Foreword - Food and Agriculture Organization · 2017. 11. 27. · Foreword O ne of humanity’s...

Foreword

One of humanity’s greatest achievements in the twentieth century has been toproduce enough food to meet the needs of a global population that has grown

at unprecedented rates – doubling from some 3 billion to over 6 billion in the past40 years alone. This very success, however, has bred unwarranted complacency. Ithas meant that the spotlight of international attention has shifted away from foodissues, except during fleeting moments of crisis – for instance when, while the worldcelebrated the new Millennium, 13 million people were brought to the brink offamine in the Horn of Africa and “mad cow” and foot-and-mouth diseases struck thelivestock industry of Europe.

FAO’s mandate requires that it take rapid action to respond to such crises, andit does so. But the Organization has a more fundamental mission in assuring thesafety and long-term adequacy of world food supplies and in making sure that allhumans have enough to eat every day of their lives. The crises have served toremind us of the extreme fragility of the global food situation on which humanity’ssurvival depends. They should also make us reflect on the perennial factors thatmake so many food-insecure people vulnerable to starvation when shocks – whetherdroughts, floods or conflicts – strike.

World food security ultimately depends on how successful hundreds of millions offarmers are in harnessing nature, in producing food of good quality in amountssurplus to their own needs, and in having this conveyed through a complex web ofmarket connections and distribution channels to consumers, rich and poor. Givenits extraordinary complexity, one can only marvel at how well the global foodsystem operates. But it also faces enormous challenges, such as those posed byincreasing doubts about the sustainability and safety of the technologies on whichagricultural growth over the past century has been based, by the competing demandsfor scarce freshwater resources and land, by the potential impact of climate changeon land use and on the frequency of catastrophic meteorological events, and by theheightened risk of an increasingly rapid spread of crop and livestock pests anddiseases that comes with the globalization of trade.

The first chapter in this volume reminds of us of the extent of some of these Newchallenges to the achievement of the World Food Summit goals. It touches brieflyon what FAO, together with its members and partners, has been doing to addressthese challenges in the five years following the 1996 World Food Summit. Someprogress has been made, but the sheer breadth of the agenda is daunting. Thereremains a yawning gap between the enormity of the threats that these challengespose to long-term world food security, if they are not addressed in a timely manner,and the limited size of the effort now being made to confront them. One only needsto compare the costs of controlling large-scale outbreaks of livestock diseases withthose of containing the threats at source to appreciate the benefits of up-frontinvestments in prevention. Yet, to our dismay, there is little sign of any seriouscommitment on the part of our members to invest in the adequate provision of the

global public goods that are required to safeguard world food security and safetyin the longer term.

Nowhere has the gap between intent and determined action been more visiblethan in the failure of most of our member countries – developed and developing –to fulfil their solemn commitment, made at the World Food Summit in 1996, to takethe measures required to halve the number of undernourished people by 2015. Allthe evidence indicates that there are almost as many hungry people in the worldnow as there were five years ago and that the resources set aside to address hungerhave been falling rather than rising.

In FAO, we remain absolutely convinced that the Summit target is still attainable andaffordable. We believe that it is imperative to match the remarkable achievement ofproducing adequate global food supplies with the assurance that no person will everagain be hungry. We recognize that there are technical and distributional dimensionsto the challenge, but we know these can readily be resolved provided that there is thepolitical will to achieve the objective and that this is reflected in an adequate mobilizationof resources. It is on these two themes, therefore, that the second and third chaptersin the volume – Fostering the political will to fight hunger and Mobilizing resourcesfor agriculture in support of food security – focus.

We have seen during recent months a growing awakening to the dangers to globalpeace and stability posed by widening inequalities between and within nations in anincreasingly interconnected world. Chronic hunger is the most poignant manifestationof extreme poverty and one that breeds either resignation or desperation. And so it ishardly surprising that so many of the conflicts that emerged to undermine world stabilityin the last decade of the twentieth century and which continue to reverberate in thenew Millennium had their origins in regions and countries facing chronic food shortages.

The seriousness with which governments of both developing and developed countrieshave approached the International Conference on Financing for Development providesevidence of the growing acceptance that it is in everybody’s interest – rich and pooralike – to move quickly towards a more just and equitable world through the timelyachievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Together with the InternationalFund for Agricultural Development and the World Food Programme, FAO has soughtat Monterrey to make the case for a much higher level of investment in foodsecurity and rural development, arguing that reducing hunger is not merely a moralimperative but that investing in cutting the incidence of hunger also makes goodeconomic sense. We have sought to demonstrate that the fast rates of economicgrowth to which most developing nations aspire are simply unattainable as long aslarge numbers of their people are undernourished and deprived of the opportunityto learn and to work to their full potential.

Let me leave readers with these few thoughts.First, that there is a moral obligation on each of us to see that all our fellow

humans enjoy their right to adequate food.Second, that hunger is as much a cause as an effect of poverty.Third, that getting rid of hunger is, therefore, an essential first step in the quest

for poverty alleviation and sustainable economic growth.Fourth, that widespread hunger can only breed hopelessness, desperation, conflict

which knows no boundaries: it is in everyone’s self-interest to banish hunger fromthe world.

iv

Finally, that it lies well within our technical and financial capacity to see thateveryone is adequately fed: the persistence of hunger on a vast scale, therefore,represents a glaring failure of our increasingly globalized society and institutionsto address the most basic of human needs that must – and can – be urgentlyremedied.

Jacques DioufFAO Director-General

v

Foreword iiiAcknowledgements ixAcronyms xi

New challenges to the achievementof the World Food Summit goals

Introduction 1

Conflicts and natural disasters 4Human-induced emergencies 5Natural disasters 6Transboundary pests and diseases 9HIV/AIDS 10

Freshwater resources 11

The evolution of technology 13

Globalization, public goods and trade 17

Food safety 21

The right to food 23

Concluding observations 24

Fostering the political will to fight hunger

Introduction 29

World Food Summit commitments 29

The global political environment 31

Contents

1

2

Actions by FAO to fortify political commitment,and evidence of progress 37Major actions 38Progress 42

Towards translating commitments into action 45

Mobilizing resources for agriculture in support of food security

Introduction 57

Why focus on resources for food security and agriculturein developing countries? 60

Trends in investment for agriculture in developing countries 64The nature of the problem and resource needs 64Agricultural investment 67Agricultural investment and productivity 69

Mobilizing public resources for agricultural development 70Government expenditures on agriculture 70External financial resources 75

Resource needs to meet the World Food Summit goal 83Investments for agricultural and rural development 83Investments for transitional assistance to the food-insecure 85

Conclusions 87

Annex Tables 91

3

viii

Acknowledgements

These papers are the result of a collaborative effort that has involved many people insideand outside the Organization. Preparation of the papers has been overseen by Mr HenriCarsalade (Assistant Director-General, Technical Cooperation Department), Mr Hartwig

de Haen (Assistant Director-General, Economic and Social Department) and Ms KayKillingsworth (Assistant Director-General/Special Adviser on World Food Summit Follow-up).The principal author of the first two chapters was Mr Andrew MacMillan, while Mr Kostas

Stamoulis and Ms Aysen Tanyeri-Abur took the lead in preparing the third chapter. Theseauthors benefited from the ideas, comments and suggestions of many colleagues throughoutthe Organization.

All three chapters were originally presented as meeting documents for the 27th sessionof the Committee on World Food Security, which took place in Rome at the end of May2001. Many useful and pertinent suggestions were made by delegates at that meeting and

these, as well as subsequent relevant events, have been taken into account in subsequentrevisions.

The chapter entitled Mobilizing resources for agriculture in support of food security also

served as the starting point for the deliberation of the High-Level Panel on ResourceMobilization, convened by the Director-General in June 2001. In finalizing the text, fullconsideration was also given to the observations of this Panel, which brought together

senior representatives of all major international financing institutions, the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP) and the World Food Programme (WFP) under thechairmanship of Mr John Westley, Vice-President of the International Fund for Agricultural

Development (IFAD). External reviewers of the chapter included Mr Peter Matlon andMs Anne Thomson of UNDP, Mr Gershon Feder of the World Bank and Professor MarcelMazoyer, Professor of the National Institute of Agronomy, Paris-Grignon.

The chapter entitled Fostering the political will to fight hunger benefited from external

reviews by Mr David Beckmann, President, Bread for the World; Mr RicardoDiez-Hochleitner, Honorary President, Club of Rome; His Excellency Harri Holkeri, Presidentof the fifty-fifth session of the United Nations General Assembly (the Millennium Assembly)

and Mr Clive Robinson, Christian Aid, Ethiopia.While grateful for the contributions received from so many sources, the FAO Secretariat

bears responsibility for the contents of this volume.

Acronyms

ACC Adminstrative Committee on Coordination

AfDB African Development Bank

AsDB Asian Development Bank

BNF biological nitrogen fixation

BSE bovine spongiform encephalopathy (“mad cow” disease)

CCA Common Country Assessment

CDF Comprehensive Development Framework

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

CEB Chief Executive Board for Coordination (of the United Nations)

CFS Committee on World Food Security

CGRFA Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

COAG Committee on Agriculture (FAO)

COFO Committee on Forestry (FAO)

CSD Committee on Sustainable Development

CSO civil society organization

DAC Development Assistance Committee (of the OECD)

DES dietary energy supply

DfID Department for International Development

EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

ECOSOC Economic and Social Council (of the United Nations)

EMOP Emergency Operations

EMPRES Emergency Prevention System for Transboundary Animal and PlantPests and Diseases

ET emmisions trading

EU European Union

FDI foreign direct investment

FIVIMS Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping Systems

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

GDP gross domestic product

GIEWS Global Information and Early Warning System on Food and Agriculture

GMO genetically modified organism

GNP gross national product

HIPC heavily indebted poor country

HIV/AIDS human immunodeficiency virus / acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank)

IDA International Development Association

IDB Inter-American Development Bank

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

IFI international financing institution

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute

IMF International Monetary Fund

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IPM integrated pest management

IPPC International Plant Protection Convention

IPU International Parliamentary Union

JI Joint Implementation

LDCs least developed countries

LIFDCs low-income food-deficit countries

LMO living modified organism

LULUCF land use, land-use change and forestry

NGO non-governmental organization

ODA official development assistance

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OIE International Office of Epizootics

PAIA Priority Area for Interdisciplinary Action

PPP purchasing power parity

PRRS porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome

PRSPs Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers

SPFS Special Programme for Food Security

SPS Agreement Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and PhytosanitaryMeasures

xii

TNC transnational corporation

TRIPS Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights

UN United Nations

UNCDD Convention to Combat Desertification and Drought

UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNLDC III Third United Nations Conference on the LDCs

UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNGA United Nations General Assembly

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

WFP World Food Programme

WHO World Health Organization

WTO World Trade Organization

xiii

New challenges to theachievement of the WorldFood Summit goals

Introduction

1.1

Leaders gathered at the World Food Summit in 1996 affirmed their “commonand national commitment to achieving food security for all” and agreed towork towards the achievement of the intermediate goal of “reducing thenumber of undernourished people to half their present level no later than2015”. These commitments provide what The Strategic Framework for FAO:2000-20151 describes as a “new point of reference” for the Organization, andwill constitute the central theme of the World Food Summit: five years later.1.2

The Rome Declaration on World Food Security2 placed food security in abroad context. It acknowledged the “multifaceted character of food security”,emphasizing the linkages with poverty eradication, peace, sustainable use ofnatural resources, fair trade and the prevention of natural disasters andhuman-induced emergencies. It defined food security as the “physical andeconomic access by all, at all times, to sufficient, nutritionally adequate andsafe food”. The World Food Summit Plan of Action, structured around theseven commitments of the Rome Declaration (Box 1.1, p. 2), put forward 27objectives and 182 proposed actions, covering almost every area of relevancefor global, regional, national, household and individual food security.1.3

The challenges facing agriculture in ensuring global food security and thesustainable management of natural resources are manifold and immenselycomplex. Agriculture is intimately tied to nature and hence subject to itsvagaries. One year, nature may reward the world with bountiful harvestswhen rainfall patterns neatly match the needs of crops; the next year,farmers may be devastated by drought, floods or hurricanes, or by plaguesof locusts or the spread of plant pests and animal diseases that know nofrontiers. But agriculture also entails the harnessing of nature to provide forhuman needs – needs that have grown over the past century at a phenomenal

1

1 FAO. 1999. The Strategic Framework for FAO: 2000-2015. Rome.2 FAO. 1997. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. Rome.

2 THE WORLD FOOD SUMMIT: FIVE YEARS LATER

BOX 1.1

The seven commitments of the World Food Summit

Commitment One

We will ensure an enabling political, social and economic environment designed to create the best conditions

for the eradication of poverty and for durable peace, based on full and equal participation of women and men,

which is most conducive to achieving sustainable food security for all.

Commitment Two

We will implement policies aimed at eradicating poverty and inequality and improving physical and economic

access by all, at all times, to sufficient, nutritionally adequate and safe food and its effective utilization.

Commitment Three

We will pursue participatory and sustainable food, agriculture, fisheries, forestry and rural development poli-

cies and practices in high and low potential areas, which are essential to adequate and reliable food supplies

at the household, national, regional and global levels, and combat pests, drought and desertification, consid-

ering the multifunctional character of agriculture.

Commitment Four

We will strive to ensure that food, agricultural trade and overall trade policies are conducive to fostering food

security for all through a fair and market-oriented world trade system.

Commitment Five

We will endeavour to prevent and be prepared for natural disasters and human-induced emergencies and to

meet transitory and emergency food requirements in ways that encourage recovery, rehabilitation, develop-

ment and a capacity to satisfy future needs.

Commitment Six

We will promote optimal allocation and use of public and private investments to foster human resources, sus-

tainable food, agriculture, fisheries and forestry systems, and rural development, in high and low potential areas.

Commitment Seven

We will implement, monitor and follow up this Plan of Action at all levels in cooperation with the inter-

national community.

rate in response to unprecedented rates of population growth and increasesin people’s purchasing power as well as consumption. That the world’sfarmers and fishermen are able to meet aggregate global food needs isincreasingly due to scientific advances that have revolutionized productionmethods and allowed for a rapid growth in the productivity of land and waterresources.

3 NEW CHALLENGES TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE WORLD FOOD SUMMIT GOALS

1.4

Agriculture can contribute positively to the environment and the sustainableuse of natural resources. The methods by which nature is harnessed throughagriculture, however, have become a source of intense controversy, and thesustainability and safety of the technologies on which the intensification offarming is based are being increasingly questioned. Concerns are arisingabout the possible negative effects of intensive farming on ecosystems andbiodiversity, the risks to human health and the environment associated withthe overuse and misuse of pesticides and fertilizers, the degradation of landas a result of salinization, nutrient depletion and declines in soil organicmatter, the narrowing of the genetic base for farm crops and livestock, andthe risks to consumers in the case of foods produced under highly intensivesystems. Debate is also intensifying over the interactions between agricultureand the processes of climate change, which are not only significantly affectedby how land is used but are also expected to have increasingly disruptiveimpacts on agriculture.1.5

International trade is playing a rapidly growing role in the maintenance ofworld food security, enabling commodities to be grown where local conditionsoffer comparative advantages. But the increasing movement of agriculturalproducts around the world also generates new hazards, accelerating thespread of plant pests and animal diseases, including food-borne diseases thataffect humans. While the globalization of agriculture and the liberalizationof trade in farm products are widely considered to generate aggregatewelfare gains, the way in which these benefits are distributed betweenfarmers and consumers, poor countries and rich countries, has become thefocus of much debate.1.6

In the five years since the World Food Summit, many such issues haveattained a new visibility. They have brought with them “the potential forconflict and social upheaval, they have brought to the fore numerous ethicalissues that are central to food security, sustainable rural development andresource management as well as to the trade-offs among these objectives.The resolution of issues raised demands reflection, dialogue and action.”3 Inresponse to its mandate, reaffirmed in the Quebec Declaration, “to help builda world where all people can live with dignity, confident of food security”,FAO is deeply engaged with its member governments, other internationalorganizations, the scientific community, the private sector and civil societyorganizations in this process of reflection, dialogue and, above all, action.Most, if not all, of these issues were already cause for concern at the timethat the Rome Declaration and the World Food Summit Plan of Action wereadopted but they have emerged with increased force in the past five years.They therefore merit specific treatment in any examination of the globalenvironment that addresses the problem of implementing the World FoodSummit commitments.

3 FAO. 2001. Ethical issues in food and agriculture, p.2. FAO Ethics Series No. 1. Rome.


1.7

Although it is too early to analyse the response of countries or otherorganizations to these new or more acutely felt challenges, it is possible toillustrate some of the actions taken by FAO thus far to respond to them.FAO’s own focus has been sharpened through the strategic planning processthat was initiated following the World Food Summit. In The Strategic Frameworkfor FAO: 2000-2015,4 the major trends and forces expected to have a bearingon FAO’s work are identified and the relevant actions are grouped under thefollowing corporate strategies: A) Contributing to the eradication of foodinsecurity and rural poverty; B) Promoting, developing and reinforcing policyand regulatory frameworks for food, agriculture, fisheries and forestry;C) Creating sustainable increases in the supply and availability of food andother products from the crop, livestock, fisheries and forestry sectors;D) Supporting the conservation, improvement and sustainable use of naturalresources for food and agriculture; and E) Improving decision-making throughthe provision of information and assessments and fostering of knowledgemanagement for food and agriculture. It is within this context that the presentchapter provides a short and selective view of how FAO has responded toa number of new challenges to world food security.

Conflicts and natural disasters

1.8

Natural and human-induced disasters are a major source of human mortality,injury and displacement; they also have tremendously damaging effects onfarmers’ welfare as well as on their assets and on local and national foodsupplies. If not properly managed, such disasters can cause serious foodshortages, create conditions in which famine takes its toll on affectedpopulations and disturb global food markets. The most alarming trend is in thesteep increase in the number of countries afflicted by human-induced disasters,which have risen from an average of 5 in the 1980s to 22 in 2000, mainly asa result of conflict. Emergency situations with important social and economicrepercussions are also created by the spread of plant pests and animal diseases,as well as by human diseases, including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.Although much has been learned from experience on how to predict most typesof disasters and although new technologies are lengthening the lead time forthe issuance of warnings of adverse weather events, there has been an alarmingincrease in the number of countries affected by natural disasters each yearsince the World Food Summit, with a rise from 28 to 46 countries affectedbetween 1996 and 2000. Moreover, this trend appears to have been associatedwith a rise in the scale of damage. Much of the increase has been in countriesaffected by weather-related disasters (rising from 10 to 18 per year), but theextent to which this is due to the impact of climate change induced by globalwarming – and hence human activity – is not clear.

4 FAO, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 1.


1.9

One of the implications of the recent escalation in the number and scale ofdisasters is that these have tended to focus international and nationalattention – as well as resources – on actions to limit damage, drawingattention away from less dramatic but arguably more significant issues whichare perceived as being less urgent. This appears to be the case for problemsrelated to chronic hunger, chronic ill-health and disability, where many ofthose who suffer most are hardly visible and, indeed, often kept at homemarginalized from everyday life. Yet it is the failure to address these problemssatisfactorily that predisposes very large numbers of poor families to suchvulnerability to shocks, whether natural or the result of human action. Whatis needed is to forestall disaster by raising the resilience of poor and food-insecure communities to withstand shocks, and by improving early warning.When disaster still strikes, the requirement is for speedy and sufficient relieffollowed by a sustained effort to rebuild people’s livelihoods and self-reliance.

Human-induced emergencies

1.10

Conflict is the principal source of human-induced disasters. Between 30 and40 countries were engaged in conflict at the end of the twentieth century,with hundreds of millions of people affected. Wars were heavily concentratedin the least developed countries of Africa, but the 1990s also saw majoractions in the Near East, the Balkans, Central America and Asia.5 There hasbeen a trend away from wars between countries towards intracountry conflicts,often resulting in massive displacements of rural populations, looting of farmsand the indiscriminate laying of landmines. The economic losses anddisruptions to food supplies and access can be immense, especially in low-income countries, and the recovery of the agriculture sector from war damagecan be painfully slow. Estimates suggest that the direct impact of conflict onagriculture (in 23 countries for which data were available) amounted toalmost US$55 billion6 between 1990 and 1997, in the latter year accountingfor 40 percent of their combined agricultural GDP.1.11

To the extent that conflict often arises from competition for scarce resources,much of FAO’s work, particularly in the legislative and regulatory field, hasimplications for conflict prevention. Agreements on the sharing of internationalwater resources and on fishing rights, the clarification of land tenurearrangements and measures that lead to an enhanced role for communitiesin the management of natural resources all contribute to reducing tensionsbetween and within countries.1.12

A distinction is often made between emergency response, rehabilitation anddevelopment whereas, in practice, these are stages in a continuum requiring

5 FAO. 2000. Conflicts, agriculture and food security. In The State of Food and Agriculture 2000, p. 69-97. Rome.6 1 billion is equivalent to 1 000 million.


the long-term commitment of both governments and the internationalcommunity as well as of the concerned populations. The danger is that, oncethe spotlight has shifted away from the harrowing scenes of war and post-conflict situations affecting an area, it becomes increasingly difficult tosustain the effort and mobilize the resources required to restore food securityand sustain agricultural growth, predisposing the affected populations to fallback again into conflict.1.13

FAO has significantly stepped up the scale of its emergency work and isprogressively broadening this from the supply of agricultural inputs immediatelyfollowing disasters to early rehabilitation in post-conflict situations, includingthe reintegration of ex-combatants and displaced farmers into agriculture.This work is very closely coordinated with food relief managed by the WorldFood Programme (WFP). There has also been a progressive increase in thescale of emergency food aid operations. The value of FAO/WFP jointlyapproved Emergency Operations (EMOP) rose from an average of US$750million per year in the period 1995-98 to US$1 200 million per year in1999-2001. The value of FAO’s emergency agricultural assistance deliveriesrose from US$28 million in 1997 to nearly US$70 million in 2001 in morethan 50 countries. However, the level of assistance, not only by FAO but alsoby its partners, remains very low as compared to the needs of the agriculturesector. FAO also manages the agricultural component of the Oil-for-FoodProgramme in Iraq, which has been allocated US$682 million since itsinception in January 1997. In a number of countries (e.g. Angola, Cambodia,Haiti), the Organization has assisted governments in reviewing and realigningtheir agricultural policies in the wake of political turmoil or internal conflictin order to create a policy environment and institutional conditions conduciveto investment and agricultural growth.

Natural disasters

1.14

Windstorms and floods accounted for 60 percent of total economic lossescaused by natural disasters between 1990 and 1999, compared with some 25percent caused by earthquakes and volcano eruptions.7 In 1998, damageattributed largely to El Niño and La Niña phenomena was estimated to beUS$89 billion; some 32 000 people were killed and 300 million were displacedfrom their homes and livelihood systems. In recent years, major storms andfloods have struck China, Bangladesh, Viet Nam, Cambodia, India, southernAfrica (especially Mozambique), Central America, the Caribbean andVenezuela. Floods, preceding a drought, were also a significant cause of theintense food shortages affecting parts of the Horn of Africa in 2000. Smallisland developing states remain particularly susceptible to weather-inducedcalamities because they frequently assume a national scale.

7 FAO. 2001. Committee on Agriculture (16th session). Reducing agricultural vulnerability to storm-relateddisasters. Rome.


1.15

Many natural hazards do not cause disasters. The extent to which a disastersituation is induced by natural events is largely a function of the effectivenessof early warning systems, of the nature and scope of human activity and ofthe extent of infrastructure and services that can offer protection. Poorpeople in the densely populated areas of developing countries are the mostsusceptible to natural disasters, and studies suggest that the growing scaleof such disasters is partially attributable to economic, social and populationpressures, which contribute to environmental degradation. Conversely, as hasbeen shown by an FAO-managed project in Honduras,8 good opportunitiesexist for strengthening the resilience of densely populated rural areas tomajor storms and flooding. This can be done by working with communitiesto address land management and tenure issues and to establish better soilcover and conditions for in situ capture and retention of rainfall, therebyreducing damaging runoff.1.16

In line with Commitment Five of the World Food Summit Plan of Action, FAO,together with partner agencies, has sought to strengthen its capacity to preventand be prepared for natural disasters and other emergencies, in conformitywith strategy A.3 of the Organization’s Strategic Framework. Much of theemphasis has been on strengthening early warning capacities by improving theperformance of the Global Information and Early Warning System (GIEWS),partly through an increase in the number of crop and food supply assessmentmissions (up from 26 in 1994 to 36 in 2000, of which 70 percent were mountedjointly with WFP).1.17

As part of its Medium-Term Plan (2002-2007), the Organization has takenmeasures to enhance its capacity for long-term planning for disaster preventionand mitigation. This is well illustrated by the study requested by the UNSecretary-General and conducted by an Inter-Agency Task Force on the UNResponse to Long-Term Food Security, Agricultural Development and RelatedAspects in the Horn of Africa,9 chaired by the FAO Director-General andinvolving ten UN agencies, for which FAO provided the secretariat. Thisstudy illustrates the enormous complexity of reducing the vulnerability ofsome of the most food-insecure countries in the world to the shocks resultingfrom natural and human-induced hazards. Emphasizing the creation of astrengthened policy and institutional environment, it calls for sustained effortsby the countries concerned, regional organizations and the internationalcommunity aimed at preventing disasters, alleviating immediate foodshortages and creating a stronger basis for improved livelihoods, especiallyfor rural populations.

8 The Honduras case study is summarized in FAO/Department for International Development (DFID). 2001. Proceedingsfrom the Forum on Operationalizing Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches. Pontignano, Italy, 7-11 March 2001.9 FAO. 2000. The elimination of food insecurity in the Horn of Africa – A strategy for concerted government andUN agency action. Summary Report of the Inter-Agency Task Force on the UN Response to Long-Term FoodSecurity, Agricultural Development and Related Aspects in the Horn of Africa. Rome.


BOX 1.2

Climate change and FAO after Marrakesh

During the seventh session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate

Change (COP-7) held in Marrakesh, Morocco in November 2001, 171 governments worked out the final details

of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, which obligates those industrialized and transition countries

(so-called Annex 1 countries) that ratify it to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by fixed amounts. For the

first commitment period, from 2008 to 2012, the Parties agreed on a net reduction of roughly 250 tonnes of

carbon. The latest negotiations may allow the treaty to enter into force ten years after Rio in 2002. It will become

law when at least 55 countries ratify it, among them industrialized countries responsible for at least 55 per-

cent of global carbon dioxide emissions in 1990.

The climate change negotiations, which have been followed closely by FAO and its Interdepartmental Work-

ing Group on Climate Change, have created crucial new challenges for the Organization.

•Deforestation, forest degradation and agricultural intensification (central issues for FAO) may contribute to

climate change by releasing greenhouse gases, reinforcing the justification for conservation of forests and

soils.

