The future of abundance – Can the planet still feed us?

Dialogue forum "Resources" on 17 February 2009

Rising food prices and hunger riots in a number of countries have fanned concerns that we are facing a global food crisis. Are we really capable of supplying a growing population with enough food. Experts discussed this fundamental issue at the third resources dialogue forum, held on 17 February 2009.

Unlike mineral wealth, food supplies can be replenished and are, in principle, inexhaustible. However, population increases and changing consumer habits now threaten supplies for millions of people. Günter Hemrich, Programme Coordinator at the United Nations Food Agriculture Organization (FAO): “The numbers of undernourished have soared due to high food prices”. Rice was a striking example: the price had increased virtually fourfold in the three years prior to May 2008. This has grave consequences for households in developing countries, which spend over 50% of their income on food. The total number of those who do not have enough to eat has gone up from 842 million to 963 million since the early nineties. Hemrich noted that Central Africa was worst hit, although most of the people afflicted by famine live in Asia.

The UN estimates that, in 40 years’ time, the global population will have increased from the current six to nine billion. Food production will have to have doubled by then to take into account changes in consumer habits. Hemrich believed there was spare capacity with, on the one hand, greater potential for increasing the amount of land available for cultivation – even if climate change is displacing the cultivation zones and some areas have already reached their limits. On the other hand, Hemrich believed that there was still considerable scope for boosting productivity. According to FAO estimates, by 2030 more efficient growing methods will account for 80% of the production increase.

Dr. Manfred Kern, Head of International Business Relations at Bayer CropScience AG, also believes the world can feed far more people. He noted that biotechnology would play a key role. One problem is that calorie intake worldwide is on the increase and more and more people are changing from a vegetarian to an animal-based diet. He feared that “the number of people who are undernourished will increase despite the FAO’s best efforts”. The trend had been going on for many years, and Kern doubted that we would manage to halve the proportion of people suffering from hunger by 2015, one of the Millennium Development Goals. The greatest potential for food production lay in seed improvement, with climate, water, foodstuffs and pest control playing a crucial part. He also pointed out that action was urgent, because it took 10–15 years for seed quality to be improved.

Kern felt that the United Nations was with him on this, as it had already laid the foundations of sustainable, environmentally sound development at the 1992 environment and development conference in Rio de Janeiro, specifically including innovative technologies. Kern: “Everything the industrial nations need to do has been in Agenda 21 for more than 15 years. It also outlined the main cornerstones of green biotechnology management. Kern’s vision for eradicating hunger is to use the primary language of nature to develop ethically viable innovations based on the mysteries of life. He urged: “We have to break the vicious circle of poverty.” Without agriculture there would be no stability.

Prof. Franz-Theo Gottwald, theologian, philosopher and Director of the Schweisfurth Foundation doubted that green genetic engineering was a cure-all. His view was that “the promises won’t hold good for each and every yield period”, and he called for a more realistic approach. The more scientific options were advocated, the higher the price, and the more difficult it would be to handle the new seeds and breeds. Exploitation rights were another issue.

He urged that globalisation be kept on track. “I agree that we on this planet have enough to eat. We need multifunctional rural development to be able to face the future challenges. Gottwald appealed to each of us as individuals to change our lifestyles. “It isn’t about quantity, it’s about distribution.” However, he also believed that nutrition involved fair prices for meat production. “Whilst producing food that is apparently cheap, we ignore the energy and health issues.” Prices had to support sustainable agriculture. Providing everyone with 2,400–2,500 calories per day was certainly possible using EU-certified sustainable agriculture.

A heated discussion followed on the causes of last year's food crisis in Haiti, Mexico, Thailand and elsewhere. FAO expert Hemrich was convinced that “the politicians have failed”. He maintained that each country put itself first, shifting the problem onto its neighbours and closing the borders when supplies became scarce. In addition, liberalisation was of no avail without local infrastructure to support the market. In Hemrich’s view we needed to devote more resources to increasing food production in the long term, rather than to emergency aid alone.

Kern, on the other hand, believed the shortage of corn and Mexico's tortilla crisis were caused by drought. Neglect of Haiti’s primary sector was nothing short of criminal. Wildly fluctuating prices also showed that politicians had failed. Agriculture might be getting more global, but there was not enough capacity to cope with shortages. He gave the audience a striking example: “If soy bean supplies from Brazil stop for just 14 days, we can forget about pig farming in this country.”

Gottwald emphasised that speculators in the financial markets were responsible for 20% of last year's price increase. Moreover, WTO pressure to cut customs duties was leading to policy changes. Global demand for corn, rice and soya crops was increasingly taking precedence over the needs of the local population.

Would it not be good to give the FAO more responsibility for worldwide agriculture? Kern fears it will be difficult to find effective solutions in the absence of proper market structures. “The political decision-makers ultimately determine everything, also the proliferation of gene technology. We simply have to respect that.”

In Gottwald’s view, the main issue will be who lays down seed improvement objectives in terms of maximum and lifetime performance. He wondered: “Will we manage to include the different groups when we talk about the values and objectives?” He called for a balanced public debate.

How could conflicts of interest be resolved so that we could move on from knowing about the problems to actually doing something about them? The G8 states have proposed a summit on food supplies but, Hemrich criticised, individual countries were not prepared to give up responsibility or sovereignty. Ultimately, each of us bears a share of the responsibility. The first step is to change our own habits as consumers and eat less animal protein: “At most, 20% of our intake is tenable – but no more.” He challenged the audience: “Have a look at what you consume daily, and cut down.”

In Kern’s view, the key was to get away from short-term thinking and clarify the strategic issues relating to seeds, infrastructure and the necessary investments. Even at the end of the two-and-a-half hour discussion, there was no ultimate certainty on the best way to overcome the food problem: smallholding-based structures, increased globalisation or more use of technology. Hemrich summed up: “There is no categorically right or wrong answer.” He believes the solution lies in ongoing debate, being open and offering a platform for discussion.

That is also the aim of the foundation’s dialogue forums. The subject we will be discussing at the next forum on 17 March: Oil price shock or climate collapse – What will force us to change?

26 February 2009