A CAMPAIGN AGAINST HUNGER: Oxfam's take on the links between the economic and food crises.
Image: courtesy sara via Flickr
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Just seven months ago, the global food crisis had reached a flash point. Prices of staples such as corn and rice had more than doubled over a year, and, by April, riots had broken out in Haiti, Bangladesh and Egypt. On May 1, Pres. George W. Bush pledged $770 million in new food aid for the 2009 fiscal year, an amount on top of the $200 million worth of emergency food he promised through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Emerson Trust. The situation was desperate.
But on September 14, the financial firm Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, triggering the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. As one firm after another toppled, shock waves rippled from Wall Street around the globe with one consequence being the precipitous drop in the price of food and the fuel needed to transport it. As John Hoddinott, an economist at the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, D.C., put it, "It's fair to say that the financial crisis is not unambiguously bad."
Although we've been granted a brief respite, Hoddinott is wary of declaring an end to the world's food supply problems. At the most basic level, he says it is inevitable that fuel prices will creep up again—and with them, the price of having a full stomach.
But things are more complicated than just the oil market, experts say. The supply of food in impoverished nations is determined not only by global food prices, but also local political instability, natural disasters, the generosity of rich nations, and investment in agricultural development projects.
"We're not out of the woods yet," says Jennifer Parmalee, spokesperson for the United Nations World Food Program. "We have challenges that may not be as dramatic as they appeared six or eight months ago, but they are still with us."
The drop in global food prices does not always translate to a decrease in prices in places where they matter most. For instance, the global price of rice has dropped from $1,000 per metric ton in April to less then $500, but Parmalee says that in Haiti it was still hovering at $1,000 in October because the Caribbean island nation was devastated by four hurricanes this year. War-torn regions like Afghanistan and occupied Palestine are still facing prices some 40 percent higher than in 2007. Moreover, the downturn in prices could even discourage food production in the coming season, which would provoke another food crisis.
Even in the U.S. the impact of the financial downturn seems on course to outweigh any benefit of price decreases. From 2003 to 2007, the number of people turning up at soup kitchens increased from one million to 1.3 million per year. During that same period, the number of full-time workers showing up at those kitchens increased 75 percent. And that's not all, says Áine Duggan, vice president of research, policy and education at the Food Bank for New York City. "The populations we serve with the safety net will not see the full impact of this crisis for the next three to four months, and likely not until the middle of next year," she says. "The numbers will get worse before they get better.”
Late last month, Jacques Diouf, director general of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), called on world leaders to pony up $30 billion per year for a new agricultural system—a fraction of the $3 trillion dollars that have gone to stem the global financial meltdown. "The reduction in food prices should not be interpreted as the end of the food crisis," Diouf said. He suggested a first line of attack eliminating "international market distortions" that result from agricultural subsidies, customs tariffs and technical barriers to trade. But he also stressed the importance of increasing agricultural productivity in developing nations, which has leveled since the Green Revolution, which began in the 1960s.
Outside of Brazil, few developing countries are making necessary investments to improve agricultural productivity, and the financial crisis is not going to encourage rich nations lend a helping hand. According to the FAO, we need to double the world's agricultural production by 2050 to feed a population of nine billion. To meet this need, Diouf proposed setting up a network of 400 to 500 food and agriculture experts to provide "science-based analysis" using the U.N Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change as a model.
"We need to devise a global system," he says, "that is better suited to the new challenges of food security."
See what we're tweeting about
6 Comments
Add CommentI no longer care about other countries. My own people here in the U. S. have had it so hard and horrible for so long they can just stuff it and eat dirt as far as I'm concerned. FEED MY PEOPLE first, then we might start to respect those who feed the rest of the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisZenaV : Don't you realise that even with many Americans below the bread-line, the US is still getting a most of its ressources from other countries. 860,000,000 people are starving in the World, yet there are enough ressources to feed all starving people, including the american poor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't lose heart, as we are finally judged by our charity...
If we are getting our stuff from other countries, why aren't other countries DOING THE DAM FEEDING OF THEIR PEOPLES???? I don't respect rich people anymore, it's nothing but a scam to make money and STILL starve people. Like I said FEED MY PEOPLE FIRST and then you can take care of the world. You are either for us steve or you hate us. Which IS IT?? And don't try and make ME feel guilty for the stingy rich's ways! I didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA person who is going hungry and has even a small lot can grow part of their food. That's what I am doing, as well as millions of other Americans. It's not being publicized much but it is growing fast. People did it during the depression and WWII. One of the problems is that people are used to depending of being "rescued" and growing food is work, besides lawns look "nice" (sarcasm). The main problem in most of the world, the US included, is greedy corporations and individuals whose only goal is getting super rich at the expense of the rest of humanity. Most countries have plenty of land to feed everyone but it is usually controlled by a few. Here in the US, we pay millionaires subsidies when they are not even really farming. The very rich are the enemy, people just don't get it. Lets hope that someday they will and governments, including ours, will eventually be for the people not just for the rich. Sorry ZenaV, we, including you, are part of the problem because we allow it to happen. Question: how many people are you actually feeding? I bet just you and your family if you have one. Steve is right, we do have enough resouces worldwide to feed everyone and a responsibility to help others. (In case you are wondering, I have helped give 21 loans to poor people worldwide to start businesses through Kiva and my income falls below the poverty level. If I can, so can most Americans.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBullshit with your santimonious hockey. If you fall below income level you don't have anything to give anybody. You're a troublemaker plain and simple. Bite me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFolks, we're still focusing on the symptoms, not the problem. The problem is too many people, plain and simple. To solve the problem might take wars (not my top priority), let them starve to death (another bad idea), or educate them to the benefits of limiting themselves to two children (slower but more effective). Name one global problem that wouldn't be less of a problem to no problem at all if we had half the global population that we have now. And we're just blithely talking about an additional 3 billion people to deal with. HELLO! There's your problem!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this