•Forests and agricultural systems in many regions will suffer the adverse effects of climate change in the

future, creating the challenge to start the process of adaptation now.

•Parties may achieve parts of their net reduction targets by utilizing bioenergy and through “sinks”, which

fix carbon as biomass in land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), and which represent core con-

cerns of FAO.

Industrialized countries may now claim full credit for carbon sequestration achieved during the first com-

mitment period through afforestation and reforestation since 1990, and through cropland and grazing land

management and revegetation. In addition, they may, within country-specific allowances, obtain credit for man-

agement of domestic forests.

Of particular relevance to FAO are the so-called flexible mechanisms that countries can adopt in parallel

to reducing emissions domestically and that encompass sinks in agriculture and forestry. In Joint Implemen-

tation (JI), an Annex I donor country may fulfil all or parts of its commitment through sink projects in another

industrial country. Globally, industrial countries may invest in afforestation and reforestation projects in non-

Annex I countries under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) emissions trading (ET). With that, one of

the major global environmental services provided by forests obtains a market value. It may be modest initially,

but agriculture and forestry are bound to change in many ways, and this trading system is expected to lead

to large transfers of finance from developed to developing countries.

The Marrakesh accord also emphasizes other areas of high relevance to FAO, such as the linkage between

climate change and sustainable development, poverty eradication and synergies between the Framework Con-

vention on Climate Change and the Conventions on Biodiversity and Desertification. In addition, the agree-

ment establishes three funds – the Special Climate Change Fund, the Adaptation Fund and the Least-devel-

oped Countries Fund – which may also support conservation, rehabilitation, management and adaptation of

agricultural and forest lands where market mechanisms are not applicable.

FAO may build on its traditional strengths, cooperating with its international partners, to advocate the novel

roles of agricultural and forest lands in climate change mitigation, in conservation of carbon stores and in ad-

aptation of agriculture to the risks of global warming. The 2001 FAO Conference established Climate Change

as a Priority Area for Interdisciplinary Action (PAIA). This, together with the decisions at COAG and COFO,

should help achieve the goal of “expanding FAO’s expertise in this complex area and strengthening its tech-

nical contribution to international initiatives linked to climate change adaptation and mitigation”.


1.18

FAO is also actively engaged in the implementation of the Convention toCombat Desertification and Drought (UNCDD), as a member of the FacilitationCommittee and of the Technical Advisory Group of the Global Mechanism.It is also undertaking a number of normative activities related to the workof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), looking particularlyat the role of forests and soils in carbon sequestration,10 as well as at theimplications of global warming on low-lying and small island states.

Transboundary pests and diseases

1.19

There has been a particularly high frequency in the crossboundary introductionand incidence of pests of crops and stored products as well as of livestockdiseases in recent years. Many of these have an ability to move fast and overlong distances, threatening food security and farmers’ incomes, disruptingtrade and, in some cases, becoming a hazard to human health. Enormouseconomic costs arise from locust and armyworm attacks on crops in Africaand the Near East or of cassava mosaic virus across Africa; swine fever inHaiti; African swine fever in West Africa; Rift Valley fever in the Horn ofAfrica, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, East Coast fever in southern and easternAfrica; New World screwworm in North Africa and the Near East; foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom and bovine spongiform encephalopathy(BSE) in Europe.1.20

Pests of stored products, such as the large grain borer which is spreadingrapidly throughout eastern and southern Africa following its accidentalintroduction, are undermining the food security of large numbers of subsistencefarmers who grow maize as a staple crop. Indeed, the loss of crops afterharvest through storage pests and diseases, and through spoilage at laterstages of the food chain, constitutes an enormous source of waste throughoutthe world.1.21

While good progress has been made in reducing the incidence of somemajor diseases of livestock, such as rinderpest (which is targeted forworldwide eradication by 2010), factors conducive to the spread of plantand animal pests and diseases are becoming progressively more favourable.These include the rapid rise in international trade and traffic. In particular,long-distance international trade in plants, plant products and animals,11

exacerbated by the increased movement of live plants and animals andfresh products; rising intensities of farming, including large-scalemonocropping and heavy concentrations of single-purpose livestock; adecrease in the genetic variability of the world’s principal crops; and a

10 FAO. 2001. Committee on Agriculture (16th session). Progress Report on Agenda 21: Highlights of FAO’sContribution. Rome.11 International trade in cereals has risen from about 30 million tonnes prior to the Second World War to 225million tonnes of grain per year in 2000.


progressive tightening of restrictions on the use of certain pesticides onwhich there has been heavy dependence for the control of migratory plantpests as well as of grain storage pests. Any further change in temperatureand humidity resulting from global warming could have an important impacton the distribution of both crop pests and insect vectors of livestock diseases.In some developing countries and countries in transition, conflict and acollapse of veterinary and plant protection services have prevented adequatesurveillance.1.22

One particularly worrying recent development has been the emergence ofapparently new animal diseases, including not only BSE but also porcinereproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), Nipah virus and equinemorbillivirus disease.1.23

In the case of all transboundary pests and diseases, control and containmentat the source is much cheaper and more certain in its results than respondingto catastrophic outbreaks once the spread to new environments has occurred.But this requires new modes of intercountry cooperation and a willingnessof those countries not yet affected by a potentially damaging pest ordisease to invest in containment and control in those countries in which itis present.1.24

It is this thinking that is behind FAO’s establishment of the EmergencyPrevention System for Transboundary Animal and Plant Pests and Diseases(EMPRES), which has propounded the principles of early warning, earlyreaction, enabling research and coordination – principles that have gaineduniversal acceptance, even though the system remains seriously underfunded.Actions by the Organization extend to assisting countries in coping withtransboundary pest and disease outbreaks (such as bont tick and classicalswine fever in the Caribbean), developing surveillance systems, conveningtechnical and high-level meetings on major disease problems (including BSEand foot-and-mouth disease), training animal health specialists and providingleadership in rinderpest eradication. It also includes assistance to Membersin establishing and strengthening systems for the early warning and controlof the desert locust. Generally, however, international action to detect andmanage pests and diseases at the source continues to come too late, partlybecause of the lack of readily accessible funds to enable a fast response andsustained surveillance with effective early warning. It is also most importantthat the process for verifiable global eradication of rinderpest be sustainedto prevent a disastrous recurrence of cattle plague.

HIV/AIDS

1.25

The HIV/AIDS epidemic presents a major threat to food security, agriculturalproduction and the social fabric of rural societies in many countries. Some40 million people are infected worldwide, of whom 95 percent are in


developing countries, 28.1 million in sub-Saharan Africa and 7.1 million inAsia, of whom 4 million are in India. HIV/AIDS induces a downward spiralin the welfare of a family from the moment the first adult falls ill. Healthcare expenses increase, productivity declines, incomes drop, assets are sold,children leave school prematurely and fall into vagrancy, and the heavyburden of funeral expenses adds further to families’ expenses. The pandemicthus severely affects a household’s ability both to buy food, through itsimpoverishment, and to produce it, through loss of labour. But the effect isalso felt at the community and national levels: a generation gap occurs,reducing the able-bodied labour force and leaving grandparents caring fororphaned children, often themselves infected from birth. In the ten mostaffected African countries, the size of the agricultural labour force could bereduced by one quarter by 2020, with enormous repercussions on households’dependency ratios and on agricultural production and economic growth.1.26

FAO’s focus is principally on incorporating an HIV/AIDS dimension, whereappropriate, into its ongoing food security, nutrition and agriculturaldevelopment initiatives, as well as into its emergency operations, in affectedcountries. Since 1988 FAO has been carrying out assessments of the impactof the disease on various aspects of agriculture, food security and ruraldevelopment. For example, studies on the impact of HIV/AIDS on agriculturalextension organizations, farming systems, livestock, access to land andconservation of genetic resources have been carried out in selected Africancountries. In Asia, the participatory methodologies utilized by farmers’ fieldschools and integrated pest management (IPM) programmes are beingsuccessfully applied to HIV/AIDS prevention. Guidelines for community andhome-based nutritional care for HIV/AIDS patients and affected householdsare being developed. FAO is implementing a joint strategy to mitigate theimpact of HIV/AIDS on food security and rural poverty together with WFPand IFAD. Cooperation with UNAIDS started with a cooperative frameworkagreement in 1999 and has developed into a full joint programme. Itsobjectives are to prevent and mitigate the impact of HIV/AIDS on foodsecurity and rural livelihoods, reducing the rural poor’s vulnerability to thedisease and promoting sustainable rural development.

Freshwater resources

1.27

A series of international conferences, including the Sixth Session of the Committeeon Sustainable Development (CSD6) and the Second World Water Forum, havebrought to the fore the increasing conflict between “water for food and ruraldevelopment” and “water for nature”. Many feel that resolving the differencesbetween these sectoral views is one of the key challenges facing society at thebeginning of the twenty-first century. As the World Water Commission has shown,in the early twenty-first century increasing competition for water will furtherexacerbate domestic water supply problems, water pollution, regional food shortages


and environmental standards if no decisive action is taken. Mismanagement of thiscrisis would result in large numbers of people being without access to safe water,living in food-insecure conditions and suffering deteriorating health standards.Competition for scarce water resources, particularly where these cross internationalboundaries, is often a source of dispute and may lead to conflicts. Groundwaterabstraction is already exceeding replenishment rates in many areas that relyheavily on irrigation such as northern China, parts of India and many countriesin the Near East.1.28

The main consumptive uses of water are for human consumption (9 percent),industry (20 percent) and agriculture (71 percent). Given that irrigatedagriculture is the dominant user of water withdrawn from nature for humanpurposes, the future of irrigated agriculture is at the heart of the debate. Somesources assert that between 15 and 20 percent more water will be needed foragriculture to achieve global and national food security. They feel that nationalstrategies should focus on options to minimize environmental and social costsin the quest to use water for agriculture. Others feel that irrigation expansionis not an option because of high social and environmental costs, and that thereare other means to produce enough food. At stake are the size and nature ofboth local and international investments that are necessary to grow food fora growing population, provide sustainable livelihoods for the rural poor andmaintain the quality and integrity of the environment.1.29

Freshwater also plays an important economic role in inland fisheries,navigation and hydro-electricity generation as well as in the maintenance ofbiodiversity and the moderation of local climatic extremes. Irrigation, althoughcovering only 17 percent of farmland, accounts for some 40 percent of worldfood production and will play an increasingly significant role in assuringglobal food security in the future as the opportunities for extending theagricultural frontier diminish. However, much of the most readily irrigableland and many of the best water storage sites have already been developed.There is also serious concern about the environmental and social effects oflarge dams and major interbasin transfer systems.1.30

The distribution of irrigated land is unequal among regions. While in SouthAsia 42 percent of arable land is irrigated, the percentage drops to 31percent in the Near East and North Africa, 14 percent in Latin America andonly 4 percent in sub-Saharan Africa. The average for developing regions is27 percent.1.31

One of the avenues for increasing irrigated agricultural production is toimprove the productivity of existing irrigation schemes in terms of the foodoutput per unit of water consumed. Current water use efficiencies are solow (between 25 and 40 percent) that there is considerable scope forimprovement. Water use efficiencies for agriculture can be upgraded througha combination of both technical and managerial means. Securing suchimprovements usually requires strengthened cooperation among farmers in


the management and maintenance of irrigation systems linked to a waterpricing system that discourages wastage, provides incentives for efficientuse and ensures that there is adequate funding for system maintenance.Beyond squandering a scarce resource, wastage may lead to landdegradation, including waterlogging and salinization, which is alreadyaffecting to varying degrees more than 30 million ha and causing substantialproduction losses.1.32

Small-scale irrigation development is proposed by many to avoid thecontroversy over environmental, social and management problems related tolarge-scale irrigation. Small-scale irrigation promotes community ownershipand mobilizes local resources. It is relatively low in cost, resilient to adverseconditions and highly productive, especially when it is close to urban markets.1.33

Many cities, in particular in Africa, are surrounded by green belts of highlyproductive horticulture. Recent years have witnessed rapid growth in peri-urbanagriculture which, in some countries, is supplying up to 40 percent of all fruitand vegetables consumed in the cities. With this growth of peri-urban agricultureand rising demands on water, growers in countries where water is scarce areturning increasingly to untreated or partially treated effluents for vegetableproduction. This is a serious health hazard and has a negative impact on theenvironment. Suitable technologies for wastewater treatment and safe foodchains are required from the peri-urban producer to the local market.1.34

Through its normative activities and field programmes, FAO is addressingmany of these complex issues. It is collaborating closely with the WorldBank, centres belonging to the Consultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR) and other partners in supporting innovative approaches towater resources management and improvements in water use efficiency. TheOrganization’s expertise in water resources management and water law isactively engaged in processes to ensure the equitable management of waterresources across international boundaries. It plays a significant role in assistingmember countries in formulating irrigation sectoral strategies and preparingprojects – many of which are focused on technical and institutionalmodernization and water use efficiency improvements – for funding by theinternational financing institutions. FAO is piloting ways of raising theeffectiveness of water users’ associations in irrigation system management,frequently in the context of the Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS).

The evolution of technology

1.35

All projections of agricultural production in the first decades of the twenty-first century12 point to the increasing role that intensification of farming will

12 See, for example, FAO. 2000. Agriculture towards 2015/30. Rome.


play in meeting the expected growth in demand for food. Improved cropvarieties and animal breeds, greater use of fertilizers and pesticides, betterfarm equipment and improvements in livestock care and health have allcontributed importantly to the remarkable growth in agricultural output thattook place in the second half of the twentieth century. This increase hasresponded not only to the demands of a population that has doubled from3 billion in 1960 to 6 billion today but has also enabled average daily foodenergy intake to rise from 2 250 to 2 800 kcal. Environmentalists andconsumers are, however, seriously questioning the sustainability of, and thesafety of food produced by, the intensive farming systems on which globalfood security has become increasingly dependent. There are particularconcerns, shared by environmental and public health authorities, about theeffects that the overuse and misuse of pesticides and fertilizers can have onhuman health, ecosystem stability and biodiversity. A major factor is thepollution of water resources in areas of highly intensive farming in bothdeveloping and developed countries. A narrowing of the genetic diversitywithin major crop and livestock species is increasingly perceived as apotential source of risk. Consumers, furthermore, are becoming more vocalabout the potential risks to food safety of pesticide residues, food-bornediseases and contaminants, as well as the spread of diseases from livestockto humans (see Food safety, p. 21).1.36

These concerns are bound eventually to induce innovations which will lead to thedevelopment of more sustainable ways of managing land and livestock intensively.The majority of yield increases will undoubtedly continue to result fromimprovements of classical and conventional technology, combined withimprovements in water use efficiency and improved nutrient uptake by plants andanimals. Access to conventional technologies, however, is still beyond the meansof many farmers, as is evidenced by the very low levels of fertilizer utilizationin Africa (some 19 kg per hectare per year, compared with 100 kg in East Asiaand 230 kg in Western Europe). Problems of access to technologies on whichintensification is usually based stem from the limited development of inputmarketing and credit systems, high costs of transport (a function of poor roads andsmall volumes of trade) and, in the case of subsistence farmers, a sheer lack ofincome with which to buy inputs.1.37

One response to this is to find alternative ways of maintaining soil productivitythat rely less on the use of externally purchased inputs. This approach isreceiving special attention from FAO, the World Bank and other internationalpartners in the Soil Fertility Initiative for Africa. Possibilities include theintensification of land use through crop rotations and agroforestry systemsdesigned to enhance biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) and using integratedcrop–livestock systems. In countries where land availability is not yet a majorconstraint, the emphasis is increasingly on technology changes that raise boththe sustainability of land use and labour productivity, examples being minimumtillage systems, which enable a family to maintain a larger area undercultivation while also contributing to increases in soil carbon levels. At the


same time, there may be a further growth in organic agriculture in responseto consumer concerns about perceived risks associated with farming systemsbased on the intensive use of chemical inputs. Initially a spontaneous movementresponding to consumer demand and the willingness to pay premium prices fororganic produce, the expansion of organic farming is now proactively supportedby a number of governments on the grounds of environmental friendliness andsustainability. FAO is contributing to the international debate on organic farmingand has recently reported on its actions to the Committee on Agriculture.13

1.38

Pesticide problems, in particular in developing countries, include humanpoisonings and a range of negative effects on the environment. Developingcountries often have inadequate, weakly enforced, legislation andregulations; a lack of knowledge, in particular at the extension and farmers’level; and insufficient capacity to make informed decisions on pesticideuse. The FAO Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticidesprovides general guidance on pesticide management. The RotterdamConvention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain HazardousChemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, which was adopted in 1998and for which the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and FAOprovide the secretariat, promotes shared responsibility among countries inthe international trade of certain hazardous chemicals, including pesticides,by providing for a national decision-making process on their import andexport and by disseminating these decisions. FAO and its partners, throughits IPM programme and the Global IPM Facility, are also promotingprogrammes aimed at increasing awareness of the relationship betweencrops and pests. A better understanding among policy-makers, scientistsand farmers would lead to decisions that reduce dependence on pesticidesto the lowest level necessary.1.39

Strong hopes have been placed on current applications of biotechnology,particularly plant tissue culture (already well established in forestry andfloriculture), the use of molecular markers and the genetic modification ofagricultural organisms using recombinant DNA techniques to overcome manyof the persistent environmental and safety problems associated with intensiveagricultural production. It is envisaged that biotechnology-derived solutionscould contribute not only to improving plant resistance to pests and diseases,but also to finding innovative solutions to combating stresses imposed onplants by drought and low fertility. Biotechnology also provides usefulapplications in disease diagnosis.14 Together with classical technologies,including those based on local knowledge, these new developments inbiotechnology have the potential to broaden substantially the options available

13 FAO. 2001. Committee on Agriculture (16th session). Report of the Interdepartmental Working Group onOrganic Agriculture. Rome.14 FAO. 1999. Committee on Agriculture (15th session). Biotechnology. Rome. The Joint FAO/IAEA Division ofNuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture has been active in developing molecular characterization methodsfor crop improvement and in promoting the use of innovative livestock disease diagnostic tests (e.g. forrinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease).


to farmers in all regions of the world for increasing the productivity andsustainability of their farming systems. However, real and perceiveduncertainties and risks associated with the application of biotechnology haveresulted in widespread opposition by both consumers and environmentalists,especially in developed countries, to the utilization of genetic modificationin crop and livestock breeding. Such opposition is having an impact on thepace of research carried out in this field, even on themes that appear to bewithout serious risk.1.40

Assuming that satisfactory safeguards can be developed and applied to limitrisks to plant, animal and human health (biosecurity risks), a major issue thatemerges is the extent to which new biotechnology applications will benefitfarmers, especially small farmers, in developing countries. Given that mostcurrent biotechnology research is undertaken by the private sector, it isstrongly market-driven. Therefore, low priority is being given to applicationsof relevance to developing countries, where the purchasing power of farmersis relatively limited and the possibility of enforcing breeders’ rights andpatents may be in doubt. The access of developing countries to suchtechnologies could be further curtailed by the provisions of the World TradeOrganization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual PropertyRights (TRIPS), which safeguard the interests of the originators of newtechnologies through patents. One implication is that much biotechnologydevelopment for developing countries would need to be sponsored and possiblyundertaken by the public sector, including the international agriculturalresearch centres that operate within the ambit of CGIAR.1.41

There are undoubtedly benefits, risks and uncertainties associated with the newgeneration of biotechnologies. At this stage, the role assumed by FAO hasprincipally been one of facilitating a constructive debate on the controversialissues surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs),15 exchanginginformation and helping its member countries to formulate policies and laws inrelation to GMOs. To underpin this action, it has established an electronic forumon biotechnology and contributed to many international conferences on thesubject, focusing especially on biosafety as well as on food safety issues.16 Plantpest risks associated with living modified organisms (LMOs) and other productsof biotechnology are of special concern to the Secretariat to the InternationalPlant Protection Convention (IPPC), which is provided by FAO. With regard tofood safety, the Organization is currently engaged, jointly with the World HealthOrganization (WHO) and through the intergovernmental Codex AlimentariusCommission, in developing risk assessment principles and guidelines for thesafety evaluation of foods derived from biotechnologies. Furthermore, theOrganization is promoting the elaboration of a Code of Conduct on Biotechnologyas it relates to genetic resources for food and agriculture.

15 See, in particular, FAO. 2001. Genetically modified organisms, consumers, food safety and the environment.FAO Ethics Series No. 2. Rome.16 FAO. 2001. Committee on Agriculture (16th Session). Report of the Interdepartmental Working Group onBiotechnology. Rome.


Globalization, public goods and trade

1.42

As globalization has unfolded in recent years, there has not only been moreemphasis on international trade in food and agricultural products but also anincreased awareness of the importance of ensuring an adequate supply ofglobal public goods to safeguard long-term global food security and thesustainable use of natural resources. As far as food and agriculture areconcerned, there is recognition of the added need to conserve and use moresustainably such global common goods as genetic resources for food andagriculture and oceanic fish stocks as well as to address the interdependencebetween agriculture and climate change.1.43

The genetic resources for food and agriculture, despite their vital importancefor human survival, are being lost at an increasingly alarming rate, drasticallyreducing the capacity of present and future generations to cope withunpredictable environmental shocks and the changing needs of the world’spopulation. No country is self-sufficient with respect to genetic resourcesfor food and agriculture. While the industrialized world has developedlegal–economic mechanisms such as intellectual property rights to provideincentives for the development of new biotechnologies and to compensatetheir inventors, there are still no effective economic or legal mechanisms tocompensate or provide incentives for the traditional farmers in developingcountries who are the developers of the genetic resources, i.e. the rawmaterials of these biotechnologies.1.44

Since the World Food Summit, governments, through the FAO Commission onGenetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA), have taken a majorstep forward in the management of genetic resources, by adopting the new,binding, International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture in November 2001. This is the culmination of seven years ofnegotiations for the revision of the International Undertaking, in harmonywith the Convention on Biological Diversity.1.45

The Treaty covers all plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Itprovides an internationally agreed framework for their conservation andsustainable use, which aims at ensuring that the inherited capital theyrepresent is conserved and continues to supply the flow of services on whichfood security and agricultural development depend. The Treaty establishes aMultilateral System of Facilitated Access and Benefit-sharing for a numberof crops crucial for food security and interdependence, and representingmore than 80 percent of the world’s calorie intake. These are managed inmany ways as a global public good.1.46

For the first time a binding international agreement provides that those whohave access to commonly managed resources, and who derive commercial


benefits from their use, shall, under agreed conditions, pay an equitableroyalty to a funding mechanism that aims at ensuring their conservation andsustainable use.1.47

The Treaty recognizes Farmers’ Rights, and recognizes the farmers’ role increating and conserving agricultural biodiversity over the ages, i.e. theirpast, present and future contributions to conserving, improving and makingavailable these resources. Provision is made for Farmers’ Rights to beoperationalized through national legislation. The importance of the ex situcollections of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture held in trustby the international agricultural research centres of the Consultative Groupon International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is recognized, andarrangements are made for these collections to be made available within theMultilateral System.1.48

The Treaty benefits not only farmers, but also consumers and society ingeneral, and underwrites a continued supply of diverse foods and consumerchoice. The seed industry and food producers will also benefit from clear,agreed international arrangements to access the genetic raw material theyneed to face rapidly changing environmental and climatic conditions, andevolving human needs.1.49

Since the World Food Summit, the Commission has also begun the country-driven process of developing the first Report on the State of the World’s AnimalGenetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. This will include a comprehensiveinventory of the resources and an analysis of their present and future status,and will analyse their contribution to sustainable development and food security.The coming livestock revolution, driven by rising incomes and increasingurbanization in many developing countries – where, for example, per capitameat production is expected to double between 1993 and 2020 – offers strongpotential for economic growth. But major changes in animal production systemswill both depend upon the availability of adapted animal genetic resources andput those very resources at risk, unless the international community andindividual countries strengthen and further develop conservation and sustainablemanagement. The Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resourcesis expected to be adopted by governments in the Commission in 2005.1.50

Other complementary activities of the CGRFA include a Code of Conduct onCollection and Transfer of Plant Germplasm, which was adopted by the FAOConference of 1993, a Code of Conduct on Biotechnology, still undernegotiation, and the development of a global strategy on animal geneticresources. An additional example of the Organization’s contribution to theconservation and sustainable use of global public goods is the Code ofConduct on Responsible Fisheries, adopted by the FAO Conference in 1995.1.51

The processes of globalization present both opportunities and risks for theagriculture sectors of developing countries. Given that agriculture remains


the dominant sector and main source of exports in may developing countries,reductions in barriers to trade expand the opportunities for raising sectoraloutput. But globalization raises risks of marginalization for countries which,because of their resource endowment, location, size or lack of skills andinfrastructure, remain uncompetitive in world markets and unable to attractinvestment. Globalization also brings with it the risk, very evident in theyears following the World Food Summit, that instability in the internationalfinancing systems and fluctuations in the performance of the major worldeconomies have knock-on effects in countries that have become heavilydependent on external trade and investment. Countries that are dependent onthe export of a narrow range of commodities are particularly vulnerable tosuch shocks, which can have major repercussions on the livelihoods and foodsecurity of their farming populations.1.52

The past six years have seen the partial implementation of the UruguayRound Agreements, which for the first time brought agriculture within theframework of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World TradeOrganization (GATT/WTO). The experience has been mixed: while theAgreement on Agriculture has contributed to the reinstrumentation of domesticand trade policies, actual changes in the levels of support and protectionhave not been deep enough for the Agreement to have tangible impacts onglobal trade and incomes. Thus, total support of the Organisation for EconomicCo-operation and Development (OECD) countries to their farmers amountedto some US$327 billion in 2000 alone.17 Agricultural tariffs in OECD countriesremain high, especially for temperate-zone horticulture, sugar, cereals, dairyproducts and meat, and tariff escalation continues to give particular protectionto processed foods, notably the value-added forms of coffee, cocoa andoilseeds, in importing countries. Moreover, the complexity of import regimesand of accessing tariff rate quotas as well as the costs of complying withsanitary and phytosanitary standards and technical barriers to trade continueto create obstacles to market expansion that may be insurmountable,especially for small economies. The continued large-scale protection ofagriculture by developed countries undoubtedly limits agricultural growthopportunities for developing countries.18

1.53

The extent to which developing countries are able to take advantage of newmarket opportunities emerging from globalization ultimately depends on theircompetitiveness and their capacity to increase the production of goods thatare in demand. This may require substantial investments in infrastructure,technology and communications aimed at reducing costs and speeding uptransport. But it also calls for the development of institutional capacities toset and enforce standards and for training of farmers in the production of

17 OECD. 2001. Agricultural policies in OECD countries: monitoring and evaluation. Paris.18 See IMF Survey, Vol. 30, No. 8, April 2001, quoting the IMF Managing Director’s address to the Bundestag inBerlin: “It is political and economic madness for OECD countries to spend $360 billion a year on agriculturalsubsidies while poverty rages in developing countries, especially in the rural and farming regions”.


marketable products of a high quality. Bulking up supplies and ensuring aconsistent flow of products will depend on collective action by farmers,usually tied to enhanced linkages with the private sector such as throughcontract farming schemes.1.54

Anticipating that trade liberalization would create transitional problems forsome food-importing developing countries, compensatory measures wereenvisaged under the Marrakech Decision on Measures Concerning the PossibleNegative Effects of the Reform Process on the Least-Developed and NetFood-Importing Developing Countries. The failure to make the MarrakechDecision effective could undermine confidence in the fairness of theinternational trading system, especially within those developing countriesthat have taken steps to liberalize their trade regimes. FAO has recentlyproposed options for making the Decision effective.19

1.55

The important contribution that expanded trading opportunities can make tothe economic development of least developed countries (LDCs) has beengiven priority attention by the European Union (EU)20 which hosted the ThirdUnited Nations Conference on the LDCs (UNLDC III) in Brussels in May2001.21 As part of UNLDC III, FAO organized a special thematic session onthe agriculture sector and food security. The recent decision by the EU toextend duty-free and quota-free access to all products originating in theLDCs, except arms and ammunition, is a tangible move towards theimplementation of the EU’s new development policies. Canada, New Zealandand Norway have also announced similar actions in favour of LDCs.22 At thefourth WTO Ministerial Conference, held in Doha, Qatar, from 9 to 14November 2001, the WTO members also made a commitment to the objectiveof duty-free and quota-free market access for products originating in LDCs.1.56

The main issue relating to globalization and liberalization concerns thedistribution of the aggregate benefits that will be generated. Reductions infarm subsidies and market protection on the part of developed countries andin restrictions on the international movement of labour, combined withpurposive sharing of advances in information and communication technologies,could do much to ensure that globalization contributes to the more equitableworld which has been envisaged in the Millennium Declaration23 and to theachievement, in particular, of the World Food Summit goal.1.57

At the Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference, members agreed to launch a newround of multilateral trade negotiations, to be concluded by 1 January 2005.

