On Wednesday (6/3) the UN Secretary General announced that the demand for food was projected to rise 50 % by 2030. International leaders and activists quickly pointed to food subsidies in developed countries, which leave local farmers in the least developed countries (LDC’s) in a precarious position, unable to access their own markets where the majority of the 850 million people (roughly 1/7th of the global population) who go hungry are located. Others pointed to the diversion of food crops to meet the growing demand for biofuels.
According to Goldman Sachs’ Sustain Report, “Production of beef, pork, and poultry in China and Brazil alone has grown from 21% of world production in 1990 to 43% in 2006. As the population of countries BRICs (Brazil, Russia, China, India) grows, they are likely to move towards becoming net consumers as opposed to exporters. The use of agricultural products as feedstock for fuels is already causing tension with regard to corn prices.” Essentially there is a convergence of population growth in LDC’s and increasing GDP per capita in the same areas, which is forcing these larger producers of food to feed themselves first.
Regardless of who’s to blame or the cause, the demand for food is rising significantly. And, as discussed in the International Herald Tribune, many in the private sector have jumped to meet this demand. And, hedge funds and institutional investors have stepped up from buying just commodities to purchasing farmland all over the world. From Argentina to Sub-Saharan Africa, these investors are consolidating smaller plots into larger, modernized, more robust farms to meet the growing demand.
This move is being criticized with skeptics implying that investors are trying to make money in the short term and are not truly interested in operating production; rather, they seek to reduce the risks of speculation in commodity markets by essentially controlling the supply.
The World Bank’s Mr. Zoellick and UN Secretary General Ban Key-moon call for$20 billion in investments to meet demand. If we look at the situation in a broader sense, one that focuses on the Human Impact of these investments, the investments offer great potential and great risk. What do we know? And where do we turn our focus to reduce risk and maximize the opportunity before us. are the HIP questions we need to answer to determine the result?
- Organic fruits and vegetables are thought to contain 40% more nutrients than chemical-fed counterparts and animals raised on pastures have more beta-carotene and C.L.A. than those raised on grain, creating strong demand for organic produce. Yet prices for organic inputs are rising (driving the price of organic milk to $7 and pasta to $3 due to the high price of organic feeds), and many farmers can no longer afford to buy organic animal feed and are now abandoning their organic farming methods. Will these investments make organic production viable or will they resort to cheaper, more toxic farming methods?
- “Providing enough food for the poor, while taking care of health needs and the environment, means "reconciling contradictory objectives," said Guilhem Calvo, a consultant to the UNESCO's Division of Ecological and Earth Sciences. Among its findings, for instance, the UNESCO panel's report says that the growing involvement of women in agriculture in developing countries is creating worsening health and work conditions for them and is reducing their access to education. The report also highlighted the intensifying water shortage in large parts of Africa and central and western Asia. (International Herald Tribune) In raising the level of food production, what balance will be struck
between efficiency of GMO’s vs. the health risks associated with them? Similarly, how will the need for labor impact local populations when there is greater incentive for women to work in the fields?
