The main target agreed by governments is
to reduce the number of undernourished people to half their present level no
later than 2015. While most governments acquiesced in the target, President
Fidel Castro reproached its timidity: "What kind of cosmetic solutions are we
going to provide so that in 20 years from now there would be 400 millions
instead of 800 million starving people? The very modesty of these goals is
shameful."
In their defence, governments argued that the Plan of Action
was less dramatic, but more structured and better targeted to hunger and poverty
than had been the case at earlier conferences. The Director General of FAO, Mr.
Jacques Diouf, who called for the Summit, said that the process "has widened
the area of agreement among the concerned actors and increased the level of
consensus both on what needs to be done to address the problems, and on how it
should be done."
Government aid policies
Governments reluctant to increase aid budgets asserted
that the Summit would lead to targeting for food security rather than additional
overall aid. There is room for better targeting, but it is a philosophy-and an
economic system-which suits the rich more than the poor. The US submitted a
statement that it is not "among those countries that have agreed to an
official development assistance target. The US will continue to provide high
quality aid on a case-by-case basis as appropriate." At the same time, back in
Washington, the government was making plans to cut by two-thirds its funding to
the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)-widely regarded as
the UN agency which best targets financial support to poor farmers(2). The US is
IFAD's largest contributor, and the cut from US$90 million to US$30 million
over three years could have a major impact on the agency's work.
Poverty major cause of hunger
The Summit Declaration and Plan of Action includes
many positive elements. Importantly, it recognises that poverty is the major
cause of hunger, and peace a precondition for achieving food security. It
reasserts the point that access to food and food distribution are as crucial as
food production. Governments acknowledged that food should not be used as an
instrument for political and economic pressure. The Declaration notes a need to
refrain from unilateral measures that endanger food security, though condones
actions in accordance with international law and the UN Charter.
Local production v. trade
An area of particular concern is the balance between
Commitment 3 relating to food production and Commitment 4 relating to trade.
Many developing countries-and large numbers of the non-governmental
organisation (NGO) community-believe that it is essential for countries to
produce a significant proportion of staple foods domestically. Trade is, of
course, a feature of all economies and the Summit recognised that developing
countries must be able to afford food imports, and that food must be available
to import. But with an international agenda heavily weighted towards trade
liberalisation there is a danger of over-emphasising trade at the expense of
domestic production and investment in agriculture. The matter was largely handed
over to the World Trade Organisation-but as this body has no mandate to
address food security, it is essential that developing countries are well
briefed and able to participate fully in the trade negotiations.
What kind of agriculture?
The Plan of Action also ignored the issue of
transnational corporations with major interests in food and agriculture. A
World Bank report for the Summit acknowledged that from 1980 to 1990 the five
largest grain exporters accounted for 87% of world grain exports and 47% of
stocks(3). These producers can influence the levels of grain on the market: if
demand growth slows, the producers will cut production. But the poor have no
effective demand.
Just eleven companies control 75% of the US$30 billion
agrochemical market, representing a powerful force in agriculture. A
technical background paper for the Summit calls for a 'new green revolution' to
support agriculture based on high cost inputs such as high-yielding seed
varieties, fertilisers and pesticides. Although "appropriate input
technologies, farming techniques, and other sustainable methods, such as organic
farming" as well as integrated pest management are promoted in the Plan of
Action, the overall balance of commitment relating to agricultural production
focuses on promoting modernization and transferring technology.
Pesticide hazards and hazards to agricultural workers were
inadequately addressed in the Plan of Action and it is a matter of some concern
that new strategies could result in increased pesticide use, without adequate
countervailing safety measures. There is no reference of the need to avoid the
use of harmful pesticides, of their health and environmental problems, nor of
the International Code of Conduct for the Distribution and Use of Pesticides
developed by the FAO.
This technology-intensive agriculture contrasts with the
approach increasingly supported by many agricultural researchers for
knowledge-intensive agriculture, based on low external inputs, better
understanding of pest-predator balance, crop rotations, natural enemies, which
works with farmers in a participatory manner to promote their needs. Many of the
positive elements of Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development, as adopted
at the Earth Summit and expressed in Chapter 14 of Agenda 21 needed more
vigorous support.
NGO responses
NGOs at the Summit and at the parallel NGO Forum were
particularly concerned by the emphasis on trade liberalisation and the new green
revolution. While many governments noted a need for better 'participation'
of farmers in planning and implementing food security, this at times appeared to
mean demonstrating new technology to groups of farmers. At a UK Food Group
Conference held in October, Zimbabwe farmers presented their research from an
exchange project with farmers in East Anglia (UK). Like governments, the farmers
put peace and security top of the list and agreed on the need for better local
communications and transport. But in other matters the emphasis was different.
They called for appropriate technology that gets the most out of animal draught
power, on-farm training including in marketing; co-operative working and grain
stored locally(4).
The 1,200 NGOs from some 80 countries who delivered a
Statement to the WFS emphasised that food security is possible, and the right to
food is a basic human right. Among other proposals from the NGO Forum were the
need to strengthen the capacity of family farmers, indigenous peoples, women and
youth in local and regional food systems, reversing concentration of
control-notably to ensure that genetic resources are free from intellectual
property rights; changing agriculture based on non-renewable resources towards
agroecological principles, strengthening participation, and placing the right to
food above macro-economic policies and trade liberalisation(5).