19 FAO. 2001. Towards making the Marrakech Decision more operationally effective. Rome.20 EU. 2000. La politique de développement de la Communauté Européenne. Brussels.21 For a comprehensive review of the issues posed to LDCs by globalization and liberalization, see UNCTAD.2000. The Least Developed Countries 2000 Report. New York and Geneva.22 Reference is also be made to the United States Africa Growth and Recovery Initiative, which is part of theUnited States Trade and Development Act of 2000, from which African LDCs would also benefit.23 UN. 2000. United Nations Millennium Declaration. Resolution 55/2, adopted by the General Assembly in2000. New York.


In addition to the talks on agriculture and services that have been under waysince early 2000, the new round will cover other sectors of the globaleconomy as well as a range of implementation issues. The round will haveimportant implications for agriculture, fisheries and forestry. The Ministersmade a commitment to provide special and differential treatment fordeveloping countries, including duty-free and quota-free market access forLDCs as noted above. The technical cooperation and capacity-building needsof small, vulnerable and low-income transition economies were alsorecognized, and the need for delivery of technical assistance was emphasized.Modalities for the further trade reform commitments in agriculture are to beestablished by 31 March 2003 and comprehensive draft implementationschedules are to be submitted by the Fifth WTO Ministerial Conference,which must be held before the end of 2003.1.58

FAO has a long history of engagement in issues relating to trade in agriculturalproducts and inputs, reporting to the Committee on Commodity Problems andits subsidiary Intergovernmental Groups. In line with Commitment Four of theWorld Food Summit Plan of Action, however, the Organization has steppedup its assistance to developing countries in “preparing for multilateral tradenegotiations including in agriculture, fisheries and forestry inter alia throughstudies, analysis and training”. The Organization has published variousassessments of the impact of the Uruguay Round on agricultural markets andfood security, as well as a report on developing countries’ experiences inimplementing the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. It continues to provideintergovernmental fora for the discussion of relevant instruments concernedespecially with standard setting: these include the Codex AlimentariusCommission (food quality and safety standards) and the International PlantProtection Convention (IPPC) (phytosanitary standards). Concerning the IPPC,the Organization has established an intergovernmental forum and a standard-setting mechanism and procedure in response to the development of theWTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures(SPS Agreement). In addition, the Organization has mounted an expandedtechnical assistance and training programme to build capacity in membercountries to meet their WTO obligations and to participate in agriculturaltrade negotiations as well-informed and equal partners. Regional strategiesfor food security, prepared by FAO with the secretariats of regional economicgroupings, have focused on the creation of a legal and regulatory frameworkand the building of institutions and scientific capacities to adopt andimplement Codex Alimentarius and IPPC standards under the SPS Agreement.

Food safety

1.59

Food safety is inherent to the concept of food security. It touches on manyaspects of agricultural production technologies, food handling and processing,trade and distribution as well as human nutrition. The causes and categories of


food safety hazards are many. They include those of microbiological origin,contaminants entering the food chain and the residues of inputs used in agriculturalproduction and processing systems. Of particular concern are food-borne diseasesof microbiological origin because of their high prevalence and possibly increasingincidence: they arise at all stages of the food chain, and methods for assessingand managing the associated risks are in need of improvement.1.60

In the five years since the World Food Summit, public awareness of foodsafety issues has increased dramatically, especially in developed countries.This greater awareness has been led by concern about BSE, reports ofantibiotic-resistant micro-organisms in foods, the dioxin crisis of 1999,numerous outbreaks of food-borne illnesses resulting from microbialcontamination of foods, and the appearance in human food of a geneticallymodified maize approved only for animal feeding. The common attribute inmany of these crises has been the public perception that the measures inplace are ineffective or inefficiently applied, or that they are applied onlyin the interest of increased trade and benefits to producers or industry, andnot necessarily in the interest of consumers.1.61

In developing countries, consumer lobbies tend to be less vocal and regulatorysystems less effective. Where hygiene is poor, often because of a lack ofaccess to clean water, microbial contamination of food and drink iscommonplace and is a major source of illness and mortality, especiallyamong children. Misuse of pesticides leads to residues that are not acceptableunder Codex standards and most national legislation. The joint FAO/ WHOMeetings on Pesticide Residues are continuously evaluating the pesticidesproposed by the industry and making recommendations on Maximum ResidueLimits in Food to member countries and to the Codex AlimentariusCommission. Similarly, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on FoodAdditives is continuously evaluating food additives, veterinary drugs andenvironmental contaminants and providing recommendations on the safelevels of these compounds in food.1.62

Improved food safety management procedures, based on principles developedby the Codex Alimentarius Commission, are being applied to reducemicrobiological hazards. FAO/WHO expert panels have provided scientific advicethat has improved the prospects of managing certain environmental contaminantsin foods, particularly aflatoxins. Effective recall procedures minimized the impactand the duration of the dioxin crisis and are also being applied in the case ofthe genetically modified maize for animal feed. A near consensus has also beenreached by the Commission on the general principles to be applied to ensurefood safety in relation to biotechnology applications in agriculture and the foodindustry, and the question of the possible transfer of allergenicity to geneticallymodified plant varieties is receiving special attention.1.63

Nevertheless, there are calls for food safety measures to be based on a widerrange of factors than simply the scientific evaluation of risks to human health. In


view of the perception that food control systems are unable to provide adequateassurances of safety, additional measures are being proposed that would ensurea continuous chain of documentation of the origin and nature of every foodcommodity and ingredient. Such measures could raise the costs of food transactionsand could have repercussions on international trade, effectively excluding countrieswhich are unable to put in place the necessary tracking systems.1.64

Efforts are being made at the international level to bring food safety issuesinto clearer focus, with an emphasis on the scientific basis of decision-making and the exercise of prudence when the scientific base is inadequate.Jointly with WHO and the International Office of Epizootics (OIE), FAO isorganizing an international expert consultation on “BSE and its Risks: Animaland Public Health, International Trade”. In collaboration with WHO, FAO hasorganized the First Global Forum on Food Safety Regulators (Marrakesh,January 2002) and the Pan-European Conference on Food Safety and Quality(Budapest, February 2002). These intergovernmental conferences discussedthe issues of science-based decision-making and agreed to promote theexchange of information on the management of food safety risks. Regionaland international rapid alert systems have been or are being developed tocontain and minimize the impact of future food safety crises.

The right to food

1.65

All the issues which have been reviewed above have a fundamental bearingon the world’s capacity to meet the food needs of its peoples and to maintainits natural resources in good condition for future generations. The fact thatmore than 800 million people in the world remain chronically hungry in spiteof the success of farmers in generating enough food to meet everyone’sneeds, and that there is widespread evidence of farmland degradation, impliesthat there are serious imperfections in the way we are handling ourresponsibilities and exercising our stewardship of global resources. Inequityin access to food and technology, the damage to natural resources associatedwith some farming methods and scientific advances, the erosion ofbiodiversity, threats to the sustainability of ocean fisheries and traderestrictions which prevent countries from exercising and benefiting from theircomparative advantages, all have important ethical dimensions. Looking atthese issues from an ethical and human rights standpoint may contribute tothe development of a consensus on how they can be better addressed in thecommon interest of humanity, capturing important considerations that maynot be given sufficient weight when decisions are either taken principally onscientific, technical or economic grounds or left to market forces alone.1.66

One of the consequences of the World Food Summit has been the intenseconsideration in recent years of the implications of the right to food, whichis a recognized human right under international law, as set out in the


International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The right tofood implies the right of every human being to the means of production orprocurement of food of sufficient quantity and quality, free from adversesubstances and culturally acceptable.24 A series of consultations has beenconducted by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and with theparticipation of FAO, with the objective of clarifying the content of this rightand exploring how it can be better implemented. These consultations haveled to a growing appreciation of the respective roles of individuals, theirfamilies and communities and various levels of the state in realizing the rightto food.25 A number of countries have taken steps towards operationalizingthe right to food in their agricultural and food management policies andprogrammes, generating experiences that other countries may wish to emulatein their attempts to achieve the World Food Summit goal. At the internationallevel, NGOs are calling on FAO to start negotiations for a code of conduct,or voluntary guidelines on the right to food.1.67

In order to improve its capacity to address ethical issues, in 2000 FAOcreated an independent Panel of Eminent Experts on Ethics in Food andAgriculture, composed of eight internationally recognized members. ThePanel has started to analyse a range of ethical issues arising from foodproduction and consumption practices and agricultural development, includingforestry and fisheries, in the context of food security and sustainable ruraldevelopment and in an environment of rapid global change. As part of thisprocess, in 2001 the Organization launched the FAO Ethics Series, of whichthe first two titles are Ethical issues in food and agriculture and Geneticallymodified organisms, consumers, food safety and the environment.26 The overallaim is to contribute to an informed public debate and transparent decision-making process in an objective manner, as well as to provide a forum fordebate of complex and often controversial issues.27

Concluding observations

1.68

It is abundantly evident from this rapid overview that agriculture and foodsecurity, locally and globally, are subject to enormous and often unpredictablerisks. The perceived risks are probably magnified as agriculture intensifiesto meet growing demand, as food systems adjust to respond to rapidurbanization and as the world becomes increasingly interconnected with thegathering pace of globalization. At the same time, however, globalizationand the rapid contemporary advances in technology and communications, if

24 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (20th session). General Comment 12 (E/C.12/1999/5), theright to adequate food (art. 11), 12 May 1999, paragraphs 6 and 8 in particular.25 For a fuller consideration of issues relating to the right to food, see Chapter 2 of this publication, Fostering thepolitical will to fight hunger.26 FAO. 2001. Ethics Series Nos 1 and 2. Rome.27 FAO. 2001. Report of the Panel of Eminent Experts on Ethics in Food and Agriculture, First Session, 26-28September 2000, Rome.


responsibly managed, can open up new opportunities for economicdevelopment and for the emergence of a more equitable world.1.69

Many of the challenges facing agriculture, forestry and fisheries have globaldimensions. Pests and diseases cross national boundaries and oceans withease; high-intensity livestock systems in one country or large-scaledeforestation in another contribute to global climate change, while the patternof an ocean current in the Pacific affects the onset and intensity of themonsoon in South Asia and of the rains in East Africa; non-compliance withinternational codes of conduct can harm the sustainability of global fisheries;and the subsidization of agriculture in one country can determine whetheror not farmers in another have a profitable outlet for their produce. Thenature and magnitude of these interactions and how they can be tamed orharnessed for the global good are only just beginning to be understood.1.70

In addressing uncertainties and risks, preventive measures and the exerciseof prudence are generally the preferable courses of action but, too often, suchaction is not taken in spite of the fact that the resulting economic costs –and human suffering – are clearly immense. If conflict can be prevented bynegotiation, vulnerable populations be given more advanced warning of acyclone, or the spread of a life-threatening disease prevented by control atits place of origin, then lives, suffering and costs can be saved.1.71

Within their current capacities, governments and the international community,including FAO, are doing much towards the implementation of those WorldFood Summit commitments that are most relevant to the new challenges.There remains, however, ample room and strong social and economicjustifications for improving response capacities. If all was well, we would notsee huge populations brought to the brink of famine in the Horn of Africa,massive losses of life and assets in the wake of Hurricane Mitch in CentralAmerica, millions of livestock smouldering on pyres in Europe, or deprivationamong West African cocoa farmers who bear the brunt of a collapse ininternational commodity prices.1.72

The implication is that there is a need to examine carefully the adequacy ofcurrent institutional arrangements for international cooperation in addressingmajor global challenges to food security. In particular, account should be takenof their capacity to forestall crises, to react at the speed and scale necessaryto limit potential damage and, when disaster strikes, to assist affected populationsin restoring their livelihoods. There is also a longer-term dimension of timelinessthat relates to the need to ensure that current research and knowledge generationefforts are sufficient – and appropriately oriented – to meet future global fooddemands in a sustainable manner, and that they are not driven solely by short-term market forces, which are insensitive to the needs of future generations.1.73

Advances in surveillance and information and communication technology areopening up remarkable new opportunities for gathering, sharing, analysing and


interpreting information as well as for accelerating decision-making. The scientificbasis for justifying global actions – such as in addressing global warming ordepletion of the ozone layer – is becoming stronger and there is an increasingbody of legislation and instruments upon which to base mutually reinforcinginternational and national action to address global threats. At the same time,however, there has been a progressive reduction of the resources availableinternationally to enable a timely response to emerging threats and opportunities.1.74

The underprovision of global public goods is an issue which has receivedconsiderable attention in relation to the management of the globalenvironment through Agenda 21, and it has led to the creation of newinstruments such as the Global Environment Facility. Currently, there is muchpublic debate on global public goods in the health arena, particularly inrelation to the lack of investment in the development of affordable technologiesto reduce the growing incidence of and mortality attributable to HIV/AIDS,malaria and tuberculosis in developing countries, where private charity hasfelt compelled to come to the rescue of underfunded international programmes.The issue of global public goods supply also requires careful analysis inrelation to the assurance of global food security (including food safety) andthe long-term sustainability of agriculture, and it is highly relevant to thefulfilment of all seven commitments under the World Food Summit Plan ofAction. It is therefore an issue on which the Organization will be focusinggreater attention, in consultation with its Members and the other internationalagencies whose mandates include the provision of global public goods.1.75

The sheer range, scale and costs of the fundamental issues now affectingagriculture, food security and food safety are daunting, and may competewith each other for political attention, both internationally and withincountries. The fact that the international agenda is so crowded and that therehas been a succession of emergencies demanding immediate interventionsmay help to explain why few countries – whether developed or developing– have approached the issue of chronic hunger with the determination andcommitment required to achieve the World Food Summit goal. It is preciselybecause there are signs of public indifference and wavering commitment,reflected in a progressive reduction in the domestic and international resourcesallocated to agricultural development and food security, that the World FoodSummit: five years later has been convened.1.76

The more than 800 million people who are chronically undernourished do notmake the headlines. They are voiceless and largely hidden in their owncountries, and still more so in the international community. They are thepoorest of the poor. But in 1996, almost every nation in the world committeditself to the target of halving the number of undernourished by 2015. Thatcommitment still stands and must be honoured. The challenge facing us nowis to decide how, in spite of the pressing demands of all the other criticalproblems facing agriculture worldwide, we can translate the commitmentinto reality.


1.77

To help strengthen the resolve to take determined action, FAO has sought tofocus attention on the two main challenges: fostering the political will andmobilizing the resources necessary to fight hunger.

Fostering the political willto fight hunger

Introduction

2.1

This chapter offers a broad overview of the issue of political will and itsimpact on the fulfilment of the commitments made at the World Food Summitin November 1996. It is a revised version of the document submitted forconsideration at the 27th session of the Committee on World Food Security(CFS)1 and takes into account comments by CFS members and peer reviewersas well as relevant recent developments.2.2

The chapter begins by recalling the major commitments into whichgovernments entered at the Summit. This is followed by a rapid overview ofchanges in the international socio-political and economic environment since1996 and an analysis of the impact that these have had on the ability andwillingness of governments and the international community to adopt effectivemeasures for implementing their commitments. The subsequent section reportson the major actions taken by FAO to reinforce the awareness and will ofall concerned parties to fight hunger.2 It also assesses the extent to whichthere has – or has not – been a deepening of political commitment to addressthe scourge of hunger with determination at the international and nationallevels. Finally, the chapter summarizes areas where there is an emergingconsensus, consistent with the Rome Declaration on World Food Security andWorld Food Summit Plan of Action, that might provide a focus for reaffirmedcommitments and strengthened partnerships.

World Food Summit commitments

2.3

The World Food Summit, held in Rome in November 1996, was the thirdinternational meeting on food and nutrition issues since the 1970s, havingbeen preceded by the World Food Conference in 1974 and the InternationalConference on Nutrition, organized by FAO and the World Health

2

1 FAO. 2001. Committee on World Food Security (27th session). (CFS: 2001/Inf.6). Rome.2 The term “hunger” is used in this chapter to cover all aspects of temporary and chronic undernourishmentand malnutrition, to convey the state of people who do not have timely access to sufficient, nutritionallyadequate and safe food.


Organization (WHO) in 1992. The World Food Summit was notable becauseof its very high level of government representation, with 112 of the 186countries present being represented by their Heads of State or Governmentor their deputies. Such an attendance was appropriate for a meeting aimedat securing the political commitment required to tackle the crosscutting,underlying causes of widespread hunger and malnutrition, the resolution ofwhich requires the engagement of many government ministries and elementsof civil society. A further feature of the Summit was that it was specific insetting a time-bound goal, progress towards which could be monitored, yetit was sufficiently realistic to recognize that the full eradication of hungerworldwide was not feasible in the medium term.2.4

The Summit concluded with the issuance of two major documents, the RomeDeclaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action.3

The Declaration was essentially an agreed statement of goals and policies,concluding with seven major commitments (Box 1.1, p. 2), whereas the Planof Action set out in detail the actions which countries agreed to take tooperationalize these commitments.2.5

The first two paragraphs of the Declaration eloquently summarize theconsensus on policies and specific goals reached at the Summit:

We, the Heads of State and Government, or our representatives, gathered at the

World Food Summit at the invitation of the Food and Agriculture Organization

of the United Nations, reaffirm the right of everyone to have access to safe and

nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental

right of everyone to be free from hunger.

We pledge our political will and our common and national commitment to

achieving food security for all and to an ongoing effort to eradicate hunger in

all countries, with an immediate view to reducing the number of undernourished

people to half their present level no later than 2015.

2.6

Of particular significance is the Declaration’s acknowledgement of the humanright to adequate food and of the implicit need for common action within andbetween countries in global efforts to eradicate hunger.2.7

These commitments, in turn, provided a framework for 27 specific objectivesand 182 proposed actions, many of which were to be implemented bycountries in cooperation among themselves, jointly with the internationalcommunity or in partnership with civil society. The sheer length of the listof proposed actions is indicative of the relative complexity of food securityproblems and of the need to tackle them from several angles simultaneously.2.8

No proposals for new institutions or for pledges of additional resources wereput forward during the Summit. There was an implicit recognition throughoutthe preparatory process that the world has the capacity to feed its population

3 FAO. 1997. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. Rome.

31 FOSTERING THE POLITICAL WILL TO FIGHT HUNGER

adequately today and in the future, that most of the international institutionalarrangements for achieving this are in place and that it should be possibleto muster the necessary financial resources from existing sources. Instead,the main concern was how to generate and sustain the political will totranslate the commitments into the required actions.2.9

The World Food Summit, like other summits, was premised on the assumptionthat, by drawing national leaders together in a public forum to committhemselves collectively to tackle major issues of global concern, it wouldreinforce their determination to bring about change and heighten theiraccountability. It would also strengthen the partnerships among governmentsand between governments and the international community and civil society,which is considered a prerequisite for achieving the goals. Whether, inpractice, national leaders have the power to induce the complex processesneeded to bring about rapid reductions in hunger, however, depends verymuch on their standing in their own countries, on the capacity of theinstitutions over which they preside, on whether potentially feasible solutionsexist and on whether those responsible for taking action are persuaded of thevalidity of prescribed actions. There are thus bound to be situations whereleaders are strongly committed but, for reasons beyond their control, therequired action is not taken or only partially implemented.

The global political environment

2.10

As noted in Chapter 1, one of the great achievements of the past century hasbeen the production of enough food not only to meet the demands of a globalpopulation which doubled in 40 years, from some 3 billion in 1960 to morethan 6 billion in 2000, but also to ensure a generally better standard ofnutrition, with the average daily food intake rising by well over 20 percentfrom about 2 250 to 2 800 kcal per capita in the same period. Apart fromraising output, the agricultural revolution of the twentieth century has led toremarkable increases in labour and land productivity, which have beenreflected in a progressive fall in real international grain prices.4 Part of thisincrease, however, may have been achieved at the expense of the sustainableuse of natural resources, given the environmentally damaging impact ofsome of the technologies on which intensive farming has come to depend.2.11

Looking back on the last century, future historians are likely to point to theanomaly that hunger should have coexisted on a vast scale with more thanadequate aggregate global food supplies, and that while more than 800million people were underfed, a further 300 million suffered from obesity.The simultaneous persistence of widespread extreme food deprivation and

4 M. Mazoyer. 1998. Access to food: poverty eradication, safety nets and food assistance. Presentation at theInter-Parliamentary Conference on Attaining the World Food Summit’s Objectives through a SustainableDevelopment Strategy, Rome, 29 November-2 December 1998.


plentiful food supplies in a world with excellent means of communicationsand transport can only suggest that there are fundamental flaws in the waysin which nations are functioning and the relationships between them aregoverned and managed. The situation was described as unacceptable in theRome Declaration, yet the world continues to live with it and seems not tocare. This chapter looks at how recent developments in global politicalrelations and thinking, and related institutional changes, appear to affect theincidence of hunger and the ability and willingness of governments toeradicate it.2.12

When the Berlin Wall came crashing down in 1989, a wave of optimism sweptaround the world. Many observers expected that the combination of market-based economic policies and democracy would induce rapid growth in EasternEurope and the former Soviet Union, that the cessation of superpowerconfrontation would bring an end to proxy wars and lead to a sharp drop inexpenditure on arms, and that this in turn would free resources which couldthen be channelled to poorer countries to accelerate their development. Morethan ten years later, few of these hopes have materialized. Fundamentalstructural problems have held back transition and growth in most of theformerly centrally planned economies. Increasingly difficult political andsecurity situations, combined with a thriving international arms market, havefuelled conflicts and terrorism, dashing development hopes, driving millionsfrom their homes into penury and destabilizing vast regions. And the peacedividend has not contributed to an increased flow of aid to poorer countries:instead, such aid has fallen steadily over the decade in spite of unprecedentedprosperity in developed countries. Indeed, the end of superpower clientelismhas allowed aid to fall back to a level determined more by altruism than bygeopolitical considerations.2.13

There is, however, growing recognition of the extent of global interdependence,and attempts are being made to make this work for everyone’s benefit. Followingthe establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, tradebarriers have started to come down and there are high expectations that freertrade, once adopted symmetrically, will broaden markets and reduce transactioncosts to the benefit of developing countries. There has been a massive growthin foreign direct investment (FDI) by the private sector, which now accountsfor 82 percent of net financial flows into developing countries, compared with44 percent in 1990.5 Similarly, rapid advances in global communications andinformation technology are accelerating the speed with which knowledge canspread, opening up exciting opportunities for citizens of developing countriesto make a knowledge leap-frog. The United Nations Conference on Environmentand Development in 1992 created a new awareness of the extent to which theglobal environment was endangered by human activity, setting in processmovements towards the creation of new regulatory bodies and fundinginstruments.

5 UNCTAD. 2000. The Least Developed Countries 2000 Report. Geneva.


2.14

However, while the globalization of trade, economic relations,communications and environmental management offers interesting prospectsfor the benefit of the populations of developing countries, it is a double-edged sword. Thus, to the extent that developed countries maintain tradebarriers or subsidize their farmers on a massive scale (over US$300 billionper year), there are diminishing prospects that markets will expand for thegoods that developing countries can produce with a comparative advantage.Dumping foodstuffs at prices below production costs may benefit low-incomeconsumers but it can also undermine incentives to farmers to raise theiroutput, thus inflicting lasting damage on the food crop agriculture ofdeveloping countries and contributing to rural impoverishment. Similarly, therapid increase in the supply of private capital, combined with a narrowingof the role of the public sector, may inadvertently have provided one of themotives for cutting official development assistance (ODA), which decreasedduring the 1990s from 0.33 to 0.24 percent of OECD countries’ GNP. This hasbeen to the detriment of the majority of developing countries, especially theleast developed countries in Africa, which receive almost no private inflows.2.15

The “Washington consensus”, based on the application of macroeconomicpolicies designed to liberalize markets, had a major influence during the1990s, both on the way in which developed country governments perceivedtheir role and on the economic policy advice that was given to developingcountry governments by the Bretton Woods institutions. All around the world,states began to withdraw from activities that the private sector was consideredto be able to handle better. Instead, governments concentrated on their roleas providers of public goods; domestic markets were deregulated and tradeand investment regimes liberalized; parastatal enterprises were privatized;civil services were cut; and fiscal discipline was tightened. Controversy stillreigns over the impact of these structural adjustment programmes. Whilesome countries have clearly benefited, others have seen little response interms of economic growth: instead they are faced with a widening of the gapbetween rich and poor, a civil service that does not have the strength toprovide essential public goods, and a private sector that has been slow torespond to new opportunities. The simultaneous process of rural-urbanmigration, apart from its important demographic impact, may also havecontributed to further erosion of the political weight given to rural affairs,strengthening tendencies for an urban bias in policy-making and resourceallocation.2.16

The Summits of the 1990s, including the World Food Summit, were successfulin their aims of raising public awareness of major global problems, developingplans to address them and securing high-level commitments for joint actionby countries and international agencies. Expectations were thus raised ofaction on an unprecedented scale to address the most important issues facinghumanity. But this came at a time when the response capacity of the UNsystem was seriously curtailed by budgetary restrictions imposed by reform-


minded governments, many of which had themselves adopted inward-lookingpolicies that gave little attention to development issues. A further unintendedconsequence of the Summits was to overcrowd the development agenda, withthe attention of governments being shifted from one major theme to anotherwith bewildering speed, thereby complicating priority setting and diffusingeffort. The resultant lack of visible progress on many of the selected themes,combined with rising doubts over the effectiveness of multilateral assistanceprogrammes, further damaged the credibility of the sponsoring agencies.2.17

There was thus a situation in the years immediately following the World FoodSummit in which many developing countries were grappling with adjustmentproblems, struggling with fiscal resource constraints and facing a growing listof international commitments that they had undertaken to internalize. Many ofthe poorest countries were engaged in conflicts, which sapped their resourcesand energy; others were beset with overwhelming natural disasters, while stillothers struggled to maintain fledgling democracies in the face of public discontentover austerity measures. Some countries also awoke in the mid-1990s to theenormity of the social and economic impact of HIV/AIDS, which has a particularlydamaging effect on the ability of poor rural communities and families to maintainfood security in the face of adverse shifts in dependency ratios. It is hardlysurprising that, in line with conventional wisdom and prudence, most developingcountries tended to take resource allocation decisions with the aim of cuttingbudget deficits and maximizing the rate of economic growth. This was done onthe assumption that such action would eventually contribute to a reduction inpoverty even in the absence of deliberate measures for asset and incomeredistribution. As a result, in spite of their pledges at the Summit, few countriesembarked on purposive large-scale programmes for improving food security. Norwere they necessarily encouraged to do so by their development partners who,although they discredited the effectiveness of “trickle down” approaches topoverty reduction, continued to emphasize policies and investments that supportedeconomic growth as the main development goal in their country assistancestrategies6 and persisted with conventional economic analysis techniques thatgave little weight to distributional concerns in investment decisions.2.18

The overriding commitment to economic growth, efficiency and undistortedtrade, combined with pressures – imposed by relentless advertising – on thecitizens of developed countries to raise consumption, is increasingly at oddswith concerns for social equity and the welfare of poor people elsewhere inthe world. Commitment among donors to engage in humanitarian anddevelopment issues was further eroded by doubts about the effectiveness ofaid, concerns about corruption and poor governance, a diminishing geopoliticalrationale for assistance, the emergence of new concerns about their domesticagriculture sectors and food safety7 and, in some cases, the need to applyausterity policies domestically.

