; grazing
rights for pastoralists; improved common property resource management;
and
— support sustainable, farmer-led,
smallholder / family / community agricultural systems (e.g. agroecology,
sustainable agriculture, organic agriculture).
36. Finally, in this context, the IDC may
wish to contribute to and monitor the review of DFID's 2005 agriculture
policy, ensuring that the outcome of this review enhances DFID's
capacity to address the current food crisis, to support locally-controlled
food provision as described above and address the governance and
other issues the IDC has highlighted in this enquiry.
REFERENCES
Arce, M (2008) Water and Power: can we achieve global
water equity? Food Ethics Council Bulletin, Volume 3 Issue 1,
Spring 2008. Brighton.
Bertow, K, Schultheis A (2007) Impact of EU's agricultural
trade policy on smallholders in Africa. Germanwatch e.V., Berlin.
Available at www.germanwatch.org/handel/euaf07.pdf
Chatham House (2008) UK Food Supply—Storm Clouds
on the Horizon. Summary of preliminary findings from Chatham House
research project, "UK Food Supply in the 21st Century: The
New Dynamic". January 2008. London. Available at www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/view/-/id/593/
ETC Group (2007) The World's Top 10 Seed Companies
in 2006. Available at www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/pdf_file/615
ETC Group (2008) Food's Failed Estates. Communiqué.
Ottawa. Available at www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=673
FAO (2006) The State of Food insecurity. FAO, Rome.
Available at www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0750e/a0750e00.htm
FAO (2007) High Prices And Volatility In Agricultural
Commodities. Food Outlook Special Report November 2007. FAO, Rome.
Available at www.fao.org/docrep/010/ah876e/ah876e13.htm#23
IAASTD (2008) Reports of the International Assessment
of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development,
UN World Bank. Available at www.agassessment.org
IFPRI (2007) Renegotiating the Food Aid Convention:
Background, Context, and Issues. International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI) Discussion Paper 690. Washington. Available
at www.ifpri.org/PUBS/dp/ifpridp00690.pdf
IPPC (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Available at www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
Lang, T (2007) Food Security or Food democracy. Pesticide
News. November 2007. Available at www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn78p12-16.pdf
More and Better (2005) Principles of good aid to
agriculture. Available at www.moreandbetter.org/MaB%20documents/Principles.html
Mulvany, P M (2005) Corporate Control Over Seeds:
Limiting Access and Farmers' Rights IDS Bulletin Vol 36 No2:68-73.
Available at www.agribusinessaccountability.org/pdfs/327%20_Corporate-Control-over-Seeds.pdf
Mulvany, P M, Arce, M (2008) Food sovereignty: a
farmer-led policy framework. Paper for Farmer First Revisited,
IDS, Sussex, UK. Available at www.future-agricultures.org/farmerfirst/files/T3b_Arce_Mulvany.pdf
Nrstad, A (Ed.) (2007). Africa can feed itself.
Oslo, Norway. Agropub. Available at www.agropub.no/asset/2636/1/2636—1.pdf
Nyéléni 2007 (2007a) Declaration of
the Forum for Food Sovereignty. Available at www.nyeleni2007.org/IMG/pdf/DeclNyeleni-en.pdf
Nyéléni 2007 (2007b) Synthesis Report
of Nyéléni 2007: Forum for Food Sovereignty. Available
at www.nyeleni2007.org/IMG/pdf/31Mar2007NyeleniSynthesisReport-en.pdf
ROPPA (2006) Niamey Call for West African food sovereignty.
ROPPA (Network of Farmers' and Agricultural Producers' Organisations
of West Africa), Dakar, Senegal. Available at www.roppa.info/spip.php?article93
Shand, H (1997) Human Nature: Agricultural Biodiversity
and Farm-based Food Security. RAFI, Ottawa, Canada. Available
at www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/538/01/other_human.pdf
Shaw, D J (2007) World Food Security: A History since
1945. Palgrave Macmillan.
Tansey, G, Rajotte, T (2008) The future control of
food. A guide to international negotiations and rules on intellectual
property, biodiversity and food security. Earthscan/IDRC. Available
at www.idrc.ca/en/ev-118094-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
UK Food Group (2003) Food Inc. corporate concentration
from farm to consumer. UKFG, London. Available at www.ukfg.org.uk/docs/UKFG-Foodinc-Nov03.pdf
United Nations (1974) Report of the World Food Conference,
5—16 November 1974, Rome. Available at www.eclac.org/cumbres/3/43/FAORLC-41001WorldFoodConference.doc
Via Campesina (2007) Small Scale Farmers are Cooling
Down the Earth. Available at www.viacampesina.org/main_en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=457&Itemid=37
Windfuhr, M, Jonsén, J (2005) Food sovereignty:
towards democracy in localised food systems. ITDG Publishing,
Rugby. Available at www.practicalaction.org/docs/advocacy/foodsovereignty_fian.pdf
WFP (2008) Bolivia Country Programme 2008-12. World
Food Programme, Rome. Available at www.wfp.org/operations/current_operations/project_docs/105960.pdf
|
