Divisions on world hunger wide as ever: World Agricultural Forum fails to heal rifts between agribusiness, agencies and developing nations

30 May, 2001

by Nikki Tait

Anarchists and environmentalists were missing from the World Agricultural Forum in St Louis in the US state of Missouri this week. But even without organised protests at the meeting - attended by representatives of agribusinesses, multilateral agencies and developing countries - there was little harmony.

While US and European companies hawked technology as the solution to undernourishment in developing countries, international agencies and national representatives saw a host of more immediate and mundane problems. These included inadequate farm size, lack of investment, trade distortions and subsidies in the industrialised countries.

As the United Nation's Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) points out, recent international efforts to reduce the numbers of underfed people, primarily in developing nations, are falling short of objectives.

This is not for want of agricultural production. "If all food produced in the world were to be divided equally among its inhabitants, every man, woman and child would consume 2,760 calories each day," says Jacques Diouf, the FAO's director-general.

Yet even the relatively modest objective, adopted five years ago, of halving the number of undernourished people by 2015 - to about 400m - will be missed if current trends persist. At present, about 8m people a year are moving from the "hungry" category to that of adequately fed, according to Mr Diouf. This is well short of the 20m needed to keep up with population growth.

Then there is the prospect of a sharply rising global population in the decades ahead. Projections vary, but the United Nations thinks the world population could be 9bn-plus by 2050, compared with 6bn at 2000.

That leaves some agricultural economists calculating that demand for cereals could rise by as much as 40 per cent by 2020, and for meat, by 60 per cent. Although land under cultivation will probably also rise, it is unlikely to match the population growth rate.

Given recent experience, everyone is wary of drawing catastrophic Malthusian conclusions. Over the past two decades, rising agricultural yields have meant that food production growth has more than matched population trends, with food prices falling significantly.

With the prospect of another round of world trade talks now back on the horizon after the Seattle debacle, developing countries are pointing vigorously to the distorting implications of food support payments in industrialised countries.

They point out that agricultural subsidies in the developed nations are about the same as the total GDP of sub-Saharan Africa.

"In 1999 alone, the total support to agriculture by OECD (industrialised) countries was estimated at Dollars 361.5bn, or 1.4 per cent of their total GDP. Certainly, this support is in accord with WTO (World Trade Organisation) agreements, but there is little doubt that it gives a competitive edge which poorer countries cannot match," said Mr Diouf.

At the same time, there is the question of the extent to which developing countries themselves - and multilateral agencies - have been missing opportunities for structural change or infrastructure investment in agriculture. Pointing to the tens of millions of small-scale farmers in Indonesia, for example, Bungaran Saragih, the country's agriculture minister, acknowledged that the result was inadequate capital to buy farm "inputs" (such as fertiliser) and reduced bargaining power.

Even representatives of the World Bank admit the organisation's lending to farm projects has dwindled to an all-time low (as a percentage of the total budget), and that there is a need to foster structural change as part of the loan programme.

"We would like to shift our strategy towards (encouraging) efficiency," said a senior adviser. "Small is not always beautiful in a globalised agricultural market."

Last, there is the thorny issue of technology. St Louis is home to Monsanto, perhaps the company most closely associated with agricultural biotechnology, and representatives of other large agribusiness companies - such as Cargill, Bunge, Dow Agrosciences - were out in force. For the most part, issues such as genetic engineering were wrapped together with less controversial topics such as yield management systems.

"Technology will be absolutely essential, but the answer does not lie with one technology, rather a technology toolbox," said Charles Fischer, president of DowAgrosciences, the chemical company's agribusiness arm.

Even so, the responses from some developing countries remainedcautious. The earlier "green revolution" - which dramatically increased rice productivity - "has given rise in Asia to the idea that technology is a panacea", noted another Indonesian representative. But, he added: "Since the 1990s, we have begun to suffer setbacks - soil degredation, diseases."

"We need a very wide range of technologies - and ones that are appropriate in one region may not be appropriate in another," suggested Gerard Viatte, director for food, agriculture and fisheries at the Paris-based OECD. A diplomatic thought - but one which seems unlikely to resolve the debate.