6 World Bank. 2000. Poverty reduction in the 1990s – the World Bank strategy. Précis No. 202. Washington, DC.7 A number of such issues that have come to the fore since 1996 and are of concern to FAO are reviewed inChapter 1 of this publication.


2.19

Rising public indignation over such apparent indifference to issues of global inequityand the squandering of natural resources has, however, given rise to what may havebeen the most significant political development in the last few years of the twentiethcentury: the emergence of transnational civil society advocacy movementscomprising coalitions of diverse interest groups whose members are dissatisfied withthe way in which the world is managed and are demonstrating a formidablecapacity to influence the conduct of global affairs. Although they thrive in democraticsocieties, these movements bypass normal institutional mechanisms. Instead, theydraw much of their influence from successfully harnessing the power of mass mediacommunication and information technology to build highly articulate and visibleglobal constituencies of support for their causes (see Box 2.1). Others adopt lessvisible public profiles, working with similar effectiveness through broad networksof grassroots activists who influence national and international decision-makingprocesses by writing to and quietly lobbying their political representatives. Whetherthey are organized around human rights, environmental, trade, debt or food safetyissues, what these movements show is that there is a very large number of peoplethroughout the world who are strongly committed to achieving a global society that

BOX 2.1

The power of civil society advocacy

The scale and speed with which debt has been reduced for heavily indebted poor countries (HIPCs), at a time

when the formal stance of most developed country governments has been to reduce aid, is to a very large

extent attributable to the effectiveness of the advocacy campaign led and orchestrated by the Jubilee 2000

Coalition. Among the reasons for the relative success of Jubilee 2000 are:

•clear and simply stated, relentlessly reiterated time-bound goals – a tight deadline loaded with symbolism;

•appeal to people’s shared sense of justice, regardless of religion, race, politics or wealth;

•the construction of a loose coalition of civil society organizations (including non-governmental organizations,

religious groups, civic organizations, parliamentary groups, etc.), many of which had extensive networks;

•maximum use of media and state-of-the-art information and communication technology to complement

traditional methods (e.g. religious services, televised concerts, demonstrations) in quickly mobilizing

widespread and highly visible worldwide popular support;

•high-quality research and monitoring, leading to the development of simple but clear messages (e.g. “too

little, too late”);

•the targeting of key leaders worldwide to enlist their support by providing an assurance of popular backing

for measures that could be perceived as potentially unpopular among voters;

•a focus on major decision-making events, particularly G-8 Summits, ensuring that debt issues remain high

on the agenda and that individual leaders are accountable for adhering to their commitments.

Ending hunger in the world is a cause that could provide the driving force for an equally effective inter-

national movement driven by civil society.


is managed more equitably and sustainably and who are determined to make theirvoices heard by those in power as well as by the general public. Some observerswould claim that terrorism also builds on the frustrations of people who feelprofoundly concerned about the economic and social inequity which increasinglycharacterizes modern society, and which is most painfully obvious in the incidenceof hunger and poverty.2.20

That these voices are audible – whether it be via celebrities meeting HisHoliness the Pope, through human chains at G-8 summits or in riots on thestreets of Seattle, Prague or Genoa – is evident in the speed and extent of theresponse of world leaders, the UN, the Bretton Woods institutions, transnationalcorporations and private philanthropists. Among the most notable successes ofsuch movements – and one of particular relevance to many low-income food-deficit countries (LIFDCs) – has been the acceleration and deepening of debtrelief under the HIPC Initiative (as noted in Box 2.1). The related decision ofthe G-8 Cologne Summit in 1999 to link accelerated debt relief to practicalpoverty reduction measures by developing countries8 has become the drivingforce of the development agenda at the start of the twenty-first century. In asimilar manner civil society organizations (CSOs) have been the driving forcein alerting governments and the international community to the urgent needfor a massive global programme to combat HIV/AIDS.2.21

There are also signs that some transnational corporations (TNCs) areincreasingly committed to conducting business with a growing concern forethical considerations, whether related to the employment of child labour,genetic modification of plant and animal species, trade in conflict diamondsor limiting environmental damage associated with mining, manufacturing ortoxic waste disposal. This is reflected in the substantial response by TNCsto the UN Global Compact, through which TNCs undertake to respect theprinciples of good corporate citizenship. Given growing concern amongconsumers in developed countries over food safety, international foodcompanies can be expected to become leaders in fostering new standards.2.22

The new wave of large-scale philanthropy, targeted on the problems facingpoor people in developing countries, is probably driven less by civil societypressures and more by the altruism of those who are distributing a part oftheir wealth. Although this is very welcome, it should not be seen as asubstitute for more formal means of raising resources for the provision ofglobal public goods to redress the various dimensions of poverty.2.23

Whatever the motives for action, the new millennium has begun with astrong consensus that the main goal for development must be to eliminatepoverty. The elimination of poverty is thus a central theme of the UnitedNations Millennium Declaration9 as well as of recent policy statements by

8 Defined in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs).9 UN. 2000. United Nations Millennium Declaration. Resolution 55/2. Adopted by the General Assembly in2000. New York.


most of the international financing institutions which call for greateremphasis on poverty reduction. Although hunger is a direct manifestationand cause of poverty, poverty reduction strategies supported by theseinstitutions have shown a conspicuous lack of focus on food security issues,and concern about hunger tends to be confined largely to emergencysituations.2.24

The international community’s failure to recognize the key role that the reductionof hunger plays in poverty alleviation is reflected in the initial exclusion of theWorld Food Summit goal for 2015 (in spite of vigorous representation by FAO)from the International Development Goals endorsed by OECD, the InternationalMonetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme.10 There are few signs of willingness on the part of both developingand developed countries to set aside the resources required to achieve theeradication of hunger. The great danger is that the debate on poverty reductionstrategies will continue in the corridors of power, delaying commitment to eventhe most obvious of actions, while more than 800 million people suffering fromchronic undernourishment, many of them children, are deprived of the opportunityto live a full life. There is also a real risk that the very success of the agriculturalrevolution of the twentieth century and the current general adequacy of worldfood supplies may encourage widespread indifference towards the need to adopturgent solutions to chronic hunger.

Actions by FAO to fortify political commitment,and evidence of progress

2.25

FAO’s actions towards reinforcing commitment to the achievement of theWorld Food Summit goal have been based on the conviction that, given therequired political determination, it lies well within current technical,institutional and financial capacities to eradicate hunger – and in a veryshort space of time, provided that this goal is addressed directly rather thanobliquely. Indeed, unless priority action is taken to reduce hunger, which isboth a cause and an effect of poverty, little progress can be made towardseradicating poverty in all its dimensions. It is not more debate or scholarlyresearch that is needed but a renewed determination on the part ofgovernments, strongly backed by international bodies and civil society, toimplement the key measures they endorsed five years ago.2.26

The response of the UN system, civil society and governments to foodemergencies, both human-induced and natural, has been improving steadily,and there are many instances of great courage on the part of those who work

10 This appears to have been rectified in the UN Secretary-General’s Roadmap towards the implementation ofthe United Nations Declaration (19 September 2001).


to ensure adequate food deliveries under very dangerous conditions. Theresult is that, compared with earlier in the twentieth century, nowadaysrelatively few people actually starve as a result of complex disasters,11 asshould be the case given the existence of global food surpluses and thepower of modern communication systems.12 In contrast, there has been muchless success in dealing with the larger-scale but less visible problems ofchronic undernourishment, even though they probably contribute to thepermanent disability and premature death of many more people and shouldbe logistically easier to overcome than acute food shortages during complexemergencies.2.27

It is precisely because of the insidious nature of chronic hunger that FAO hasfelt obliged to be insistent in reminding Members of their commitments andto draw attention to the lack of progress towards the goal set at the Summit.If progress were to continue at the current rate it would take over 60 yearsto reach the goal of halving the number of undernourished people set for2015.13 It is because of this and because “few, if any” of the 91 countriesand nine international organizations that reported to the CFS in September200014 were able to claim substantive progress in implementing their WorldFood Summit commitments, that world leaders are again invited by FAO torenew their commitments and translate them into practical programmes.

Major actions

2.28

In seeking to reinforce commitment, FAO has begun at home, engaging theassistance of its governing bodies to develop an organizational StrategicFramework for the period 2000-2015. In it, FAO has adopted the World FoodSummit Plan of Action as “a new point of reference” which will ensure thatresource allocations in the next six-year Medium-Term Plan reinforce theOrganization’s capacity to fulfil its mandate in line with the Summit’sdecisions.15

2.29

Much of FAO’s effort to strengthen political will has been directed towardsgovernments, particularly those of LIFDCs. A growing appreciation of theextent, causes, location and impact of hunger has resulted from an extensionof the Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping Systems

11 S. Devereux. 2000. Famine in the twentieth century. Working Paper No. 105. Brighton, United Kingdom,Institute of Development Studies.12 This is not to imply that there are no longer serious constraints limiting national and international responsesto disasters, responses which tend to be triggered too late and are underfunded and insufficiently sustainedonce the media spotlight has shifted to a new area of focus. The lack of a permanent facility for fundingresponses to major disasters imposes serious constraints on the scale and speed of action.13 FAO. 2001. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2001. Rome.14 FAO. 2000. Committee on World Food Security. Follow-up to the World Food Summit – Report on theProgress in the Implementation of Commitments I, II, V and Relevant Parts of Commitments VII of the Plan ofAction. (CFS 2000/3-Rev. 1). Rome.15 FAO. 1999. Corporate strategy C – Creating sustainable increases in the supply and availability of food andother products from the crop, livestock, fisheries and forestry sectors. In The Strategic Framework for FAO:2000-2015. Rome.


(FIVIMS) programme, which now covers 67 countries. A multi-institutional foodsecurity monitoring programme, for which FAO provides the secretariat, FIVIMSuses indicators endorsed by all of its major stakeholders. The need for anadequate allocation of resources for rural development and for policy changesto improve access to food has been highlighted in consultations with governmentson proposed “National Strategies for Agriculture – Horizon 2010” as well as ina series of regional consultations (conducted jointly with WHO) aimed atstrengthening the political commitment to implementing National Plans of Actionfor Nutrition. The launch of the Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS) inmore than 60 countries has drawn attention to the practical opportunities thatexist for improving agricultural productivity and rural livelihoods by inducingsimple changes in farming systems within a supportive and enabling policyenvironment. Setting up arrangements for South-South Cooperation in support ofthe SPFS has also added to the political visibility of food security issues. Inaddition, some progress has been made in engaging the national-levelcommitment of FAO’s development partners and governments in the fight againsthunger. This has been achieved by extending the United Nations AdministrativeCommittee on Coordination (ACC)16 Network on Rural Development and FoodSecurity within developing country members. The indefatigable advocacy of theDirector-General for affirmative action to reduce hunger is bound to havecontributed further to a strengthening of the political resolve to act.2.30

Many actions have been taken to strengthen the engagement of civil societyin ensuring an adequate follow-up to the Summit. FAO has issued policystatements intended to set a basis for increased collaboration between theOrganization and both non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the privatesector. In 2000, there was a series of regional NGO/CSO consultations,culminating in a presentation to the 26th session of the CFS in whichconcerned organizations pledged to reinforce their activities in support offood security. CSOs have been particularly active, working alongside FAOlegal staff, in fruitful consultations on the right to food. Convened by the HighCommissioner for Human Rights, as mandated by the World Food SummitPlan of Action (Objective 7.4), these meetings have contributed to clarifyingthe content of the right to adequate food and the fundamental right ofeveryone to be free from hunger, giving particular attention to the progressiverealization of this right as a means of achieving food security for all (seeBox 2.2). These consultations have already led to the adoption of a GeneralComment on the Right to Adequate Food by the Committee on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights. More than 800 NGOs have subscribed to a draftCode of Conduct on the Right to Food, which they drafted following theSummit. The purpose of this instrument is to clarify the normative contentof the right to food, and governments are expected to find it useful indefining accountability for the eradication of hunger. Contacts with religiousleaders culminated in late 2000 with an address on the issue of hunger bythe Director-General to His Holiness Pope John Paul II. Staged on the steps

16 Now renamed the UN System’s Chief Executive Board for Coordination (CEB).


of St Peter’s Basilica on the occasion of the Agricultural Jubilee, the eventwas attended by well over 100 000 farmers from many countries. In thepolitical arena, the influential International Parliamentary Union (IPU) hastaken a lead in generating national and international support for movestowards the implementation of the Summit commitments and, in 1998, itheld a well-attended Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Attaining the WorldFood Summit’s Objectives through a Sustainable Development Strategy. Theoutcome was a final document in which IPU committed parliaments tosupport the implementation of the World Food Summit Plan of Action at thenational and international levels. The participation by FAO’s Director-General in meetings of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland,has provided opportunities for the substantive engagement of private sectorleaders, particularly managers of major agro-industrial concerns, as partnersin the quest for a hunger-free world – a goal that is shared by the membersof Italian corporate “groups of friends of FAO”.

BOX 2.2

What is the right to food?

The right to adequate food is recognized in several international instruments, which are legally binding on those

states that are party to them; first among these is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights, where it is recognized both as part of an adequate standard of living, which also includes housing and

clothing, and separately as the fundamental right to be free from hunger.

The right to food implies the right to means of production or procurement of food of sufficient quantity and quality,

that is free from adverse substances and culturally acceptable. This right can be fulfilled by an individual’s own

efforts or with others in the community, and it must be enjoyed by all without any adverse distinction based on race,

religion, sex, language, political opinion or other status.

At the international level, States Parties to the Covenant “should refrain at all times from food embargoes or

similar measures which endanger conditions for food production and access to food in other countries. Food should

never be used as an instrument of political and economic pressure”.1

Under the Covenant, States Parties are obliged to take all appropriate steps, to the maximum of their available

resources, to achieve progressively the right to adequate food. A distinction is made between obligations of con-

duct and of results, and violations can be of commission or of omission. A distinction is also made between the

unwillingness and the inability of States Parties to take action.

The right to adequate food, like other human rights, imposes three types of obligations on States Parties to the

Covenant: the obligation to respect, to protect and to fulfil. In turn, the obligation to fulfil incorporates both and

obligation to facilitate and an obligation to provide.

While the importance of creating an enabling environment where everyone can enjoy the right to food by their

own efforts should be stressed, violations to the Covenant occur when a state fails to ensure the satisfaction of, at

the very least, the minimum essential level required to be free from hunger.

1 Paragraph 37, General Comment 12.Source: General Comment 12, The right to adequate food (art.11), Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1999).


2.31

Political resolve, however, is ultimately sensitive to public opinion. TheSummit itself played a major role in raising public awareness of the magnitudeof the problem of hunger in the world and of the need for action. Since 1996,FAO has stepped up its public awareness-raising activities within the contextof a new Corporate Communication Policy and Strategy. Timely informationon food crises is provided by the reports and special alerts of the GlobalInformation and Early Warning System on Food and Agriculture (GIEWS) and,to date, three issues of The State of Food Insecurity in the World have beenpublished and have received extensive global media coverage. Much of thematerial on the Organization’s multilingual Web site (which recorded an averageof about 10 million hits per month in 2000) also contributes to increasedawareness of food problems and actions being taken to address them. WorldFood Day celebrations have been held in some 150 countries each year, andthe annual TeleFood campaign has added a further dimension to awarenessraising and the promotion of solidarity, involving more than 80 television outletsaround the world and reaching about 500 million viewers. In addition, theDirector-General and senior managers have given a large number of press, radioand television interviews on themes related to the World Food Summit and manyarticles have been published in popular and specialized publications.2.32

In line with the recognition that eradicating hunger depends on mutuallyreinforcing actions in several sectors, FAO has sought to deepen its cooperationwith international agencies and other intergovernmental bodies whosepartnership is necessary for success. Regular meetings among the three Rome-based UN organizations are held at the senior management and technicallevels, and the considerable extent of their operational collaboration is illustratedin an annual publication;17 it was also highlighted in a joint presentation tothe United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in 2000. The threeorganizations also worked jointly in the process leading up to the InternationalConference on Financing for Development, arguing together for a greater focuson hunger and rural poverty issues. The ACC provides a valuable forum forinteragency collaboration, of which the effectiveness in combining forces toaddress food security issues was illustrated in the work of the Task Force onLong-Term Food Security, Agricultural Development and Related Aspects in theHorn of Africa,18 in which FAO took the initial lead and which is now beingpursued under the World Bank’s leadership.2.33

While the Organization has had long-standing cooperation agreements and jointwork programmes with all the major international financing institutions (IFIs),steps have been taken to deepen this collaboration and to focus it increasinglyon addressing food insecurity. There have been frequent contacts between theDirector-General of FAO and the Presidents of all IFIs and of most subregional

17 FAO/IFAD/WFP. 1999, 2000 and 2001. Working together to fight hunger and poverty. Rome.18 FAO. 2000. The elimination of food insecurity in the Horn of Africa – A strategy for concerted governmentand UN agency action. Summary Report of the Inter-Agency Task Force on the UN Response to Long-TermFood Security, Agricultural Development and Related Aspects in the Horn of Africa. Rome.


banks, aimed at promoting a resurgence of lending to the rural sector. Thistheme has also been brought up in addresses by the Director-General to theboards of several of the regional banks. Commitments have been reflected innew memoranda of understanding, signed with the World Bank, the AfricanDevelopment Bank, the Islamic Development Bank and the West AfricanDevelopment Bank, in which these institutions have agreed to fund, at therequest of countries, SPFS-related activities.19 All major international financinginstitutions as well as WFP and UNDP were represented on the High-level Panelon Resource Mobilization, convened in June 2001 by the Director-General.20

2.34

Contacts at the highest level have also been intensified with the governmentsof developed countries and particularly with representative intergovernmentalbodies, including the European Community and the Development AssistanceCommittee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD).

Progress

2.35

Any assessment of growth in the political commitment to address undernourishmentand malnutrition is bound to be subjective until firm evidence emerges of fasterprogress being made towards the eradication of hunger, especially in the LIFDCs.The good news is that some 58 developing countries registered a decrease in theproportion of their population classed as undernourished between 1990-92 and1997-99. However, the proportional decrease in many of these countries has notbeen sufficient to offset the effect of population growth. Hence only 32 countrieshave reduced their number of undernourished in absolute terms. In reporting tothe CFS, however, no country is claiming that reductions are due to actions takenin response to World Food Summit commitments, an impression that has beenconfirmed by the influential Society for International Development, which foundin the course of 32 workshops (held in 26 countries in 1999 and 2000) that veryfew governments had effectively initiated a Summit follow-up process involvingCSOs. Nor, as is shown in Chapter 3 of this publication, is there any evidenceof a rise in international or domestic resource allocations for agriculturaldevelopment, which should be part of any programme aimed at reducing foodinsecurity. Instead, ODA for agriculture has fallen steadily and the proportion ofthe new IFI loan commitments assigned to agricultural and rural developmentreached an all-time low in 2000. At the same time, a number of the most food-insecure countries, while failing to mobilize domestic resources for reducinghunger, have managed to increase their military expenditure.2.36

What is encouraging is the broad consensus that has emerged in theinternational community that the focus of development assistance must be onreducing poverty so as to achieve the International Development Goal of

19 See Chapter 3 of this publication.20 Report of the High-level Panel on Resource Mobilization for Food Security and for Agricultural and RuralDevelopment, FAO, Rome, 26-27 June 2001.


halving poverty levels by 2015. There also appears to be large measure ofconsensus on the need to raise ODA allocations towards the set goal of 0.7percent of GDP and to focus this principally on poor countries, although thenumber of developed countries that have moved in this direction remainssmall.21 Progress has also been made in reducing indebtedness under theHIPC Initiative and in linking this with investments aimed at aspects ofpoverty alleviation.2.37

The paradox, however, is that this welcome commitment to reducing poverty,together with the correct recognition that the causes of poverty are complex,could lead to a diffusion of effort that results in a diminished focus on themore tangible and life-threatening aspects of poverty, especially hunger.Indeed, a failure to address the problems of undernourishment frontally islikely to frustrate the achievement of the poverty alleviation goal, to theextent that hunger is contributing to and reinforcing poverty. The holisticapproaches to development embodied in the Comprehensive DevelopmentFramework (CDF) and the United Nations Development Assistance Framework(UNDAF) (both of which FAO is involved in) need to be interpreted andoperationalized. Sectoral priorities must be defined within these frameworksand sequenced to address the different aspects of poverty, resulting in realisticproposals for action and resource mobilization to achieve the set goal ofpoverty reduction. Debate over the difficulties inherent in measuring theincidence of hunger – a state of life that is all too evident for those whosuffer it – must not become a motive for claiming that its eradication is nota global priority.2.38

This lack of attention to addressing food insecurity as a specific issue hasbeen very evident until recently in the international arena since the WorldFood Summit. Thus it is only rarely that food insecurity has been singledout for specific action by the influential G-7/G-8 and G-77 Summits andother major international meetings, including those of the G-15 and theNon-Aligned Movement. The most notable exception was the G-7 Summitof 1997, which identified a need to expand ODA flows to Africa with aspecial focus on targeted assistance for rural development, food securityand environmental protection. But, at subsequent Summits, there has beenno report on steps taken in this direction, nor any further reference to theproblems of hunger. For example, at the G-8 meeting in Cologne in 1999,where agreement was reached to broaden the impact of the HIPC Initiativeand relate it to poverty reduction measures by beneficiary countries, thesewere equated with improvements in health and education, with no referenceto food security or even to measures to increase income-earningopportunities. At Okinawa in 2000, the G-8 communiqué reiterated supportfor debt cancellation in favour of poverty reduction and again emphasized

21 IMF/OECD/UN/World Bank. 2000. A better world for all – Progress towards the International DevelopmentGoals. Paris. See, however, footnote 9, p. 36. See also the documents for the Preparatory Committee for theInternational Conference on Financing for Development (January 2002).


that “health is the key to prosperity” and that “every child deserves a goodeducation”; it also called for dialogue on food safety issues but made noreference to food security. It is, however, encouraging to note that the FinalStatement of the G-8 Summit in Genoa, in July 2001, referred specificallyto food security issues as follows: “As the November 2001 World FoodSummit: five years later approaches, food security remains elusive. Over800 million people remain seriously malnourished, including at least 250million children. So a central objective of our poverty reduction strategyremains access to adequate food supplies and rural development. Supportto agriculture is a crucial instrument of ODA. We shall endeavour todevelop capacity in poor countries, integrating programmes into nationalstrategies and increasing training in agricultural science. Every effort shouldbe undertaken to enhance agricultural productivity. Among other things, theintroduction of tried and tested new technology, including biotechnology,in a safe manner and adapted to local conditions has significant potentialto substantially increase crop yields in developing countries, while usingfewer pesticides and less water than conventional methods. We arecommitted to study, share and facilitate the responsible use of biotechnologyin addressing development needs. We shall target the most food-insecureregions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, and continue toencourage South-South cooperation. We will support the crucial roleinternational organizations and NGOs play in relief operations. We believenational poverty reduction and sectoral strategies should take due accountof the nutritional needs of vulnerable groups, including newborns and theirmothers.” Recently, the G-77 has also started to draw attention to theproblem of hunger, e.g. in its presentations to the Preparatory Committee forthe International Conference on Financing for Development.2.39

Neglect of hunger reduction as a central element in poverty reduction isevident in the International Development Goals established jointly by theWorld Bank, IMF, the UN and OECD which, as noted earlier, sought toexclude the World Food Summit target for hunger reduction as a specificdevelopment objective in spite of strong representation by FAO on behalfof the governments that endorsed the Rome Declaration.22 A similarsituation prevailed in the initial guidance given by the World Bank andIMF for the preparation of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), butthis has subsequently been broadened to suggest that not only health,education and water supplies should receive attention but also otherissues relating to rural poverty and income generation. However, sincethe incidence of poverty in most poor countries is highest in rural areas,measures to stimulate the growth of small-scale agriculture and to improvecommunity-level food security are eventually bound to assume their properimportance in PRSPs, to the extent that these respond to a fully participativepreparation process. This would be consistent with the World Bank’s new“vision” for rural development, which focuses on the need to address food

22 See paragraph 2.38.


23 The World Bank intends to launch its new “vision” during 2002.24 Op. cit., footnote 9, p. 36.25 This is evident from a recent public opinion poll, carried out in the United States by the University ofMaryland, which found that 75 percent of Americans would be willing to pay US$50 a year in taxes to halvethe number of people suffering from hunger worldwide by 2015 (cited by D. Beckmann, President, Bread forthe World Institute, in a press release of 2 February 2001).

insecurity as a specific objective of its mission to achieve rural povertyreduction.23

2.40

The November 2000 declaration of the Council of the European Union andthe European Commission on their development policy is more specific inrecognizing food security as a key element within a wide range of activitiesin support of poverty eradication but one which must also be tackled fromseveral angles. The need to address hunger as an issue in its own right wasalso explicitly acknowledged (but only at a very late stage in the drafting)in the United Nations Millennium Declaration of September 2000, whichstated its principal goal was “to halve, by the year 2015, the proportion ofthe world’s population whose income is less than one dollar a day and theproportion of people who suffer from hunger and, by the same date, to halvethe proportion of people who are unable to reach or to afford safe drinkingwater”.24 Hopefully, the strong spirit of cooperation which was so evident atthe UN Millennium Assembly Summit will be reflected in resolute andpurposive joint action.2.41

A cautious optimism is also encouraged by the extent, already noted, towhich transnational civil society movements are emerging as powerfuladvocates for a more equitable world, demonstrating that there is, contraryto some perceptions, broad popular support in developed countries foraddressing hunger.25 Many NGOs are already deeply engaged in coping withfood emergencies and in providing support services to small farmingcommunities, often with an emphasis on sustainable land use practices.Others have been playing a prominent role in the post-World Food Summitconsultative process, led by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, on theright to food. These organizations are likely to form coalitions, takingadvantage of improved networking possibilities, and to become increasinglyeffective forces in ensuring greater international and national commitment toaddressing food issues.2.42

Finally, at the international level, there appears to be a growing recognitionof the threat that hunger and the extreme deprivation with which it is associatedpose to peace and security. Local conflicts over scarce resources can quicklyspread to become regional conflicts, with massive destabilizing impacts,preventing any serious consideration of long-term food security issues in theaffected countries. Extreme deprivation also drives poor rural families toproduce illegal drugs. It is in the self-interest of all countries to take measuresto pre-empt such situations. Because of its responsibility, under the UnitedNations Charter, for the maintenance of international peace and security, theSecurity Council has been giving increasing attention to the food issues,


26 Op. cit., footnote 13, p. 38.27 FAO. 2001. Undernourishment and economic growth: the efficiency cost of hunger. By J.-L. Arcand. FAOEconomic and Social Development Paper No. 147. Rome.

particularly to the assurance of food security in complex human-induced andnatural emergencies. Given the scale of chronic undernourishment, especiallyin countries exposed to conflict, this is an issue which also needs to beconfronted as an important theme in the Security Council’s quest for a morepeaceful world.2.43

At the national level, there are indications that several developing countriesare recognizing the critical role that the rural sector has to play in a processof broad-based economic development, and they are committed to promotingagricultural growth, focusing particularly on what they perceive to be newdomestic and international market opportunities. But these countries areexceptions; the majority of developing countries tend to pursue urban-biasedpolicies with little evidence of a genuine determination to stamp out chronichunger and malnutrition or to promote rural development.

Towards translating commitments into action

2.44

The World Food Summit: five years later will provide an opportunity forgovernments, the international community and civil society to reaffirm theircommitment to the Rome Declaration on World Food Security and the WorldFood Summit Plan of Action. However, what is required is a move beyondthese broad commitments and a statement in very specific terms of how allconcerned will work together to step up time-bound actions in support ofhunger eradication, so as to ensure that the Summit goal really is achievedby 2015. The commitment will be all the stronger if it is based on aconsensual vision of how to proceed in eradicating hunger.2.45

While firmly rooted in the Rome Declaration, the actions to be taken by eachof the major parties can also benefit from the advances in knowledge, thinkingand institutional relationships that have taken place since 1996. Of increasingrelevance to the design of effective strategies is the growing understanding ofthe nature of food insecurity and its underlying causes.26 It is also becomingclearer that chronic hunger reinforces poverty, giving credence to the intuitiveperception that measures to reduce hunger are vital precursors to successfulpoverty reduction programmes: as long as people – whether adults or youngchildren – are hungry, their response to development opportunities is boundto be inhibited. Indeed, there is evidence that, in most economies, the presenceof widespread hunger stunts the potential for national economic growth.27

2.46

Advantage also has to be taken of the significant advances in institutionaldecentralization which have taken place in many countries over the past fiveyears but which have yet to be supported with adequate resources to enable


28 FAO. 1998. The right to food in theory and practice. Rome.

local institutions to fulfil an expanded mandate. Decentralization opens upopportunities for more effective collaboration at the local level among publicinstitutions concerned with the multiple dimensions of food security. It alsogreatly facilitates participative diagnostic and decision-making processes, whichare increasingly recognized as important in contributing to local self-reliancein addressing critical issues, including hunger and the basis for more sustainablelivelihoods. The emerging role of CSOs in responding to local demands forknowledge and services must also be factored into strategy development.2.47

Significant advances have been made in thinking on human rights issues,including the way in which concepts underlying the right to food can contributeto the design of effective programmes for hunger eradication. This thinkingemphasizes the primary role of the individual, the family and the communityin meeting their own food needs, while attributing a “fulfilment” role togovernments, a role that is activated only when the assurance of access toadequate and safe food is clearly beyond local capacities.28 Governmentshave, of course, an important role to play in creating the conditions for localefforts to succeed, for instance by assuring peace and conditions for effectiveparticipation in political processes. They are also required to ensure thatfood is not used as an instrument for political or economic pressure, an issueon which observance is being monitored by the Special Rapporteur on the Rightto Food, appointed by the High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2000.2.48

At the level of international institutions, the steps which have been taken toimprove interagency collaboration at the national level, through the CommonCountry Assessment (CCA) and UNDAF as well as through the creation of theACC Network on Rural Development and Food Security, open up new opportunitiesfor mutually reinforcing interagency partnerships for hunger eradication.2.49

However, in spite of these advances in thinking and in institutional relationships,few countries have made the deliberate attack on hunger that is needed toachieve the World Food Summit goal. Except in the consultations on the rightto food, there is little evidence of much focused thinking about what is impliedin practical terms by the commitment to eradicate hunger – beyond theimportant step of raising the output of small farms (see Box 2.3). Perhaps itis this absence of a clear vision that tends to weaken the determination to fulfilcommitments and hence reduce progress towards eradicating hunger.2.50

Hunger, unlike many other manifestations of poverty, is relatively easy toidentify, to measure and to target; indeed, surveillance and early warningsystems are becoming increasingly effective in predicting food shortages.The solution – that of ensuring regular access to adequate, nutritious and safefood – is also seemingly simple. Unlike many health problems, eradicatinghunger does not require many years of costly scientific research or theadministration of expensive medicines. This implies that a real option exists


to address hunger by ensuring that those who are, for structural reasons,unable to meet most of their food needs either from expanded farm productionor from gainful employment have direct access either to suitable food or tothe money with which to buy it. Although measures to ensure access to foodare often put in place during emergencies, few developing countries have yetmounted effective programmes to address chronic hunger on a daily basis.2.51

One of the most surprising factors in the search for solutions to hunger isthat almost everyone who should be concerned with its eradication – butprobably not those who are genuinely hungry – tends to search for a rationalefor rejecting direct measures to address the problems of chronicundernourishment in favour of what they claim to be more sustainablesolutions. Paradoxically, underlying this widespread aversion to directsolutions are essentially ethical concerns relating to human dignity anddependence. Yet, no human state can be more damaging to individual dignityor cause more dependency than persistent deprivation of food which, alongwith water, is the most essential ingredient for leading a healthy and fulfillinglife. The need for ensuring access to adequate food is implicitly recognizedby most developed countries, which have established social security systems

BOX 2.3

Raising farm productivity to reduce poverty

Most poverty in developing countries is overwhelmingly concentrated in rural areas, and urban poverty is often

a consequence of migration to escape rural deprivation. Among rural populations, small farming families are

usually the poorest and most malnourished. In many LIFDCs, success in raising small farm productivity can

lead simultaneously to a reduction in rural poverty, improvements in household food security and nutrition,

greater food availability on local and national markets, and a reduced import bill. Experience suggests that

often relatively modest investments, combined with simple technology changes, can result in substantial gains

in both land and labour productivity where adequate markets exist for the incremental output. Part of these

investments may be made from farmers’ own resources, particularly through conversion of family labour into

productive assets such as small-scale irrigation and drainage schemes, plantations of tree crops or land im-

provement, for instance through terracing or levelling.

Having a ready market is critical to the success of programmes for raising farm output. For developing coun-

tries, however, one problem lies in the fact that the long-term decline in international cereal prices (resulting

largely from a combination of rapid technology change and subsidies in developed countries), while allowing

cheap imports and hence low food prices, tends to reduce food production incentives for small farmers and

erode their major source of income.

The link between agriculture and food security can be strengthened if developing countries purchase the

food used for food safety nets on the local market, thereby creating an effective demand where none existed

before.


to protect their own citizens from penury and to ensure that everyone hasadequate nutrition. Although the need for similar systems in developingcountries, where vulnerability to hunger and risks tend to be greater, wouldseem to be self-evident, few countries have been encouraged by theirdevelopment partners to put them in place.2.52

An aversion to direct solutions to hunger is also often voiced by many economistsand development practitioners who wrongly claim that they necessarily distortmarkets, remove incentives, are unsustainable, fiscally unaffordable, hold backgrowth and breed corruption. In practice, any steps that translate a need for foodinto incremental effective demand can only stimulate markets, providing anopportunity for a win-win situation in which sales of local staple foods have thepotential to lift both suppliers and consumers out of hunger. The incentive towork harder or to produce more food is largely meaningless to those who haveneither the strength nor the means to do so. Similarly, there is a danger thatthe quest for sustainable solutions, while noble, could take resources away frommeeting immediate needs, thereby building capacity among hungry people torespond to more sustainable growth options. When properly targeted,redistributive measures are less costly and hence, for the same amount ofmoney, are able to lift more people out of hunger than the investments requiredto underpin seemingly more sustainable solutions, and they can create thepreconditions for sustainable growth. Economic growth can only be held backby the non-participation of those who are hungry. Finally, there is no evidencethat corruption thrives more on the resources committed to redistributive measuresthan on those allocated to investment programmes.2.53

The implication of this is that the widespread bias against redistributive measuresmust be set aside in the search for practical and rapid solutions to foodinsecurity – solutions that respond to a human need that can only inducesuffering if denied. They should be seen as part of a balanced set of initiativesdesigned to address the various manifestations of hunger, identified throughgood diagnostic work in a targeted, cost-effective and institutionally feasiblemanner that takes account of the availability of resources. As demonstratedby Maharashtra State in India and some regions of Ethiopia, the multipliereffects of such balanced programmes can be increased if they are used tocreate productive assets and are supplied by local purchases that stimulatedomestic food markets, thereby generating greater farm output. Visible successin eradicating hunger and improving nutrition, and evidence of resultant socialand economic benefits, can thus become a catalyst in generating the necessarywill to complete the task in the shortest possible time.2.54

There is much to be learned from those few countries, regions and communitiesthat have made rapid progress in reducing the incidence of undernourishmentand have struck the right balance between different measures (see Box 2.4).It would be useful to explore opportunities for sharing such experiences morewidely through extended South-South Cooperation arrangements.


2.55

It is through reference to successful experiences and to the importantdevelopments that have taken place since 1996 that a possible basis for enhancedefforts to eradicate hunger begins to emerge. What is clear is that lastingprogress towards achieving universal food security has much to do with ratesof economic growth, the components of growth, deliberate pro-poor policies andfair trade. While acknowledging the complex interactions of all these factors ininfluencing the incidence of hunger, the following is a summary of observationsthat countries could find helpful in defining hunger eradication strategies.2.56

The right to food• Freedom from hunger is the most fundamental human right, proclaimed

in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed in variousinternational treaties; without this right, there can be no other.

BOX 2.4

How Thailand overcame malnutrition

Over three decades ago, Thailand recognized malnutrition as a national problem that was concentrated in rural

areas. The government decided to address the problem through a community-driven rural development

programme. Improving the nation’s nutritional status was considered to be a productive investment and not

a welfare expense, and this was reflected in a national policy calling for accelerated action focused on the

improvement of nutrition as a critical element in poverty alleviation. A national rural development policy and

plan were developed with the involvement of planning officials, staff from many sectors, academics and com-

munity representatives. Improving nutrition became a central element of a broader economic and social contract

between the government and people, which related it closely to poverty alleviation. Poverty was to be

addressed in all its dimensions and not from an income perspective alone. It entailed the implementation of

integrated multisectoral actions linked to income generation opportunities in order to improve the nutritional

status of communities. Programme components included rural job creation, village development projects, com-

plete coverage of basic minimum services for the community and an expansion of food production (with an

emphasis on improving the quality of diets). At first these activities covered only the poorest third of the country,

but they soon encompassed the entire nation.

Among the reasons for Thailand’s success in eradicating moderate to severe malnutrition in a single decade

(1982-1991) was its investment in human capital. It recognized that the measures introduced must have a social

foundation and that the concept of self-help is central to collective action against malnutrition. A community-

government partnership was developed and fostered through broad-based social mobilization strategies. Vol-

unteer facilitators, selected by the community, became responsible for enhancing the community’s access to

minimum basic services and for mobilizing its members to engage in nutrition-related actions. Central to this

was the utilization of a set of minimum basic needs indicators that guided the people in identifying and working

towards prioritizing their nutrition problems, taking appropriate action and maximizing the potential of local

resources.


• All people have a right to adequate and safe food, and actions bygovernments must respect, protect and fulfil this right; any denial of foodon political or economic grounds is contrary to the human right toadequate food endorsed at the World Food Summit.

• The primary responsibility for ensuring access to adequate food rests,however, with the individuals, their families, their wider social circlesand the communities in which they live.

• Efforts to eradicate hunger, therefore, need to focus on empoweringfamilies, groups and communities to achieve inclusive food security,encouraging a maximum of self-reliance but supporting this whereabsolutely necessary with external inputs to address priorities articulatedat the local level.

Poverty, hunger and economic development• Hunger is both a cause and effect of extreme poverty; hunger eradication

through measures that broaden access to food, whether through increasedproduction or other means, is a first and vital step in alleviating deeppoverty. As long as there is widespread hunger, little progress can bemade in other aspects of poverty reduction and the foundation for broad-based economic growth is unsound.

• Hunger is predominantly a rural problem; hence, raising the productivityof small farms and reinforcing their resilience to shocks can often playa key role in cutting the incidence of hunger by increasing food availabilitywithin farm families and in local markets, creating employmentopportunities and generating economic expansion. However, only in afew societies, where there is an equitable distribution of land, canfarming system improvements alone lead to the full elimination of ruralhunger within a time-frame that is meaningful for people who do not haveenough food.

Hunger as a result of market failure• Hunger is the consequence of lack of access to adequate and safe food.

It is essentially an extreme instance of market failure, in the sense thatthose people most in need of food are the least able to express this needin terms of effective demand: hungry people are the poorest of the poor.

• Governments that are committed both to neoliberal macroeconomicpolicies and to eradicating hunger need to compensate for this marketfailure by facilitating improved access to food and to the means ofenhancing production through a balanced combination of policyadjustments and practical targeted measures that respond to local needsand opportunities.

Options for improving access to food• Access to adequate food can be broadened in various ways – by raising the

incomes and increasing the assets of poor people, increasing food productionby food-deficit households and through programmes for the targeteddistribution of free or subsidized food or the funds with which to buy it.


• In most settings, combinations of all of the above will be necessary toachieve the full eradication of hunger: the balance cannot be determinedex ante but needs to be established locally, based on a participativediagnosis of the underlying causes of hunger, including the options foraddressing them, and on a participative assessment of institutionalcapacities and resources availability.

• Inclusive solutions to hunger eradication will almost always involveredistributive measures, whether it be the redistribution of assets(especially land of a suitable quality), income or food. If properly designed,these measures can reinforce community self-reliance and individualdignity, help address gender inequalities, create productive assets (e.g.irrigation construction, soil conservation, forestation, road upgrading)and contribute to the effective functioning of markets by generatingincremental demand for food products.

• Accurately targeted measures for income or food redistribution tend tobe less institutionally demanding, cheaper (even if possibly lesssustainable) and quicker in cutting the incidence of undernourishmentthan most programmes aimed at raising incomes through expandedproduction. The latter involve relatively high costs per beneficiary andusually require a long gestation period before they have an impact onfood consumption levels.

• As long as financial resources are sufficient and the necessary institutionsare in place, embarking on long-term “sustainable” strategies to endhunger need not be at the expense of short-term measures to ensureaccess to adequate food; both can proceed simultaneously.

Political commitment• Assuming the means exist to eradicate hunger – and it is difficult to deny

that they do – the continued existence of undernourishment on a vastscale is a consequence of either deliberate political choice (which isincompatible with the pledges made at the World Food Summit) orincompetence in applying possible solutions.

• The goal of hunger eradication will only be attained if actions are based onthe commitment of the people in the towns and villages where hunger is mostprevalent and of those who work in the international and national agenciesthat should respond to their demands, as well as on the commitment of worldleaders, politicians and concerned citizens of the industrialized world.

.Global interdependence

• The persistence of widespread hunger in a world of plenty is strikingevidence of ineptitude in the management of global systems for thepublic good. Apart from causing immense human suffering, suchmismanagement damages the credibility of both the instruments ofinternational governance and the concepts of mutual interdependence,which are central to globalization.

• Policies adopted at the international level, particularly on trade, need tobe systematically assessed to determine the extent to which they createor undermine an enabling environment for reducing hunger.


• The global cost of not eradicating hunger – in terms of conflict, recurrentemergencies, international crime, the drug trade, terrorism, clandestinemigration and the premature death of those who are hungry – is enormous.It is in the self-interest of both poor and rich countries to work togetherto achieve the goal of the World Food Summit.

• FAO’s mandate requires it to play a crucial role in reinforcing commitmentsto eradicate hunger, and its strength and effectiveness in carrying out thistask will depend on how far it is able to deepen its partnerships with IFIs,with other relevant agencies of the UN system and with civil society.

2.57

Parties to the World Food Summit: five years later may find that the elementslisted above provide a helpful basis for enhancing national programmesaimed at achieving the Summit objectives, establishing institutionalaccountability and developing effective international partnerships focused oncommon goals. They may also be relevant in the development of voluntaryguidelines for realizing the right to adequate food, such as an InternationalCode of Conduct on the Human Right to Food.2.58

The governments of countries engaged in preparing strategies for povertyreduction could internalize the above considerations in defining the hungereradication elements of their strategies as well as detailed plans to achievethe Summit target by 2015, at least within their borders. The types ofprogrammes they adopt will vary, but a common feature is likely to besupport for decentralized community-led initiatives designed to ensureinclusive food security, involving a strategic succession of measures aimedat bringing about immediate reductions in hunger and putting in place theingredients of longer-term sustainable solutions. Often they will combine theprovision of social safety nets with embarking on vigorous rural developmentprogrammes. Implementing such programmes will require the engagementnot only of Ministries of Agriculture but of other institutions – from both thepublic sector and civil society – whose mandate it is to respond to themultiple demands made by communities and common interest groupscommitted to eradicating hunger.2.59

Enabling developing countries to implement hunger eradication programmeson the scale required implies the full engagement of the internationalcommunity. Endorsement of the above concepts would imply acceptance ofthe need to take purposive actions to eradicate hunger rather than assumingthat hunger will disappear as a side-effect of broader measures to eliminatepoverty. Hunger eradication goals must therefore be explicitly includedamong the development goals guiding the actions of the internationalcommunity. Subscription to the general considerations outlined here alsoimplies a need for stronger collaboration among the UN agencies (especiallythe Rome-based agencies but also those concerned with health, education,children’s welfare and the environment), IFIs and other intergovernmentalbodies, working jointly within their areas of comparative advantage in thedelivery of technical, food and financial assistance. International funding for


hunger eradication needs to rise to a scale commensurate with the problemand be advanced under affordable terms and conditions to avoid a renewedincrease in developing countries’ indebtedness.29 Apart from their use forenhancing food security, international resources could be provided tocompensate governments and international institutions for the marginal costsof incorporating hunger eradication components in poverty reduction strategiesand resulting programmes. It is particularly important that all externalcommitments be sufficiently secure over the long term to enable governmentsto embark confidently on the multifaceted programmes needed to achievethe World Food Summit goal.2.60

A sharper focus on hunger within the broader objective of reducing povertyalso has implications for the implementation of FAO’s Medium-Term Plan.Indeed, each major activity should be assessed in terms of its relevance tohunger reduction and the question should be raised as to how its impact onfood security might be enhanced. This would imply, for instance, that theOrganization’s long-term strategic thinking should focus less on predictingfood supply and demand as determined by markets, and more on identifyingunsatisfied food needs and how these can be fully met in a cost-effectivemanner. Policy advice would increasingly focus on the hunger eradicationcomponent of PRSPs and investment projects would be evaluated not simplywith consideration for their economic benefits but also for their effect onhunger reduction. Furthermore, the SPFS could be broadened to become apeople-centred demand-driven instrument through which groups andcommunities, backed by a partnership of various sectoral ministries, civilsociety and concerned agencies of the UN system, are empowered to addresshunger in its multiple dimensions as a first step towards poverty reduction.This would be in conformity with the recognition that multisectoral action isa requisite for eradicating undernourishment – a recognition that is implicitin the Rome Declaration and in the invitations to Heads of State to attendthe Summit and the World Food Summit: five years later. In turn, it wouldimply developing a joint vision on how to approach hunger eradication withother UN bodies (especially WFP and the International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment [IFAD] as well as the Bretton Woods institutions) and with civilsociety. Such a joint vision should be reflected more fully in currentprogramming processes, including the CDF, PRSPs, CCA and UNDAF. It couldbe supported at the national level in developing countries by revitalizing theThematic Groups of the ACC Network on Rural Development and FoodSecurity and by creating a high-level Coordinating Unit. FAO also has acatalytic and facilitative role in promoting hunger eradication, building astrong supportive constituency and ensuring that hunger features prominentlyon the agenda of other fora, including those concerned with the environment,sustainable development, health, nutrition and finance. The Organization

29 The need for “concessionality levels (including grants) appropriate to the purposes and to the situation ofrecipient countries” has been noted in the review of international development cooperation, contained in theReport of the Secretary-General to the Preparatory Committee for the International Conference on Financing forDevelopment.


must also strengthen the performance of its early warning and food monitoringsystems in cooperation with other agencies.2.61

Developed countries, backed by international institutions, especially thoseconcerned with trade, have an opportunity to demonstrate their will to makepotentially very significant contributions to hunger eradication by openingtheir markets, especially to the agricultural exports of developing countries;by reducing dumping and subsidies on farm products; by sharing technologyand by substantially expanding funding for relevant international public goods(agricultural research, regulating the management of common fish stocks,monitoring forest, land and biodiversity degradation, and setting up codes ofconduct for responsible resource management, etc.).2.62

CSOs, especially international and national NGOs operating in developingcountries, as well as farmers’, women’s and youth groups, are expected tocommit themselves to address the problems of hunger with renewed vigour,playing an important role in resource mobilization, the provision of technicalservices and advocacy. They may also assume responsibility for monitoringperformance against the reaffirmed commitments.2.63

Good opportunities will arise for the private sector to contribute to hungerreduction. Within developing countries, this would principally be throughextending trading systems into rural areas and investing in small-scaleindustries that can provide gainful employment and equip people with newskills. At the international level, contributions can be made by the privatesector in opening new markets for developing country products, movingmanufacturing from developed to developing countries, and developing aswell as freely sharing technologies that offer prospects for improving poorpeople’s livelihoods. If the significant private resource transfers expectedeventually to flow through the CDM can be directed towards small-scaleresource-poor farmers, enabling them to shift towards more sustainable systemsof land use, this will have beneficial effects on both food consumption andthe environment.2.64

One can conclude that, in spite of the disappointing progress over the pastfive years, the prospects for achieving the World Food Summit goal remaingood. This, however, will require the eradication of hunger to be adopted asa specific objective, nationally and internationally, within poverty reductionstrategies. Not only do these strategies need to build on the recognition that,as long as people are hungry, there can be little progress towards halvingpoverty levels through economic growth processes, but they need to bebased on the fact that all humanity has a right to food, which cannot wait.The Summit goal can be achieved by tailoring programmes to address localneeds and opportunities, balancing measures designed to bring aboutimmediate reductions in deprivation with investments aimed at generatingsustainable livelihood improvements so as to ensure inclusive food securityat the level of individual communities. The lead must come from the


households, communities and countries where food insecurity is mostprevalent, but these efforts need to be matched with reciprocal resourcecommitments by the international community, provided through bilateral, UNand multilateral channels and CSOs on a non-recoverable basis. Developedcountries can also contribute to the achievement of the Summit goal byreducing trade barriers against agricultural imports and by creating incentivesfor the transfer of knowledge and appropriate forms of FDI, particularlydirected at the rural areas of developing countries. It is in the interest ofpeople in both developing and developed countries – and a moral imperative –to eradicate hunger as a shared endeavour, as quickly as is humanly possible.

57 MOBILIZING RESOURCES FOR AGRICULTURE IN SUPPORT OF FOOD SECURITY

3

1 The term “undernourishment” is used to refer to the status of people whose food intake does not provideenough calories to meet their basic energy requirements. The term “undernutrition” denotes the status of peoplewhose anthropometric measurements indicate the outcome not only of inadequate food intake but also of poorhealth and sanitation conditions that may prevent them from deriving full nutritional benefit from the food theyeat (FAO. 2000. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2000. Rome).2 Including the economies in transition of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Calculations are based on 1985prices using the US dollar adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP) for that year.3 World Bank data.

Mobilizing resources foragriculture in support offood security

Introduction

3.1

Despite remarkable progress made over the last decade by developing countriesin overall economic growth and improved living conditions, poverty and foodinsecurity are still widespread and show insufficient signs of decline. FAOestimates the number of people suffering from undernourishment1 in developingcountries in 1997-99 to have been 777 million (17 percent of the total populationof these countries). Although this represents a decline from the 830 millionestimated for the period 1990-92 (20 percent of the population), a high absolutenumber of undernourished persists. If current trends continue, the number ofundernourished people is projected to fall to 580 million in 2015, well short ofthe World Food Summit target of halving the number to 400 million by that year.3.2

Nearly all population increases in the future will be concentrated in developingcountries, where the alleviation of extreme poverty, and particularly hunger,needs to be targeted. Although food insecurity is concentrated in thedeveloping world, some 38 million people living elsewhere areundernourished, principally in transition countries, with pockets of hungerfound in higher-income countries. Immediate action must be taken to mobilizeand utilize additional resources effectively in order to improve access tofood, particularly by the poor and vulnerable groups.3.3

In recent years, poverty has received renewed attention in the developmentdiscourse. The number of people living on less than US$1 per day in thedeveloping regions2 was about 1.2 billion in 1998,3 meaning that, on average,about one-quarter of the population of this country grouping was poor.


4 FAO. 2001. Undernourishment and economic growth: the efficiency cost of hunger. By J.-L. Arcand. FAO Economicand Social Development Paper No. 147. Rome.

3.4

Hunger, or lack of access to adequate food, is one of the direst traits ofpoverty. Fighting hunger should thus form a fundamental part of any strategyto eradicate poverty. The concept of food security constitutes an effectivetool with which to target, design and monitor policies and initiatives forpoverty reduction. The resources required to put an end to hunger do exist,and their price is in fact lower than the human and economic costs ofallowing hunger to persist. The latter include the costs of ill health whichis often generated by undernourishment (expenditure on health care andwelfare), low labour productivity and, ultimately, lower economic growth.There is increasing evidence from research that high levels ofundernourishment compromise the overall development of countries directly(through the reduced productivity of the undernourished) and indirectly(through the negative effects of undernourishment on health).4 Reducinghunger is a necessary condition for the reduction of poverty. Achieving theWorld Food Summit target as an intermediate objective towards completehunger eradication is not only a moral imperative, it makes good economicsense.3.5

The World Food Summit target can be achieved through coordinated action ona number of fronts, reflecting the multidimensional nature of the determinantsof hunger, food insecurity and undernourishment. These determinants includepoverty and the unequal distribution of assets; low levels of human capital;stagnant economic growth; low productivity and financing constraints inagriculture; the bias of the international financial system; gender and racialdiscrimination; weak institutions and governance; disease (particularly HIV/AIDS); and conflict and natural disasters. The World Food Summit acknowledgedthe multidimensional nature of food security in its seven commitments (see Box1.1 on p. 2), each of which addresses an area of action and therefore requiresresources. The action areas identified include the creation of an enabling political,social and economic environment, both nationally and internationally; theeradication of poverty; efforts to promote sustainable agriculture; disaster andemergency preparedness and prevention; investment in agriculture; and themonitoring of progress.3.6

This chapter focuses on Commitment Six, concerning investment in agricultureor, more precisely, the mobilization of resources for strengthening theproductivity and productive capacity of the agriculture sector. The role ofagriculture in generating additional food supplies and incomes necessary forgreater access to food is paramount in developing countries, especially thelow-income food-deficit countries (LIFDCs), where agriculture is the principalsector in terms of national income, employment and exports. The majority


5 FAO. 1995. Report of the Twenty-eighth Session of the FAO Conference , 20-31 October 1995. (C95/REP).Rome.6 FAO. 1996. Investment in agriculture: evolution and prospects. Document No. 10; and Assessment of feasibleprogress in food security, Document No. 14. In World Food Summit Technical Background Documents, Vols 2and 3. FAO. 1999. Committee on World Food Security (25th session). Investment in agriculture for foodsecurity: situation and resource requirements to reach the World Food Summit objectives. (CFS:99/Inf.7). Rome.

(approximately 70 percent) of the poor live in rural areas and earn theirlivelihoods in the agriculture sector directly as farmers and agriculturallabourers, or from employment in rural non-farm activities. The rural non-farm sector consists in part of activities upstream or downstream from primaryproduction and, therefore, depends heavily on agricultural activity andincomes for its survival and growth. The poverty-alleviating impact ofagriculture-driven economic growth, coupled with growth in rural non-farmincomes, is mitigated by the extreme inequality of asset ownership,particularly land. Furthermore, without access to foreign markets, and in theabsence of good governance and appropriate institutions, most investment islikely to be severely compromised.3.7

The 1995 Quebec Ministerial Declaration committed FAO and its membercountries to “promoting appropriate investment in agricultural, forestry andfisheries sectors”.5 In the context of the World Food Summit, FAO6 estimatedthe future volume of investments required in agriculture and supportinginfrastructure and services to meet the goal of reducing the number ofundernourished to 400 million by no later than 2015. Current investmentlevels fall some US$30 billion short of the US$180.4 billion needed annuallyto reach the Summit target.3.8

Resources for agricultural investment can come from private and publicsources, both external and internal. Although most investments are primarilymobilized by the farmers themselves, through its expenditures on agriculture,forestry and fisheries, the public sector plays a critical role in providingincentives and creating an environment conducive to such investments aswell as in ensuring sufficient availability of public goods (basic infrastructure,rules of law, peace and security). Official development assistance (ODA) isan important complement to domestic resources, particularly for thosecountries plagued by high food insecurity. In this chapter, along with resourcesallocated specifically to agriculture, the estimated investment requirementsfor reaching the Summit goal are also reviewed (see Resource needs to meetthe World Food Summit goal, p. 83).3.9

Countries with a high prevalence of undernourishment have lower incomelevels, lower capital–labour ratios and a lower level of labour productivityin agriculture than countries where the prevalence of undernourishment islow. With respect to resources allocated to agriculture, some countries areexpected to be able to mobilize additional domestic resources to cover thesubstantial costs required to reduce the prevalence of undernourishment intheir populations. Many others, however, especially LIFDCs, will need todraw on an expanded flow of external resources. In this regard, external


7 The more correct term would be “national average apparent food consumption”, since the data are drawn fromnational Food Balance Sheets rather than from consumption surveys. In this chapter, the term “per capita foodconsumption” is used in this sense.

development assistance to agriculture has been falling to historically lowlevels while, in terms of total resources, there has been some substitutionof public by private sources. However, foreign direct investment (FDI) hasso far bypassed most poor countries and, of the overall private investmentflowing to poorer countries, relatively little is directed to the food andagriculture sectors. The issues of adequate mobilization and the optimal useof resources are therefore one of paramount importance.

Why focus on resources for food security andagriculture in developing countries?

3.10

Although the share of undernourished in the total population of developingcountries has declined over the last decades, the absolute number ofundernourished remains high. Emphasizing the persistence of large numbersof undernourished should not be taken as a lack of recognition of thesignificant successes achieved by world agriculture in providing food to anever-increasing population. Since 1969-71, the population of developingcountries has increased from 2.6 billion to 4.5 billion. The decline in therelative incidence of undernourishment (equivalent to half of the percentageof the population affected) constitutes a considerable achievement.3.11

Such progress is also reflected in the increases in per capita food availabilityfor direct human consumption, which is one of the key variables used tomeasure the extent of food insecurity at the country level. It is expressedas dietary energy supply (DES) in kcal per capita per day (see Table 3.1).7

3.12

As shown in the Table, the overall increase in world DES mainly reflectsgains made by the developing countries, whose average per capita DES grewfrom 2 110 to 2 680 kcal (27 percent) between 1969-71 and 1997-99. Amongcountries, however, the gains are uneven. Progress in the aggregate of thedeveloping countries has been decisively influenced by the significantimprovements made by those with the largest populations. Of the sevendeveloping countries with a population of more than 100 million, only oneremained with very low levels of per capita food consumption during theperiod. Furthermore, between 1990-92 and 1997-99, only 32 countries wereable to reduce their number of undernourished (by a total of 116 millionpeople) while, in the remaining 67 developing countries for which data areavailable, the number of undernourished increased by about 77 million.3.13

It is useful to note that the widely used reference to the number of peoplewithout access to a minimum dietary energy intake as a measure of food


TABLE 3.1Per capita dietary energy supply

Region 1969-71 1979-81 1990-92 1996-98 1997-99

(kcal per day)

WORLD 2 410 2 540 2 700 2 780 2 800

Developed countries 3 130 3 220 3 270 3 240 3 230

Transition economies 3 320 3 390 3 160 2 890 2 910

Developing countries 2 110 2 300 2 520 2 650 2 680

Latin America and the Caribbean 2 470 2 700 2 710 2 810 2 820

Near East and North Africa 2 360 2 820 2 980 2 970 3 010

Sub-Saharan Africa 2 100 2 070 2 120 2 200 2 190

East and Southeast Asia 2 010 2 320 2 640 2 850 2 920

South Asia 2 060 2 070 2 310 2 420 2 400

Source: FAO.

8 Well above 5 percent per annum, according to FAO. 1996. Op. cit., footnote 6, Document No. 14.

insecurity fails to capture all the dimensions of undernutrition (also causedby a poor health status) and malnutrition (where dietary imbalances, especiallyof micronutrients, can have deleterious health implications). However, a lackof sufficient food is itself a cause of deficiency in a variety of necessarynutrients, and not only of inadequate energy supplies. In addition, as illustratedby a comparison of the diets of a well-nourished and an undernourished adult(see Figure 3.1), diets tend to be less diverse at lower levels of food intake,thereby adding to the nutritional deficiency of the undernourished.3.14

There are currently 32 developing countries that have a per capita foodconsumption of less than 2 200 kcal and, consequently, a high prevalence offood insecurity. Halving the number of undernourished by 2015 in each ofthese countries with national resources alone would require exceptionallyhigh rates of growth along with a more equal distribution of income. Therequired combination of income growth8 and better distribution would bedemanding, if at all feasible. Only in rare cases in the past have countriesachieved these levels of growth rates in total food consumption for extendedperiods. It is therefore unlikely that the poorest nations will be able tomobilize resources by themselves on the scale required.3.15

Overall, some 70 percent of the poor in developing countries live in rural areas.This is particularly true in those countries with high levels of undernourishment(Annex Table 1). The majority of the labour force in these countries depends onagriculture, directly or through related activities, and the sector accounts for ahigh proportion of their national economic output and export earnings. On


FIGURE 3.1 An example of the relationship between the quantity and quality of diets

average, 56 percent of the labour force in developing countries in 1999 wasemployed in agriculture. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, where 34 percentof the population was undernourished in 1997-99, as much as 66 percent of thetotal labour force was employed in agriculture in 2000 (see Table 3.2).3.16

The rural poor depend on agriculture to produce the food they eat or togenerate income. Rural households generate income from agriculturalactivities (in the form of revenue from the sale of agricultural products orpaid employment in agriculture) and/or from employment in rural non-farmactivities. The rural non-farm sector includes a wide number of goods andservices, which are in most cases linked to the agriculture sector, includingthe production of inputs, repairs of agricultural implements and outputprocessing). In addition, income earned from agricultural activities is spenton locally produced goods, and this demand is essential for the survival ofthe rural non-farm sector. Given the extent to which the poor people’slivelihoods depend on agriculture, growth in this sector is an essentialcomponent of poverty reduction and food security strategies. The role ofresource mobilization for agriculture – the subject of this chapter – is criticalbecause such investments are considered to be essential for increasingproductive capacity and hence employment and income generation in areaswhere the majority of the poor and food-insecure are to be found.

Undernourished (1 480 kcal)

Other foods

Starchy staples

25%

75%55%

45%

Well nourished (2 500 kcal)

Source: FAO. 2000. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2000. Rome.


3.17

Mobilizing resources for agriculture is fundamental but must be supplementedby investment in infrastructure, health and education.9 Conflict reduction,democracy and good governance, education and health, safe water andmarket openness are essential targets for ODA and for action to reducehunger. Other vital areas for resource mobilization are agricultural technologytransfers, research, extension and rural infrastructure. Evidence demonstratingthe high returns to investments that enhance human capital has made amajor contribution to the understanding of economic development and itsrelationship to human development. The role of such investments is at theroot of development strategies that have received recognition from theinternational community, for example at the 1995 Copenhagen Social Summit,and in the 1996 OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) strategicorientations for development cooperation,10 the World Development Report200011 and the United Nations Millennium Declaration.3.18

Promoting agriculture to fight hunger should be part of a multidimensionalstrategy by national governments, international donors, multilateral lendingagencies and the private sector. In this respect, the role of civil societyorganizations (CSOs) in advocacy and in setting the policy agenda hasbecome increasingly important in recent years. The fight against hunger andthe promotion of agricultural development, furthermore, should be integratedin coordinated development instruments such as the Poverty Reduction StrategyPapers (PRSPs), the United Nations Development Assistance Framework(UNDAF) and the ACC Network on Rural Development and Food Security.

9 USDA. 1999. United States Action Plan on Food Security. Solutions to hunger. Washington, DC.10 OECD. 1996. Shaping the twenty-first century – the contribution of development cooperation. Paris.11 World Bank, World Development Report 2000, Attacking Poverty. Oxford University Press, 2000.

TABLE 3.2The dimensions of agriculture in developing countries

Rural population Agricultural labour Share of agricultureas a share as a share in total GDP

of total population of total labour force

1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000

(Percentage)

Developing countries 65 60 61 55 15 14

Latin America and the Caribbean 29 25 25 20 8 7

Near East and North Africa 46 40 39 33 14 12

Sub-Saharan Africa 74 67 72 66 26 31

East and Southeast Asia 70 65 68 62 18 18

South Asia 75 71 63 59 28 26

Source: FAO.


FIGURE 3.2 The prevalence of undernourishment and perspectives for a reduction in the number

of undernourished people by 2015 and 2030

12 The prospects for food and agriculture until 2010 had been presented by FAO. 1995. World agriculture:towards 2010. An FAO study. Rome, FAO and Chichester, UK, John Wiley.

Trends in investment for agriculturein developing countries

The nature of the problem and resource needs

3.19

Estimated resource requirements for food and agriculture are dependent on thetargets to be achieved. The World Food Summit considered the limited reductionin world hunger that was expected under projections available at the time12 tobe unacceptable, and it therefore set the more ambitious target of halving thenumber of undernourished people to 400 million by no later than 2015. FAO’slatest estimates of the number of undernourished in the world indicate that,under a “business as usual” scenario, this target will not be met (see Figure 3.2).3.20

Most countries with high levels of undernourishment are characterized bylow and stagnant levels of per capita income. This implies a low savings

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1969–71 1979–81 1990–92 1995–97 2015 2030

Developing countries

Sub-Saharan Africa

Near East andNorth Africa

Latin America andthe Caribbean

South Asia

East Asia

Source: FAO.

Millions of undernourished


BOX 3.1

Methodological note on the classification of countries

In order to illustrate the distinguishing characteristics of countries according to the preva-

lence of undernourishment, i.e. the proportion of undernourished in their total population,

developing countries are grouped into five categories.1 The proportion of national popu-

lation undernourished, by prevalence category, is as follows: <2.5 percent (Category 1);

2.5 to <5 percent (Category 2); 5 to <20 percent (Category 3); 20 to <35 percent (Cat-

egory 4); and >35 percent (Category 5).

Annex Table 2 shows the percentage of undernourished population by country, geo-

graphic region and prevalence category.2 Undernourishment is characterized as “low”

in Categories 1 and 2, “intermediate” in Category 3 and “high” in Categories 4 and 5.

The geographic distribution of undernourishment in developed and developing coun-

tries is shown in Figure 3.3, which reveals a concentration of undernourishment in South

and Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America. There are 23 countries in Category 5, 18 of

which are in sub-Saharan Africa; there are 27 countries in Category 4 and 34 in Category 3.

Category 1 comprises developed countries.

It should be noted that variations may exist in the values of economic indicators for

countries belonging to a particular prevalence category.

1 The prevalence of undernourishment changes from year to year. The grouping referred to here is based on the prevalenceof undernourishment in 1997-99.2 The list does not include countries with a population of less than 1 million or those for which there are insufficient data.Annex Tables 4, 6 and 7 include a sixth category, which lists countries for which data on undernourishment are notavailable.

capacity, often accompanied by a heavy debt burden that absorbs asubstantial amount of resources that could otherwise be used to developproductive sectors. The result is that countries with a high incidence ofundernourishment are left with insufficient resources for fostering growthin productive sectors. These issues are discussed in the following sections.3.21

National incomes (measured by GNP per capita) are lowest in countries thathave high levels of undernourishment (Categories 4 and 5, defined in Box3.1). Furthermore, trends over the last decade show that per capita incomeshave not improved significantly in these categories. Under such conditions,savings and investment rates are bound to be low. Moreover, the savings ofthe vulnerable and food-insecure groups are likely to be channelled intoassets that reduce their vulnerability to shocks rather than into investmentsthat might increase their resource productivity.3.22

The large debt burden of countries with a high prevalence of undernourish-ment constitutes an additional drain on resources that could be invested inproductive sectors. Figure 3.4 shows that, within the LIFDCs, heavy indebt-


FIGURE 3.3The prevalence of undernourishment in the world (1997-99)

edness is most widespread among countries that have a relatively higherprevalence of undernourishment. Among the 23 LIFDCs with the highestprevalence of undernourishment, 17 belong to the group of heavily indebtedpoor countries (HIPCs). The outlook is much more positive for countries witha prevalence of less than 20 percent; for this subgroup of LIFDCs, only sixout of 21 countries are heavily indebted.3.23

Not surprisingly, the combination of low savings capacity and heavyindebtedness results in a low investment capacity in the agriculture sector,particularly in those countries that are most in need of agricultural investmentsto enhance the incomes of the poor and thus to improve food security.

≤2.5

≥35

No data

1

2

3

4

5

Extremely low

Percentage undernourishedCategory Description

Very low

Moderately low

Moderately high

Very high

Measuring and monitoring levels ofundernourishment

Prevalence of undernourishment is measured by the share of a country's total population that is undernourished. The higher the prevalence, the more widespread the problem. To help analyse and monitor progress, the following five prevalence categories have been established.

2.5-≤5

5-≤20

20-≤35


FIGURE 3.4Heavily indebted poor countries within the LIFDC grouping

Agricultural investment

3.24

It is now widely understood that the concept of investment to augment theproductive capacity of agriculture entails not only physical assets, but alsoscience and technology dissemination and the enhancement of human andsocial capital. Creating a pro-investment climate to raise productivity levelsand realize the necessary structural changes becomes a principal policychallenge. The whole policy and institutional environment needs to beconducive to investment by private agents, particularly farmers.3.25

In the last two decades, many governments addressed the anti-agriculturalbiases of the past by adopting policies to deregulate agricultural markets,reduce price distortions and allow a greater role for private actors in economicactivity. Such measures, although necessary, are not always sufficient toinduce the investments necessary for sustained productivity and productionincreases. Improved investment incentives also require policies that createthe requisite agrarian institutions. These include transparent and functioningmarkets, access to financing and extension and adequate legal and regulatoryframeworks. At a more general level, political stability and a well-definedand enforced institutional framework are needed in order to ensure adequate

23

11

24

21

17

Number of LIFDCs in category

Number of HIPCs within LIFDC grouping

Percentage of population undernourished (by prevalence category)

20- 35%35% 20%

6

Source: FAO. 2000. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2000. Rome.

Note: Data exclude 14 LIFDCs for which information on undernourishment was not available.


TABLE 3.3Capital stock per agricultural worker

Region 1975 1976-80 1981-85 1986-90 1991-95 1996-99

(Constant 1995 US$)

Latin America and the Caribbean 6 537 6 841 7 202 7 751 8 407 8 711

Near East and North Africa 5 444 5 516 5 790 6 320 6 548 6 431

Sub-Saharan Africa 1 412 1 408 1 391 1 310 1 290 1 286

East and Southeast Asia 1 120 1 142 1 140 1 134 1 167 1 225

South Asia 1 207 1 204 1 215 1 226 1 244 1 252

Prevalence categoryCategory 1 5 688 6 037 6 591 7 328 8 080 8 463

Category 2 5 169 4 713 4 652 5 122 5 816 6 024

Category 3 1 621 1 649 1 642 1 638 1 687 1 737

Category 4 1 309 1 309 1 333 1 330 1 376 1 386

Category 5 1 189 1 192 1 165 1 114 1 027 953

Source: FAO.

private investment. Strong complementarity between public and privateinvestment is also necessary to sustain agricultural growth, with governmentsinvesting in sectors of importance to the public good – research, extension,infrastructure (particularly water control, roads, storage and marketingfacilities), education and norms and standards.3.26

FAO has developed a comprehensive database on agricultural capital stockand investment, based on FAOSTAT and complemented by national accountsdata from individual countries. These data include capital stock (such asland, irrigation, tractors, livestock, plantations and structures) for primaryagriculture in the major developing regions.3.27

In order to take into account the varying capital intensity and technologylevels of the agriculture sectors in the different groups of countries, data oncapital stock per agriculture worker are presented in Table 3.3 by region andprevalence category. The two regions with a lesser incidence ofundernourishment, Latin America and the Near East and North Africa, showhigher agricultural capital per worker compared with other regions. Overtime, the same two regions have also experienced a substantial increase inthe capital–labour ratio, in contrast to the stagnation in other regions.3.28

Based on the grouping of countries by prevalence of undernourishment, there isa clear contrast in the capital intensity of the first two categories (low incidenceof undernourishment) and the other three. Differences also exist in terms ofchanges over time: countries with a lower prevalence of undernourishment show


TABLE 3.4Value added agriculture per agricultural worker by undernourishment prevalence category

Prevalence category 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

(Constant 1995 US$)

Category 1 3 846 3 919 4 160 4 100 4 164 4 277 4 458 4 502 4 576 4 619

Category 2 1 601 1 611 1 695 1 623 1 698 1 752 1 793 1 782 1 836 1 843

Category 3 508 514 533 535 563 585 610 614 632 646

Category 4 420 414 427 432 444 443 468 464 475 482

Category 5 212 213 200 202 193 200 209 209 208 209

Developed countries1 20 658 20 613 22 424 21 978 23 821 24 328 26 351 27 825 28 865 29 996

1Israel, Luxembourg, Malta and Sweden are not included throughout the period; Germany is not included in 1990.Source: FAO.

a stronger increase (base period 1986-90) in investment per worker whilechanges in the other categories have been very little or even negative. Duringthe period considered, the capital–labour ratio in the lowest prevalence categoryhas increased relatively from six to nine times that of the highest prevalencecategory (Table 3.3). Not only did countries in the highest prevalence categorybegin with the lowest level of capital stock in 1975 but, precisely in thosecountries where capital is needed most to generate agricultural growth andreduce undernourishment, capital stock per worker has been decreasing.

Agricultural investment and productivity

3.29

Low capital stock per worker is reflected in low productivity per agricul-tural worker in agriculture, as is shown in Table 3.4 for the various under-nourishment prevalence categories. What is more, the wide divergenceamong capital–labour ratios across categories is further amplified in termsof labour productivity, and so are the diverging trends through time. As inthe case of the capital-labour ratio, a sharp divide is evident between thelower and higher prevalence categories. The value added per worker in thelowest prevalence category was 18 to 22 times that of the highest preva-lence category between 1990 and 1999. These differences are likely, inpart, to result from the greater use of other variable inputs in agriculturalproduction. It is also probable that, given the pattern of the relationshipbetween productivity and nutritional status, differences in efficiency maythemselves be partly explained by differences in the prevalence of under-nourishment. Countries with a high incidence of undernourishment may becaught in a hunger trap, as a high incidence of undernourishment causesefficiency losses and thereby constrains a country’s ability to deal with theproblem.


3.30

Three conclusions emerge from these observations. First, additional resourcesfor promoting agricultural growth are especially needed in countries whereundernourishment is more prevalent. Second, there is ample scope to improvethe productivity of capital and labour assets in countries with a high prevalenceof undernourishment. Third, alleviation of undernourishment could be adecisive step towards breaking the undernourishment–low productivity trapfaced by many countries in the developing world.

Mobilizing public resources for agriculturaldevelopment

3.31

Resources at the national level for agricultural development and the promotionof food security may be private or public, domestic or external. In countrieswith a high incidence of undernourishment, private savings are likely to belimited by low per capita incomes. For the same reason, the tax base fromwhich governments derive revenues is likely to be small. Although somegovernments can raise additional domestic resources through fiscal reforms,a number of countries will still have to rely on external resources to generatefunds for agricultural development. In many countries, important adjustmentsare being made to the form and level of public intervention in a move towardsa generally shrinking resource base and new conditions of the internationalplaying field. To be effective, however, increased resource mobilization shouldtake place in an enabling environment characterized by macroeconomic andpolitical stability, peace, strong legal and agrarian institutions, transparent andaccessible local markets, and access to export markets. In the followingsections, the role of public expenditure in the agriculture sector and the roleof foreign finance for agricultural development and food security are examined.

Government expenditures on agriculture

3.32

The role of government in support of economic activities in general, andagriculture in particular, has been drastically revisited and often scaled downover a decade of structural reforms in most countries. The tendency in thenew development paradigm is for governments to concentrate their resourceson delivering indispensable public goods and services and providing anenvironment where private initiative can flourish, instead of endeavouring toreplace or compete with private enterprise. Yet, government expenditureremains an indispensable condition for economic and social development.Examples of public functions that continue to be required from the publicsector, often increasingly in a decentralized fashion and in partnership withthe private sector and civil society, include agricultural research andextension, public infrastructure and services, safety nets against transitory


13 Source: IMF. 2000. Government Financial Statistics Yearbook 2000. Washington, DC. Fifty-nine countries aredocumented as reporting in the IMF source for at least one year over the period 1990-98, and 52 countries atthe most reporting in any given year, with only 20 reporting in 1998.

shocks and programmes to facilitate adjustment of particular sectors orregions and to enable innovations that may involve risk but that ensureenvironmental sustainability and food security.3.33

The forms of taxation used by governments have an impact on the level ofresources available to governments, while also constituting an effectiveinstrument for redistribution. Reforms in the tax systems should also begeared, inter alia, towards ensuring a conducive environment to both foreignand domestic private investment.3.34

Time series data on government expenditures by sector are scarce. The onlycomprehensive data source documenting government expenditures onagriculture (at the central, local and state levels) is IMF.13 Unfortunately,only a minority of countries report useable data, often with long delays, asseen in the low and declining number of available observations in this source(see Annex Tables 3, 4 and 5). In terms of prevalence category, the paucityof observations in Category 2 (only three countries or fewer reported) preventsthe use of data for this category.3.35

The first observation is that the share of expenditures on agriculture in totalgovernment expenditures is extremely dispersed, with observations rangingfrom 0.015 to 23 percent, and the share being lower than 10 percent in 90percent of cases (see Annex Table 7). These data are summarized by regionand undernourishment prevalence category in Table 3.5.3.36

The share of expenditure on agriculture is not related in any simple way tothe size of the agriculture sector, and it depends, inter alia, on the overallimportance given to economic functions in government budgets. However,countries where agriculture plays a dominant role might be expected toallocate a greater share of expenditures to this sector. This is examined inrelation to two principal indicators: the importance of agricultural labour intotal employment, and the share of agricultural value added in total GDP.3.37

The data for government expenditure on agriculture in relation to agriculturalGDP are presented in Table 3.6. Averages for groups of countries derived inthe Table are unweighted in order to reflect a picture of government behaviourfor the particular group in this respect. On a regional basis, the Near Eastand North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa allocate a greater share than theother regions. By prevalence of undernourishment, the category with thehighest prevalence is consistently allocating the lowest share to agricultureover the period reported.3.38

The resource constraints facing countries with high levels of undernourishmentcan be better illustrated by relating government expenditures to agriculture


TABLE 3.5Government expenditure on agriculture as a share of total expenditure, by developing region and

undernourishment prevalence category

Region 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

(Percentage)

Latin America and the Caribbean 2.46 2.22 3.16 3.84 2.85 2.70 2.96 3.84 2.54

Near East and North Africa 4.12 4.28 4.13 3.80 3.30 3.89 4.26 7.43 5.04

Sub-Saharan Africa 6.53 6.16 6.31 5.14 5.23 4.29 5.40 5.27 4.21

East and Southeast Asia 6.81 7.13 6.46 6.40 6.33 6.74 6.55 6.00 4.57

South Asia 7.65 7.98 7.75 7.81 8.86 8.70 7.49 6.42 4.87

Prevalence categoryCategory 1 5.47 5.11 4.77 4.30 4.33 5.16 4.91 4.29 n.a.

Category 2 2.46 1.96 1.90 1.91 1.97 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Category 3 4.77 4.48 4.30 4.80 4.79 5.38 5.53 5.48 3.73

Category 4 6.84 7.23 7.15 6.75 6.42 6.59 6.91 8.64 6.99

Category 5 7.53 7.40 7.70 5.71 5.41 4.70 4.89 n.a. n.a.

Source: IMF. 2000. Government Financial Statistics Yearbook 2000. Washington, DC.

TABLE 3.6Government expenditure on agriculture as a share of agricultural GDP, by developing region and


Region 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

(Percentage)

Latin America and the Caribbean 4.70 8.16 7.61 12.70 14.64 14.03 6.14 10.01 4.45

Near East and North Africa 19.24 11.20 19.10 17.88 16.67 16.55 13.91 26.18 n.a.

Sub-Saharan Africa 14.10 15.49 16.88 13.12 14.36 16.75 20.94 24.59 23.40

East and Southeast Asia 12.49 10.24 9.88 10.08 9.49 11.16 11.40 12.59 6.71

South Asia 8.51 9.11 11.31 12.17 12.02 14.84 9.57 5.38 4.82

Prevalence categoryCategory 1 9.01 9.28 8.81 9.38 10.84 11.33 10.46 10.74 n.a.

Category 2 38.20 7.93 36.03 29.89 24.25 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Category 3 6.32 5.69 5.92 10.50 13.27 13.73 10.51 12.67 7.62

Category 4 11.45 13.80 14.45 10.37 10.62 12.30 17.64 18.74 14.81

Category 5 4.64 3.84 4.94 7.11 4.92 5.34 4.07 n.a. n.a.

Note: Years for which there are fewer than two observations have been omitted from the averages. For the second category, data are available for onlythree countries (Egypt, Kuwait and Uruguay). If Kuwait, which displays an exceptionally high value, is excluded, then the average for the grouposcillates around 6.5 in the years for which information is available.Source: IMF. 2000. Government Financial Statistics Yearbook 2000. Washington, DC.


TABLE 3.7 Government expenditures on agriculture per agricultural worker, by developing region and


Region 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

(Constant US$)

Latin America and the Caribbean 668 709 623 416 494 959 398 505 677

Near East and North Africa 1 596 544 1 044 998 1 061 1 370 1 105 851 363

Sub-Saharan Africa 104 104 61 61 68 203 244 298 n.a.

East and Southeast Asia* 244 251 260 286 414 463 481 539 n.a.

South Asia 32 58 75 97 96 151 73 29 25

Prevalence categoryCategory 1 417 477 508 517 658 814 873 855 n.a.

Category 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Category 3 187 197 200 315 355 458 396 380 n.a.

Category 4 75 76 87 92 93 107 147 114 58

Category 5 19 23 26 33 26 32 37 n.a. n.a.

* Excluding Singapore (where expenditure per agricultural worker is in the range of US$8 000).Source: IMF. 2000. Government Financial Statistics Yearbook 2000. Washington, DC.

14 Again, Category 2 is excluded because of the prevalence of one country, Kuwait, whose data dominate thesimple average.

to the size of the agricultural labour force (Table 3.7). The Table shows aninverse relationship between the prevalence of undernourishment andgovernment expenditure.14 The countries with the highest prevalence ofundernourishment spend much less per agricultural worker compared withthe countries with the lowest incidence. The average expenditure peragricultural worker in the highest undernourishment prevalence category isat least 30 times lower than that of the category with the lowest prevalence(in years for which data are available). For the developing regions, spendingper agricultural worker is lowest in the regions with the highest incidenceof undernourishment, namely South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.3.39

To what extent do the changes (over time and by country and category) inthe share of government expenditure on agriculture “track” differences inagriculture’s importance in the economy? The share of agriculture in totalgovernment expenditures compared with other indicators of the importanceof agriculture in developing countries, grouped by prevalence ofundernourishment, are given in Table 3.8. For the countries and years coveredby the data on expenditures, the share of agriculture in GDP and in totalexports increases with the number of the prevalence category, highlightingagain that poorer countries are agriculture-based. The available data do notprovide strong evidence of a decline over time in the share of agriculturein total GDP, possibly because of the short time period.


TABLE 3.8Expenditures on agriculture as a share of total expenditure and other indicators of agriculture’s

importance in developing countries, by undernourishment prevalence category

Undernourishment prevalence categories

1 2 3 4 5<2.5 percent 2.5-<5 percent 5-<20 percent 20-<35 percent 35 percent

undernourished undernourished undernourished undernourished undernourished

1990-93 1996-99 1990-93 1996-99 1990-93 1996-99 1990-93 1996-99 1990-93 1996-99

(Percentage)

Share of agriculture intotal government expenditure 4.9 4.7 2.1 n.a. 6.0 5.5 7.0 7.8 7.0 4.9

Share of agriculture in GDP 9.1 7.7 10.4 9.9 14.4 15.1 22.3 20.5 32.4 31.1

Share of agricultural exportsin total exports 8.2 7 12.6 12.6 15.1 12.9 16.7 13.7 25.9 30.6

Share of rural populationin total population 29.8 24.8 45.7 45.4 63.1 59.7 72.6 70.3 76.5 71.7

Note: As data for 1999 are not available for several countries, in these cases averages for 1995-98 were used in calculations.Source: FAO.

>

15 It should be noted that the “support” ratio is valid for comparisons among countries or country groups anddoes not indicate the treatment of agriculture (in terms of government expenditures) relative to other sectorswithin a country. Not all budget allocations go to functional categories of activities.

3.40

The share of agriculture in expenditures is slightly higher in countries whereundernourishment is high and where agriculture plays an important role. However,the expenditure shares for groups of countries reporting in each category arelow compared with the shares of agriculture in economic and demographicindicators for those countries (see Table 3.8). By bringing together the data onagriculture’s share in GDP and total expenditure, it is possible to construct anAgricultural Orientation Index, which reflects the extent to which governmentexpenditures on agriculture are commensurate with the importance of agriculturein the overall economy. To construct the index, the share of agriculturalexpenditure in total government expenditure is divided by the share of agriculturein GDP. The higher the index the closer the share of agricultural expenditureis to the share of agriculture in GDP.15 The index is shown in Figure 3.5.3.41

Figure 3.5 illustrates that the countries in Category 1 (with a very lowprevalence of undernourishment) exhibit the strongest agricultural orientationrelative to the other categories, with a distinct upturn in 1993. On the otherhand, for countries in Category 5, the share of government spending devotedto agriculture is substantially lower than agriculture’s importance in theeconomy and, in the period covered, showed no signs of improvement. Thisconstitutes a worrisome trend, given the dependency of Category 5 countrieson agriculture for overall income and nutrition.


FIGURE 3.5Agricultural Orientation Index by undernourishment prevalence category

16 S. Fan, P. Hazell and S. Throat. 1999. Linkages between government spending, growth and poverty in ruralIndia. IFPRI Research Report No. 110. Washington, DC, IFPRI.

3 . 4 2

Although data are limited, the above analysis shows that, in countries with a veryhigh incidence of undernourishment, public expenditure on agriculture does notreflect the importance of the sector in overall income or its potential contributionto the alleviation of undernourishment. Given the scarcity of data, this chapter canonly address the amount of government expenditure, and not the quality oreffectiveness of these expenditures. Fan, Hazell and Throat,16 in a study ongovernment spending in rural India, quantify the effectiveness of different typesof government expenditures and conclude that government spending onproductivity-enhancing investments, such as agricultural research and development,irrigation and rural infrastructure (including roads and electricity), has a significantimpact on growth in agricultural productivity while also contributing to povertyreduction. These results imply that, if effectively directed to the right channels,government expenditures can at once reduce poverty and enhance growth.

External financial resources

3.43

External financial resources provide an important part of the overall resourcesavailable for promoting economic and social development and food security,

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Category 1

Category 3

Category 4

Category 5

Category 2 has been omitted from this graph because data are available for only three countries

Note: The Agricultural Orientation Index is calculated as the share of agricultural expenditure in total government expenditure, divided by the share of agriculture in GDP.


TABLE 3.9 Total net resource flows from DAC member countries1 and multilateral agencies

to developing and transition countries

1990-92 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 19992

(Current US$ billions)

Total net resource flows 141.7 165.7 225.5 265.1 353.7 321.4 230.8 248.0

Official development finance 79.9 82.4 84.5 87.6 73.5 75.3 88.4 84.9 of which: - ODA3 55.4 55.5 59.6 59.1 55.8 47.7 49.7 51.3 of which: - Bilateral 40.0 39.4 41.3 40.6 39.1 32.4 35.2 37.9 - Multilateral 15.5 16.1 18.3 18.4 16.7 15.3 14.5 13.4

Total export credits 3.7 -3.0 6.3 5.6 4.0 4.8 8.3 4.0

Private flows 58.2 86.3 134.7 172.0 276.2 241.3 134.0 159.2 of which: - Direct investment (DAC) 26.8 41.6 52.1 59.6 68.9 102.3 119.8 131.8

Ref. item: Total net ODA4 from DAC 56.8 56.5 59.2 58.9 55.6 48.5 52.1 56.4

1 Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand,Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.2 Provisional data.3 Excluding forgiveness of non-ODA debt for 1990-1992.4 Includes bilateral ODA as well as contributions to multilateral organizations in place of ODA disbursements from the multilateral organizations shownabove.Source: OECD. 2000. Development Cooperation Report 2000. Paris.

especially in LIFDCs. Resources flows can be from either official or privatesources. Table 3.9 provides a comprehensive picture of external resourceflows and their composition during the 1990s.3.44

The net flow of external financial resources to developing countries increasedfrom nearly US$142 billion to US$248 billion between 1990-92 and 1999. At thesame time, there has been a dramatic change in the composition of theseresources in terms of their source. By the end of the period, ODA (the overall netflow from official sources) stagnated at about US$85 billion (in current prices),while private flows increased almost threefold from US$58 billion to US$160billion during the same period. A small residual component is made up of exportcredits. As a result of the shift in the composition of external flows, ODA declinedfrom 39 percent of net total external flows in 1990-92 to 20 percent in 1999.3.45

The almost fivefold increase in FDI flows from DAC countries to developingcountries is an important development, but a more detailed analysis of thedestination of these flows worldwide shows that the allocation of FDI is notbased on need (see Box 3.2). For those countries most in need of resources foragriculture and food security, official finance, and indeed ODA, will continueto be the major source of external flows for the development of their agriculturesectors. On the other hand, emergency and distress relief from DAC countrieshas increased more than sixfold since 1989, reaching US$4.4 billion in 1999.The combination of the stagnation or decline in long-term development assistance


BOX 3.2

Private foreign direct investment

Worldwide FDI inflows reached US$1.3 trillion in 2000, an increase of 18 percent from 1999. Developing

countries accounted for 19 percent of FDI flows, with a total of US$240 billion, an increase of 8.2 percent

over 1999. Compared with the stagnation in 1998, this increase is encouraging, but it is still concentrated

in a small number of countries.

Most of the increase in FDI in the developing world occurred in countries of South, East and Southeast Asia,

where FDI inflows rose by 42 percent to reach US$137 billion in 2000. This increase was mainly in East Asia,

as FDI in the subregion of South Asia declined in 2000 by 11 percent. South, East and Southeast Asia

accounted for 57 percent of all flows to developing countries and about 11 percent of total FDI. Latin America

was second, with similar levels of FDI inflows. Africa received below 1 percent of total FDI and 3.4 percent

of FDI flows to developing countries (see Figure).

In 2000, 20 countries accounted for 98 percent of FDI inflows in developing countries. Hong Kong Special

Administrative Region and the mainland of China together received 48 percent, followed by Brazil and Mexico.

The poorest countries have difficulty in attracting FDI because their financial markets are underdeveloped,

the information available to potential investors is imperfect, and the risks associated with longer-term invest-

ments are high.

FDI inflows to developing countries by region, 2000

Other 2% 3% Africa

36% Latin America

1% Near East

58%South, East andSoutheast Asia

Source: UNCTAD. 2001. World Investment Report 2001. Geneva.


TABLE 3.10External aid as a share of GDP, government expenditures and domestic investment,

by undernourishment prevalence category

Prevalence category

1 2 3 4 5Share of aid1 <2.5 percent 2.5-<5 percent 5-<20 percent 20-<35 percent 35 percent

undernourished undernourished undernourished undernourished undernourished

(Percentage)

In centralgovernment expenditure1990-952 2.1 6.5 11.7 33.1 51.2

1995-98 0.9 2.1 5.4 19.2 50.5

In GDP1990-95 1.0 1.8 6.9 10.8 19.4

1995-98 0.4 0.6 4.3 9.0 12.9

In gross domesticinvestment1990-95 5.0 9.1 31.3 51.2 151.8

1995-98 1.6 3.4 18.6 38.5 86.9

1 Net ODA and net official aid (the actual international transfer by the donor of financial resources or of goods or services valued at the cost to thedonor, minus any repayments of loan principal during the same period).2 Averages refer to simple group and period means.Source: FAO calculations based on World Bank data (World Development Indicators, 2000).

>

and the sharp increase in emergency relief shows how perceptions of hungerand food security in donor countries are increasingly associated with disastersand emergencies rather than with chronic food insecurity.3.46

Table 3.10 shows that, in countries where food insecurity is prevalent, so isthe importance of external assistance to overall resource mobilization andeconomic activity. For the countries with the highest prevalence ofundernourishment, ratios of external resources to various measures of resourcemobilization and to GDP fell in the second half of the 1990s. However,external aid still constitutes more than 86 percent of gross domestic investmentand about 51 percent of government expenditures. For the group of countriesin this category, external aid is an indispensable source of funding fordevelopment.3.47

Table 3.11 shows that total ODA commitments from the major bilateral andmultilateral donors to developing countries for agricultural developmentamounted to US$9.08 billion in 1999 (see last column in Table 3.11). This isalmost the same as was recorded in 1994 but still lower than the 1990 level.Moreover, the share of agricultural and rural development (using both thebroad and narrow definitions) in total ODA was lower in the mid-1990s thanat the beginning of the decade, and while a recovery was recorded in1997-98, 1999 levels show a decline.


TABLE 3.11 Total ODA and ODA commitments to agriculture and rural development1

Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

(1995 US$ billions)

Total ODA commitments 102.689 94.487 81.643 84.737 84.575 79.326 79.552 75.519 82.636 83.898

Commitments to agriculture(narrow definition2) 8.655 6.102 6.947 5.068 6.394 5.819 6.010 6.689 4.579 4.487

Commitments to agriculture(other components) 4.438 3.517 3.640 2.895 2.723 2.806 2.846 3.948 5.016 4.591

Total commitments toagriculture (broad definition3) 13.093 9.673 10.587 7.963 9.117 8.625 8.856 10.637 9.640 9.078

(Percentage)Share of agriculture(broad definition) in total ODA 13 10 13 9 11 11 11 20 12 11

1 FAO calculations from OECD/DAC data.2 The narrow definition of agriculture includes the following sectors: land and water; research; training and extension; supply of production inputs;agricultural services; crop production; livestock development; fisheries; and forestry; others.3 The broad definition of agriculture includes the sectors in the narrow definition as well as manufacturing of inputs; environment protection; agro-industries; rural development and infrastructure; and regional and river development.

3.48

When measured in constant 1995 prices, total commitments for agriculturehave increased since 1995 but still remain about 30 percent below the levelthat opened the decade in 1990. The contributions made by bilateral donors,mainly DAC countries, remained at about US$4.3 billion in both 1997 and1998. The increase in levels of assistance in 1997 and 1998 compared with1996 was accounted for entirely by increased multilateral assistance,particularly from the International Development Association (IDA), whilebilateral assistance was actually lower than in 1996 (see Figure 3.6 and AnnexTable 8).3.49

The share of concessional assistance in total commitments to agriculture isestimated to have been 65 percent in 1998, well below the shares of 1988(77 percent) and 1996 (74 percent). The share of grants in total commitmentshas remained relatively stable throughout the 1990s and represented 28percent in 1998.3.50

From 1990 to 1999, there was a decline in the share of funds allocated toprimary agriculture out of total ODA commitments to agriculture (broadlydefined) while the share allocated to fisheries and forestry remained stable.There has been increasing attention to other areas, in particular environmentalprotection (which rose from 5 percent in 1990 to 10 percent of the total in1998), rural development and infrastructure (from 14 to 25 percent of thetotal) and research, extension and training (from 6 to 14 percent of the total).3.51

As for the geographic distribution of flows of external assistance to agriculture,throughout the 1990s there has been a declining trend in the share directed


FIGURE 3.6 Total commitments to agriculture, by main bilateral and multilateral donors

17 The reduction in total lending for “traditional“ developing countries is more pronounced if lending by theWorld Bank and EBRD to transition countries is excluded.

to Africa and an increase in the share directed to Latin America and theCaribbean. In 1998, the largest share of commitments went to Asia (46 percent),with Latin America and the Caribbean in second place (23 percent) and Africathird (21 percent). A smaller share went to Europe (3 percent) (see Figure 3.7).3.52

Table 3.12 presents data on external resource flows to agriculture in the formof loans by the principal international and regional financing institutions.Total lending to agriculture in both absolute terms and as a share of totalloans declined substantially between 1990 and 1997.17 World Bank lendingfor agriculture declined from US$3.656 billion in 1990 to US$1.337 billionin 2000. While lending to agriculture represented 18 percent of total lendingby the World Bank in 1990, by 2000 this figure had been reduced to9 percent. Except for the International Fund for Agricultural Development(IFAD), where all lending is to agriculture, and the European Bank forReconstruction and Development (EBRD), where the shares of lending toagriculture vary substantially by year, all financing institutions have reducedlending to agriculture (Table 3.12, p. 82).3.53

Given that domestic resources are scarce and required levels of domesticinvestment exceed the amount that most countries can finance out of their ownsavings, most depend heavily on external assistance – a dependency augmentedby heavy debt burdens. Until countries with a high incidence of undernourishment

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

(1995 US$ billions)

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 *1999 *Provisional

Multilateral

Bilateral

Source: FAO.

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 *1999


FIGURE 3.7Total ODA to agriculture by main recipient groups, 1990 and 1998

are able to increase their incomes to the level where they can generate sufficientsavings to meet their own needs, external transfers will continue to play animportant role in the struggle to eliminate food insecurity. Most LIFDCs willneed to draw on some measure of official finance for many years to come.3.54

A major question arising from the above discussion concerns the reasonsfor the decline in external resource flows to the agriculture sectordespite its critical importance for growth and food security in developingcountries. Following are some possible reasons that may hold to different

16%Latin Americaand the Caribbean

23%Latin Americaand the Caribbean

Europe 2%

Asia 47%

0% Oceania

5% Unallocated world

30% Africa

Europe 3%

Asia 46%

0% Oceania

7% Unallocated world

21% Africa

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 0


degrees, depending on the country or region and source of aid orlending:a) The current abundance in world food availability (reflected in low

agricultural commodity prices) masks the plight of those who cannot satisfytheir daily food needs even with the prevailing low prices.

b) Donors and financing institutions are giving increased attention to health,environmental, education and social issues without adequate additionalfunding to reflect the new emphasis. Primary agriculture must competefor resources with these other sectors and activities. This refocusing ofattention has been brought about by shifts in the predominant developmentparadigm towards the various manifestations of poverty; the move hasbeen reiterated by resolutions of summits and as an outcome of high-levelmeetings, conferences and reports.

c) Those concerned with agricultural and rural development lack sufficientpolitical power to pressure national governments to direct resources,including aid and/or lending requests, towards agriculture and the ruralsector. In particular, increasing urbanization may have further strengthenedthe political voice of urban populations and their claim on both domesticand external resources.

TABLE 3.12Lending for agriculture, by principal financing institutions

Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

(Current US$ millions)

Total loan approvals for agricultureWorld Bank/IDA1

(Fiscal years) 3 656 3 707 3 894 3 267 3 868 2 752 2 063 3 541 2 637 2 763 1 337

AfDB 683 854 502 592 106 14 105 228 238 458 228

AsDB 1 242 1 035 753 361 486 897 802 1 004 421 430 1 051

IDB 319 570 735 77 210 552 580 156 122 100 310

IFAD 308 276 324 336 349 392 408 398 413 433 409

EBRD 256 268 398 204 222 327

GRAND TOTAL 2 6 208 6 442 6 208 4 633 5 019 4 607 4 226 5 726 3 035 4 406 3 663

Agriculture as percentage of total lendingWorld Bank/IDA 18 16 18 14 19 12 10 19 10 10 9

AfDB 21 25 17 24 7 2 13 13 14 27 27

AsDB 31 21 15 7 13 16 14 11 7 9 9

IDB 8 11 12 1 4 7 8 3 1 1 1

IFAD 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

EBRD 7 8 16 7 10 13

1 World Bank and IDA figures are for fiscal years; figures for all other banks are for calendar years. As of fiscal year 1998, the World Bank reclassified thefigures used.2 Excluding EBRD.Note: Figures in bold indicate peak lending years.Source: Annual reports; for 1998 figures (other than World Bank) are based on personal communication from the financing institutions.


18 This section is taken from FAO. 1999. Committee on World Food Security (25th session). Investment inagriculture for food security: situation and resource requirements to reach the World Food Summit objectives.(CFS:99/Inf.7). Rome.

d) The “mechanics” of aid and lending favour sectors and activities with short turnaround times. They have therefore discouraged programme and project managers from undertaking agricultural and rural projects, which tend to have long gestation periods.e) Negative experiences with the performance (rate of return) of the agricultural

and rural loan portfolios of some lending agencies have further discouragedlending. Agricultural and rural development loans are inherently complexand risky, and they imply high transaction costs. Furthermore, the growingnumber and rigour of safeguards prescribed to avoid or minimizeenvironmentally and socially harmful side-effects of investments havecreated disincentives and risk aversion among lending agency staff and clients.

f) The actual and impending loss of professional capacity of a number ofinstitutions to formulate, analyse and evaluate agricultural and ruraldevelopment projects and programmes. Owing to budget constraints,specialists leaving institutions are not being replaced adequately. Thedecline of rural programmes has also reduced the availability oftrained and experienced professionals in this field.

3.55

It is important that the reasons behind the reduced resource flows to theagriculture and rural sectors be analysed and a concerted effort made toreverse the decline on the part of stakeholders, their allies at the nationallevel and international bodies concerned with agricultural growth and thefood security of those who derive livelihoods from them.

Resource needs to meet the World FoodSummit goal

Investments for agricultural and rural development18

3.56

The World Food Summit had called for a drastic departure from the policiesand inaction that had failed to dislodge the persistent high levels ofundernourishment. The Rome Declaration on World Food Security is emphatic:“We consider it intolerable that more than 800 million people throughout theworld, and particularly in developing countries, do not have enough food tomeet their basic nutritional needs. This situation is unacceptable.... Theproblems of hunger and food insecurity have global dimensions and arelikely to persist, and even increase dramatically in some regions, unlessurgent, determined and concerted action is taken, given the anticipatedincrease in the world’s population and the stress on natural resources....“ We are determined to make efforts to mobilize, and optimize the allocation


19 Op. cit., footnote 17, p. 80

TABLE 3.13Level of investments in agriculture required to reach the World Food Summit goal

Asia Latin America Near East and Sub-Saharan Totaland the North Africa Africa

Caribbean

(1995 US$ billions)

Primary agricultureNet 14.3 6.3 2.5 3.8 27.0Gross 53.3 19.4 12.0 8.6 93.3

Storage and processingNet 10.4 4.2 1.5 2.4 18.5Gross 26.4 10.7 3.9 6.1 47.1

Support services and infrastructure 40.0

Total gross 180.4

Source: FAO. 1999. Committee on World Food Security (25th session). Investment in agriculture for food security: situationand resource requirements to reach the World Food Summit objectives. (CFS:99/Inf.7). Rome.

and utilization of, technical and financial resources from all sources,including external debt relief for developing countries, to reinforce nationalactions to implement sustainable food security policies.”3.57

It is enlightening to compare the observed slow growth of resources foragricultural development and food security with an estimate, uncertain as it maybe, of investment levels required to reach the World Food Summit goal. Thisestimate, initially calculated by FAO in preparation for the Summit, wassubsequently updated and provided to the Committee on World Food Security(CFS) at its 25th session in 1999. The total annual gross investment required forthe agriculture sectors of the developing countries, including primary agricultureas well as storage, processing and support infrastructure, was estimated by theFAO study19 to be US$180.4 billion for the period up to 2015 (see Table 3.13).3.58

The same study, using a comparable estimate of actual investment in primaryagriculture for 1986-95, showed that a continuation of these annual investmentrates until 2015 would be insufficient to achieve the World Food Summit goal(see Table 3.14). The expected shortfall was 12 percent for the average ofall developing regions, varying from 38 percent in sub-Saharan Africa to0 percent in the Near East and North Africa. Comparisons for storage,processing, support and infrastructure could not be made owing to the absenceof statistics on actual investment levels.3.59

It is important to reiterate that the largest share of investment in primary agriculturalproduction is undertaken at the farm level; therefore, it depends above all on aclimate that is conducive to private investment, i.e. on sound policies for sustainableagricultural and rural development. On the other hand, public investment plays


TABLE 3.14Past investments in primary agriculture and future needs in developing countries

Asia Latin America Near East Sub-Saharan All developingand the Caribbean and North Africa Africa regions

(1995 US$ billions)

Annual average investment,1986-95

Net 16.0 3.8 4.0 1.7 25.4Gross 34.2 11.4 11.4 3.4 60.4

Past gross investment as apercentage of future requirements

Current trend 94 87 103 82 94World Food Summit goal 88 86 101 62 88

Source: FAO. 1999. Committee on World Food Security (25th session). Investment in agriculture for food security: situationand resource requirements to reach the World Food Summit objectives. (CFS:99/Inf.7). Rome.

the main role in providing essential public goods without which private initiativecannot flourish: knowledge generation, information, education and infrastructure.For many LIFDCs, the provision of these public goods cannot be achieved in theforeseeable future without resorting to external assistance. Recipient countries anddonor institutions, bilateral or multilateral, need to allocate resources as requiredinto these areas if the objective of food security is to be achieved.3.60

In pursuit of this objective, over five years FAO has mobilized US$230 millionfor the Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS), which is operational inseveral countries around the world. The main aim of the SPFS is to improvefood security through rapid increases in productivity and food production,reducing year-to-year variability of production and improving access to foodon an economically and environmentally sustainable basis. A major objectiveof the SPFS is the resolution of institutional and policy constraints that restrictproductivity at the farm level. In order to be effective and achieve its goalsin approximately 80 LIFDCs, the Programme requires annual financing of aboutUS$1.4 billion, which is equivalent to an average of about US$17 million percountry. Of the total amount, US$500 million could come from FAO’s SPFSTrust Fund, US$67 million from recipient countries, US$134 million frombilateral donors and US$670 million from multilateral financing institutions.3.61

The widening resource deficit is greater still when one considers the additionaltask of attending to the transitional needs of the poor and food-insecure whoare on the road to development.

Investments for transitional assistance to the food-insecure

3.62

In order to reduce poverty and food insecurity, more attention must clearly bepaid to investments that can improve the capacity of people to better theirliving conditions on a sustainable basis. As an example, the importance of the


20 FAO. 1996. Food security and food assistance. Document No. 13. In World Food Summit TechnicalBackground Documents, Vol. 3. Rome. This estimate is based on the assumption, even if unrealistic, that foodcan be perfectly targeted.21 World Bank/UNICEF/UNESCO, quoted in Ending malnutrition by 2020: an agenda for change in themillennium. Final report of the ACC/SCN Commission on the nutrition challenges of the twenty-first century.

agriculture sector and the problem of rural poverty have led many countriesto pursue strategies focused on reducing chronic food insecurity by increasingthe productivity of small farmers. Such strategies require the availability offinancial resources and institutional capacity, access by the rural poor toproductive land and affordable inputs, and the capacity of the non-farmingpoor to express their unsatisfied food needs in terms of effective demand. Inmost LIFDCs, however, the feasible scale of such a strategy is constrained bythe lack of domestic and external resources as well as institutional capacity.3.63

Since adequate nutrition, health and elementary education are prerequisites forinclusive economic growth, investments ensuring the broadest possible accessto essential food needs, safe water, primary health care and primary educationmay well be the most effective use of scarce resources available to achieve theWorld Food Summit target. Therefore, direct interventions aimed at reducingcurrent malnutrition and at creating conditions for healthy living should beaccompanied by policies (including public investment priorities) aimed at overalldevelopment. Indeed, the 20/20 target (20 percent of national budgets and 20percent of international assistance directed towards social goals), agreed at theWorld Summit on Social Development, is premised on these twin requirements.3.64

This twin-track approach to addressing food insecurity (at once a humanitarianand developmental goal) has been recognized as necessary in the technicaldocumentation prepared by FAO for the World Food Summit, as well as in theWorld Bank’s paper, Rural development: from vision to action, IFPRI’s document,2020 vision for food, agriculture and the environment, and IFAD’s Rural PovertyReport 2001. Translating this approach into reality in all the LIFDCs, however,will require the mobilization of resources as well as institutional capacitiesthat far exceed those currently committed to addressing food insecurity.3.65

The level of resources needed for a twin-track approach are difficult toquantify. The cost of providing the food required to feed the world’sundernourished at a minimally adequate level has been estimated20 to beabout US$13 per person per year. For 800 million people, this means US$10.4billion per year, but the cost would decline to US$5.2 billion if the Summitgoal were to be achieved. UN agencies21 have calculated the cost of ensuringsound nutrition and health in developing countries to be between US$70billion and 80 billion per year – in addition to the US$136 billion currentlyspent. With the constraints on the domestic public budgets of the poorestdeveloping countries, and the need for fragile macroeconomies to becushioned from the full cost of such an effort, the case for increased andsustained international assistance cannot be overstated. While the fruitfuloutcome of foreign assistance depends on its appropriate orientation and


22 See, for example, a review of available research in: J. Strauss and D. Thomas. 1998. Health, nutrition andeconomic development. J. Economic Literature, 36(2): 766-817.23 FAO. 1998. The State of Food and Agriculture 1998. Rome.

utilization by both donors and recipients, beyond a certain point noimprovement can substitute for a lack of resources. Thus, new forms ofresource mobilization must be explored.3.66

The costs incurred in reducing undernourishment to achieve the Summit targetwill depend very much on the strategy adopted. Sustainable improvements infood security can result from, but also contribute to, broad-based economicgrowth. However, the magnitude of the number of undernourished – even if itwere to be reduced from 800 million to some 400 hundred million in the spanof 15 years – calls for direct, targeted measures aimed at reducing thesepeople’s current undernourishment, in addition to policies and programmes thatwill improve their well-being in the future. In considering the costs and benefitsof such measures, it is essential to take into account the economic benefitsresulting from their implementation as well as their humanitarian justification.3.67

Poor health and malnutrition impair people’s physical and mental capacitiesand, therefore, their ability to carry out productive work. This has beenamply demonstrated at the individual level.22 Recent research conductedover three decades to assess the economic performance of 100 countries inrelation to their food insecurity status suggests that the economic lossesincurred by the national economy when a large share of its labour force ishandicapped by poor nutritional status are indeed significant – reachingmagnitudes in the order of one point of growth in GNP per annum. Such arethe conditions prevailing in countries with 30 percent or more of theirpopulation undernourished, countries estimated by FAO to have an aggregateof 600 million inhabitants. Indeed, since the mid-1980s, the economic growthrate (measured in GDP per capita) has been negative or nil in all countrieswith more than 50 percent of their population undernourished, and in amajority of those with 20 to 50 percent of their population undernourished.Only in the category with less than 20 percent undernourished did a majorityof developing countries experience positive growth per capita.23 Despite thefact that the cause and effect relationships are difficult to disentangle (fromgrowth to nutrition and from nutrition to growth), these findings neverthelesssuggest that fighting hunger is a growth-promoting economic investment, notonly a human rights obligation.

Conclusions

3.68

Despite the solemn commitment made at the World Food Summit, there areno signs of a significant increase in the rate of reduction of undernourishment,which remains far too slow. Unless drastic actions are taken, current


projections for 2015 still set the expected number of undernourished forthat date at 580 million people, with the Summit goal of a reduction to400 million people not being achieved before 2030. Having reached thisintermediate target, the ultimate aim is to eradicate hunger in all countries.3.69

Urgent action should be taken on several fronts, but it is indispensable thatincreased resources be mobilized for agriculture, which is of crucialimportance for the livelihoods of the hungry and food-insecure in developingcountries. In this chapter, it is recognized that financial resources are onlyone element of the necessary actions to promote food security, and sustainableagricultural development is one of several indispensable components of astrategy to alleviate poverty and food insecurity. Yet the mobilization ofresources in favour of agriculture, especially in countries where the greatmajority of the poor derive their livelihoods from this sector, is significantas a proxy for positive action taken in other areas of poverty allevation.3.70

The information and analyses presented do not provide evidence that asufficient move towards a new path has taken place. Investment in agriculturein developing countries appears to be continuing at the same pace that hasresulted in the unsatisfactory progress observed since the beginning of the1990s. This chapter has shown that low productivity of agriculture in poorcountries is associated with a low level of agricultural capital stock perworker, and both of these factors are associated with a high prevalence ofundernourishment.3.71

Countries with low savings and investment capacities remain dependent onODA as their main external financing source, but there is no evidence of ashift in ODA in response to this pressing need. Although public transfers havebeen steadily replaced by FDI, the direction and magnitude of the latter doesnot correspond to actual needs and so it is not channelled to the poorestcountries that have high levels of undernourishment.3.72

With respect to domestic public spending on the agriculture sector, the datapoint to the fact that governments’ allocation of public resources to agricultureremains well below the share of agriculture in income and employmentgeneration. Yet, 70 percent of the poor and food-insecure in developingcountries depend on agriculture, fisheries or forestry, directly or indirectly,for improving their livelihoods.3.73

There is now ample evidence to support the fact that not only humanitarianconsiderations but also economic reasoning should lead to greater efforts beingmade to alleviate the plight of the poor and food-insecure. Hunger greatlycompromises the productivity and health of individuals as well as the growthpotential of nations. Immediate food assistance to the hungry, in the case ofemergencies caused by climatic conditions or conflict, brings individual andcollective economic rewards, since it enables the under-nourished to enhancetheir contribution, in the short and long term, to economic growth and the


prosperity of the nation. This chapter advocates a twin-track approach tofood security, which includes the development of productive sectors and thecreation of appropriate mechanisms for short-term relief.3.74

In terms of priorities in the allocation of ODA and technical assistance,countries that fare the worst in terms of food insecurity indicators should befirst on the list. Although, in terms of poverty and food insecurity, countriesindicated as having the highest prevalence of undernourishment are locatedprimarily in sub-Saharan Africa, others are to be found in Asia and LatinAmerica and the Caribbean.3.75

Types of intervention and the specific areas of agriculture targeted forincreased resources will depend on the needs of each priority country. Theidentification of priority areas for resource mobilization must be basedon more detailed analyses of potential and constraints – analyses thatmust be carried out in a participatory manner at the national, regional andlocal levels.3.76

Resources can be channelled through both new and existing mechanisms,including the agricultural and rural components of the PRSPs, UNDAF andthe ACC Network for Rural Development and Food Security. Importantmechanisms in this respect are the recently created FAO Trust Fund for FoodSecurity and Emergency Prevention of Transboundary Pests and Diseases ofAnimals and Plants, as well as the SPFS, which aim to assist LIFDCs inovercoming technical, economic, social, institutional and policy constraintsthat prevent farmers from meeting their basic needs and from seizingopportunities that may arise.3.77

The support required from developed countries involves not only the transferof financial resources but political, policy and legal reform. For instance, theeffectiveness of resources directed to agricultural development in developingcountries will be severely compromised if these countries do not have accessto foreign markets. A reduction in trade protection in OECD countries hasenormous potential for production, exports and, ultimately, poverty reductionin poor countries. Benefits from trade liberalization will be uneven unlesssmall-scale farmers are able to take advantage of new market opportunities.3.78

Enabling small-scale farmers to face the challenges of globalization willrequire special attention to rural capacity and institution building as well asefforts to improve rural infrastructure, including roads, communications,marketing, transport, storage and processing facilities. Appropriate agrarianinstitutions are essential, such as those that facilitate credit and technologytransfer, as well as a legal framework to defend land and water claims andaccess rights. The key player in providing the commercial components ofsuch infrastructure and the ensuing management of downstream activities isthe private sector, itself highly responsive to an enabling macroenvironmentand public investment in rural infrastructure.


3.79

The overall message should be clear: there can be no hope of meeting theSummit target if the political will to direct sufficient resources to hungerreduction is not strengthened. It is essential that resources are mobilized tofood and agriculture so as to foster productivity gains and enhance employmentgeneration and access to food, especially in the rural areas where most ofthe world’s food-insecure people are located. Many countries are in criticalneed of investable resources. Supportive international assistance, startingwith a lasting solution to the debt problem, would be a tangible sign that thecommitments made at the Summit are being honoured. Efforts should continueat all levels to ensure that policies create appropriate incentives forinvestments by farmers and other private investors as well as an enablingenvironment comprising peace, democracy and political and social stability.

Annex Tables


ANNEX TABLE 1Rural and urban poverty percentages for developing countries

Region/country Year Rural Urban

(Percentage)Western and central AfricaBurkina Faso 1998 50.7 15.8Cameroon 1984 32.4 44.4Chad 1985-86 67 63Ghana 1991-92 33.9 26.5Guinea-Bissau 1991 60.9 24.1Mauritania 1996 58.9 19.0Niger 1989-93 66 52Nigeria 1992Senegal 1991 40.4 16.4Sierra Leone 1989 76 53

Eastern and southern AfricaEthiopia 1994-97 45.9 38.7Kenya 1994 46.7 28.9Lesotho 1993 53.9 27.8Madagascar 1993-94 77 47Uganda 1997 48.2 16.3Zambia 1996 74.9 34Zimbabwe 1996 62.8 14.9

East and South AsiaBangladesh 1995-96 39.8 14.3Cambodia 1997 43.1 24.8China 1998 4.6 2India 1997 34.2 27.9Indonesia 1998 22 17.8Lao People’s Democratic Republic 1993 53 24Malaysia 1989 19.3 14.3Mongolia 1995 33.1 38.5Nepal 1995-96 44 23Pakistan 1990-91 36.9 28Philippines 1997 51.2 22.5Papua New Guinea 1996 39.4 13.5Sri Lanka 1990-91 24.4 18.3Thailand 1992 15.5 10.2Viet Nam 1993 57.2 25.9

Latin AmericaBolivia 1996 81.7 33.8Brazil 1995 41.5 13.2Chile 1995 14.7 5.6Colombia 1992 31.2 8Dominican Republic 1992 31.2 8Ecuador 1994 47 25Guatemala 1989 71.9 33.7Honduras 1993 51 57Nicaragua 1993 76.1 31.9Panama 1997 64.9 15.3Paraguay 1995 45.3 7.5Peru 1997 64.7 40.4Trinidad and Tobago 1992 20 24Venezuela 1995 73.1 45.8

93 ANNEX TABLES

ANNEX TABLE 2Incidence of undernourishment by country, geographic region

and undernourishment prevalence category

Country Undernourished as a Geographic region Prevalence categorypercentage of total population 1997-99

1990-92 1997-99

Tunisia * * Near East and North Africa 1Libyan Arab Jamahiriya * * Near East and North Africa 1Hong Kong SAR of China * * East and Southeast Asia 1Argentina * * Latin America and the Caribbean 1Syrian Arab Republic * * Near East and North Africa 1Republic of Korea * * East and Southeast Asia 1Turkey * * Near East and North Africa 1Malaysia 3 * East and Southeast Asia 1Saudi Arabia * * Near East and North Africa 1Lebanon * * Near East and North Africa 1United Arab Emirates 3 * Near East and North Africa 1Uruguay 6 3 Latin America and the Caribbean 2Kuwait 23 4 Near East and North Africa 2Egypt 5 4 Near East and North Africa 2Chile 8 4 Latin America and the Caribbean 2Jordan 3 5 Near East and North Africa 3Ecuador 8 5 Latin America and the Caribbean 3Iran, Islamic Republic 4 5 Near East and North Africa 3Mexico 5 5 Latin America and the Caribbean 3Costa Rica 6 5 Latin America and the Caribbean 3Mauritius 6 6 Sub-Saharan Africa 3Indonesia 9 6 East and Southeast Asia 3Algeria 5 6 Near East and North Africa 3Morocco 5 6 Near East and North Africa 3Myanmar 9 7 East and Southeast Asia 3Nigeria 14 7 Sub-Saharan Africa 3Jamaica 12 8 Latin America and the Caribbean 3Gabon 11 9 Sub-Saharan Africa 3China (including Taiwan Province) 16 9 East and Southeast Asia 3Brazil 13 10 Latin America and the Caribbean 3Suriname 12 11 Latin America and the Caribbean 3Mauritania 14 11 Sub-Saharan Africa 3El Salvador 12 12 Latin America and the Caribbean 3Swaziland 10 12 Sub-Saharan Africa 3Peru 41 13 Latin America and the Caribbean 3Trinidad and Tobago 12 13 Latin America and the Caribbean 3Paraguay 18 13 Latin America and the Caribbean 3Colombia 17 13 Latin America and the Caribbean 3Guyana 19 14 Latin America and the Caribbean 3Iraq 7 14 Near East and North Africa 3Ghana 35 15 Sub-Saharan Africa 3Gambia 19 15 Sub-Saharan Africa 3Benin 19 15 Sub-Saharan Africa 3Côte d’Ivoire 19 16 Sub-Saharan Africa 3Panama 19 16 Latin America and the Caribbean 3Togo 27 17 Sub-Saharan Africa 3Cuba 5 17 Latin America and the Caribbean 3Pakistan 24 18 South Asia 3Viet Nam 27 19 East and Southeast Asia 3Venezuela 11 21 Latin America and the Caribbean 4Sudan 31 21 Sub-Saharan Africa 4Thailand 30 21 East and Southeast Asia 4

(continued)


Honduras 23 21 Latin America and the Caribbean 4Guatemala 14 22 Latin America and the Caribbean 4Bolivia 25 22 Latin America and the Caribbean 4Nepal 19 23 South Asia 4India 25 23 South Asia 4Sri Lanka 29 23 South Asia 4Botswana 17 23 Sub-Saharan Africa 4Philippines 26 24 East and Southeast Asia 4Senegal 23 24 Sub-Saharan Africa 4Burkina Faso 31 24 Sub-Saharan Africa 4Dominican Republic 27 25 Latin America and the Caribbean 4Lesotho 28 25 Sub-Saharan Africa 4Cameroon 29 25 Sub-Saharan Africa 4Papua New Guinea 24 26 Oceania 4Mali 25 28 Sub-Saharan Africa 4Uganda 24 28 Sub-Saharan Africa 4Lao People’s Democratic Republic 29 28 East and Southeast Asia 4Nicaragua 30 29 Latin America and the Caribbean 4Congo 35 32 Sub-Saharan Africa 4Namibia 30 33 Sub-Saharan Africa 4Bangladesh 35 33 South Asia 4Yemen 36 34 Near East and North Africa 4Chad 58 34 Sub-Saharan Africa 4Guinea 40 34 Sub-Saharan Africa 4Malawi 49 35 Sub-Saharan Africa 5Cambodia 43 37 East and Southeast Asia 5Zimbabwe 43 39 Sub-Saharan Africa 5Rwanda 34 40 Sub-Saharan Africa 5Democratic People’s Rep. of Korea 17 40 East and Southeast Asia 5Madagascar 35 40 Sub-Saharan Africa 5Niger 42 41 Sub-Saharan Africa 5Sierra Leone 46 41 Sub-Saharan Africa 5Liberia 37 42 Sub-Saharan Africa 5Mongolia 34 42 East and Southeast Asia 5Central African Republic 46 43 Sub-Saharan Africa 5Kenya 47 46 Sub-Saharan Africa 5United Republic of Tanzania 34 46 Sub-Saharan Africa 5Zambia 43 47 Sub-Saharan Africa 5Ethiopia n.a. 49 Sub-Saharan Africa 5Angola 61 51 Sub-Saharan Africa 5Mozambique 69 54 Sub-Saharan Africa 5Haiti 63 56 Latin America and the Caribbean 5Eritrea n.a. 57 Sub-Saharan Africa 5Afghanistan 64 58 Near East and North Africa 5Democratic Republic of the Congo 35 64 Sub-Saharan Africa 5Burundi 48 66 Sub-Saharan Africa 5Somalia 67 75 Sub-Saharan Africa 5

Note: Undernourishment prevalence categories refer to the proportion of undernourished in a country’s total population.Category 1: < 2.5 percent; Category 2: 2.5-<5 percent; Category 3: 5-<20 percent; Category 4: 20-<34 percent; Category 5: 35 percent;Category 6: countries for which data are not available.Source: FAO.

Country Undernourished as a Geographic region Prevalence categorypercentage of total population 1997-99

1990-92 1997-99

ANNEX TABLE 2 (continued)

>

95 ANNEX TABLES

ANNEX TABLE 3Total expenditure on agriculture (at the central, state and local level), by region and country

Region/country 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

(US$ millions)Latin America and the CaribbeanArgentina 119 573 747 799 881 823 837 885 0Bahamas 11 13 12 10 11 11 10 12 12Bolivia 18 15 20 24 32 43 16 32 60Brazil 0 0 2 005 0 0 0 0 0 0Colombia 0 206 222 290 0 219 230 334 207Costa Rica 60 46 76 89 121 83 45 0 0Dominican Republic 119 193 157 207 162 144 186 229 0Grenada 0 9 6 7 10 7 0 0 0Mexico 1 432 1 817 2 412 2 593 2 674 1 532 2 152 3 049 0Netherlands Antilles 5 5 4 0 0 5 0 0 0Nicaragua 14 11 24 29 16 0 0 0 0Panama 32 36 35 37 36 32 34 43 0Paraguay 6 15 53 48 0 0 0 0 0Trinidad and Tobago 0 0 0 63 52 67 0 0 0Uruguay 32 46 57 52 65 0 0 0 0

Near East and North AfricaBahrain 5 2 2 2 3 9 11 12 11Cyprus 157 127 159 166 153 190 207 175 0Egypt 815 474 618 708 835 890 0 1 221 0Iran, Islamic Republic 5 815 5 111 8 360 849 819 950 767 888 1 004Jordan 34 40 53 48 77 94 101 90 0Kuwait 118 4 48 53 61 67 10 0 0Lebanon 0 0 0 17 23 16 27 31 36Morocco 371 396 429 485 498 456 0 0 0Oman 82 100 104 108 82 80 81 69 57Syrian Arab Republic 571 575 703 840 907 1 295 1 386 1 569 0Tunisia 341 400 381 350 378 482 525 0 0Turkey 522 631 597 600 343 389 412 3 027 0United Arab Emirates 29 31 33 34 30 0 0 35 39Yemen 82 107 143 138 46 0 595 400

Sub-Saharan AfricaBotswana 82 66 85 99 93 102 154 0 0Burkina Faso 24 22 25 24 0 0 0 0 0Burundi 0 18 20 19 22 16 12 0 0Cameroon 106 93 0 91 45 0 0 0 0Ethiopia 161 147 164 0 0 0 0 0 0Ghana 32 34 45 44 0 0 0 0 0Kenya 141 142 131 106 163 142 134 0 0Lesotho 31 38 30 0 0 0 0 51 23Madagascar 71 46 69 24 36 34 70 0 0Mauritius 44 40 0 0 0 52 56 46 46Sierra Leone 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Zimbabwe 0 0 0 171 68 106 72 78 0

East and Southeast AsiaChina 2 109 2 264 2 232 2 765 2 193 9 529 12 506 14 478 0Indonesia 1 745 1 838 2 040 1 964 0 2 797 4 154 3 038 1 104Republic of Korea 3 880 3 864 3 580 4 013 6 733 8 097 7 959 6 620 0Malaysia 866 853 938 949 966 996 1 041 918 0Mongolia 0 9 4 9 7 0 6Myanmar 358 323 0 437 831 1 705 1 777 2 110 0Philippines 589 637 848 847 0 917 1 101 1 030 0

(continued)



Region/country 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

(US$ millions)

Singapore 52 32 28 27 0 32 35 40 0Thailand 1 255 1 451 2 092 2 065 2 558 3 001 3 100 0 1 541

South AsiaBhutan 15 15 15 14 20 22 22 19 15India 10 935 9 353 9 511 7 795 8 494 9 128 9 209 3 687 3 560Maldives 1 5 8 11 10 18 7 2 1Nepal 51 55 52 63 65 67 56 49 48Sri Lanka 131 147 159 141 165 202 164 138 189

OceaniaFiji 24 24 26 23 34 23 23 0 0Papua New Guinea 81 80 95 111 132 0 0 0 0

97 ANNEX TABLES

Category 1Argentina 119 573 747 799 881 823 837 885 0Republic of Korea 3 880 3 864 3 580 4 013 6 733 8 097 7 959 6 620 0Lebanon 0 0 0 17 23 16 27 31 36Malaysia 866 853 938 949 966 996 1 041 918 0Syrian Arab Republic 571 575 703 840 907 1 295 1 386 1 569 0Tunisia 341 400 381 350 378 482 525 0 0Turkey 522 631 597 600 343 389 412 3 027 0United Arab Emirates 29 31 33 34 30 0 0 35 39

Category 2Egypt 815 474 618 708 835 890 0 1 221 0Kuwait 118 4 48 53 61 67 10 0 0Uruguay 32 46 57 52 65 0 0 0 0

Category 3Brazil 0 0 2 005 0 0 0 0 0 0China 2 109 2 264 2 232 2 765 2 193 9 529 12 506 14 478 0Colombia 0 206 222 290 0 219 230 334 207Costa Rica 60 46 76 89 121 83 45 0 0Ghana 32 34 45 44 0 0 0 0 0Indonesia 1 745 1 838 2 040 1 964 0 2 797 4 154 3 038 1 104Iran, Islamic Republic 5 815 5 111 8 360 849 819 950 767 888 1 004Jordan 34 40 53 48 77 94 101 90 0Mauritius 44 40 0 0 0 52 56 46 46Mexico 1 432 1 817 2 412 2 593 2 674 1 532 2 152 3 049 0Morocco 371 396 429 485 498 456 0 0 0Myanmar 358 323 0 437 831 1 705 1 777 2 110 0Panama 32 36 35 37 36 32 34 43 0Paraguay 6 15 53 48 0 0 0 0 0Trinidad and Tobago 0 0 0 63 52 67 0 0 0

Category 4Bolivia 18 15 20 24 32 43 16 32 60Botswana 82 66 85 99 93 102 154 0 0Burkina Faso 24 22 25 24 0 0 0 0 0Cameroon 106 93 0 91 45 0 0 0 0Dominican Republic 119 193 157 207 162 144 186 229 0India 10 935 9 353 9 511 7 795 8 494 9 128 9 209 3 687 3 560Lesotho 31 38 30 0 0 0 0 51 23Nepal 51 55 52 63 65 67 56 49 48Nicaragua 14 11 24 29 16 0 0 0 0Papua New Guinea 81 80 95 111 132 0 0 0 0Philippines 589 637 848 847 0 917 1 101 1 030 0Sri Lanka 131 147 159 141 165 202 164 138 189Thailand 1 255 1 451 2 092 2 065 2 558 3 001 3 100 0 1 541

Category 5Burundi 0 18 20 19 22 16 12 0 0Ethiopia 161 147 164 0 0 0 0 0 0Kenya 141 142 131 106 163 142 134 0 0Madagascar 71 46 69 24 36 34 70 0 0Mongolia 0 9 4 9 7 0 6Sierra Leone 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Yemen – 82 107 143 138 46 0 595 400Zimbabwe 0 0 0 171 68 106 72 78 0

ANNEX TABLE 4Total expenditure on agriculture (at the central, state and local level),

by undernourishment prevalence category

Prevalence category 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

(US$ millions)

(continued)


Category 6Bahamas 11 13 12 10 11 11 10 12 12Bahrain 5 2 2 2 3 9 11 12 11Bhutan 15 15 15 14 20 22 22 19 15Cyprus 157 127 159 166 153 190 207 175 0Fiji 24 24 26 23 34 23 23 0 0Grenada 0 9 6 7 10 7 0 0 0Maldives 1 5 8 11 10 18 7 2 1Netherlands Antilles 5 5 4 0 0 5 0 0 0Oman 82 100 104 108 82 80 81 69 57Singapore 52 32 28 27 0 32 35 40 0

Note: Undernourishment prevalence categories refer to the proportion of undernourished in a country’s total population. Category 1: <2.5 percent;Category 2: 2.5-<5 percent; Category 3: 5-<20 percent; Category 4: 20-<35 percent; Category 5: 35 percent; Category 6: countries for whichdata on undernourishment are not available.

Prevalence category 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

(US$ millions)


>

Foreword - Food and Agriculture Organization · 2017. 11. 27. · Foreword O ne of humanity’s...

Documents

Transcript of Foreword - Food and Agriculture Organization · 2017. 11. 27. · Foreword O ne of humanity’s...