|
60th Anniversary Lecture of India’s Independence
Agriculture cannot wait
National Academy of Agricultural Sciences
New Delhi, 6 August 2007
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Soon after Indian independence, Jawaharlal Nehru said: “everything else can wait, but not agriculture.” Nehru’s words came in the wake of the Bengal Famine of 1942-43 and the acute food scarcity that India faced in 1947. Both the world and India are very different today, but Nehru’s words are no less relevant than they were 60 years ago. Today agriculture cannot wait, because the hungry cannot wait.
According to FAO’s report The State of Food Insecurity in the World (2006), in 2002-2003, 820 million people in the developing world still suffered from undernourishment, representing 17 percent of the total population.
Even so, in a longer-term perspective, progress in global hunger reduction has undoubtedly been remarkable. From the early 1960s to the end of the century, average per capita food consumption in developing countries, in terms of dietary energy supply, increased by more than a third (38 percent) in spite of a near doubling of the population. The share of chronically undernourished people in the developing countries declined from 37 percent of the population in 1969-71 to the current 17 percent. However, in terms of absolute numbers, the decline was less pronounced: from 960 million people in 1969-71 to the current level of 820 million.
The challenge today remains great, but different from the one we faced three to four decades ago. Before, hunger was a widespread and pervasive phenomenon throughout the developing world. Since then, we have seen major divergences in hunger reduction performance across regions and countries.
Progress has been most remarkable in Asia. In 1969-71, it had the highest prevalence of undernourishment: no less than 41 percent of its population suffered from chronic hunger. Today, the share is 16 percent. Several Asian countries have seen spectacular progress. China reduced the prevalence of hunger from 46 to 12 percent of its population. This means more than 230 million fewer hungry people live in China today compared to 30 years ago. In India, the share of hungry people has been reduced from 39 percent to 20 percent. However, in spite of this progress, more than 500 million of the world’s hungry live in Asia, corresponding to almost two thirds of the total of the developing countries. One in four (25 percent) are found in India and one in five (19 percent) in China. Both countries, however, have seen a slow-down in progress over the last few years.
Since 1970, Latin America and the Caribbean reduced the prevalence of undernourishment from 20 to 10 percent of its population, while the Near East and North Africa went from 24 to 9 percent. Sub-Saharan Africa did not progress enough over the last three decades, although in 1969-71, 36 percent of the population of the region suffered from hunger and today the share is 32 percent. The number of undernourished people in sub-Saharan Africa increased from 93 to 206 million people. In 1969-71, one out of every ten hungry people in the developing countries was found in sub-Saharan Africa, today it is one in four.
Within this overall picture, there are very large differences also among countries. Even in relatively more successful Asia, there are countries that have seen little or no progress. At the same time, several African countries have taken significant strides in reducing hunger and poverty. Indeed, between 1990-92 and 2001-03, fifteen countries in sub-Saharan Africa succeeded in reducing the number of undernourished people. Ghana is one of a handful of countries which have already achieved the target established by the 1996 World Food Summit of reducing by half the number of undernourished people relative to 1990-92.
But, although progress has been achieved, the number of hungry people in the developing world remains stubbornly and unacceptably high. Even more worrisome is the apparent slow-down in progress over the most recent years. Since the mid-1990s (199597), the number of hungry people in the developing countries has increased by 23 million people, while the prevalence has declined by only one percentage point. A further reason for concern lies in the great unevenness of progress achieved. Far too many countries have been standing still or progressed very slowly, if not moving backwards, with the risk of being left behind in the global race against hunger.
The urgency of accelerating hunger reduction has been emphasized in such international commitments as the World Food Summit Declaration in 1996 and the Declaration of the UN Millennium Summit in 2000. Unless we dramatically step up our efforts to reduce hunger and poverty, progress will remain inadequately slow. In fact, if the current trend is to continue, the WFS target of halving the number of people suffering from hunger will only be realized in 2150.
But despite all this, a large number of successful countries show us that hunger reduction is possible, even in some of the poorest countries in the world. There are important lessons to be learnt from these positive experiences.
The first and central lesson is naturally that “agriculture cannot wait”. There is ample evidence that combating hunger and extreme poverty requires an expanded commitment to agriculture and rural development. Seventy percent of the poor in developing countries live in rural areas. In the poorest of countries, agriculture is the driving force of the rural economy and the backbone of people livelihoods.
In the most food-insecure countries, agriculture is crucial for income and employment generation. Numerous studies have shown that the impact of economic growth on reducing hunger and poverty depends as much on the nature of the growth as on its scale and speed. A World Bank analysis of data from India, for example, found that growth in rural areas and in the agriculture sector had a much greater impact on reducing poverty than did urban and industrial growth. Also, analysis of trends in hunger reduction since 1990-92 reveals that the countries that saw progress towards the MDG hunger reduction target were the ones that had a growing agricultural GDP.
A second lesson is that, while poverty is a cause of hunger, it is equally true that hunger perpetuates poverty by negatively affecting health, education and labour productivity. Hunger imposes heavy costs on those who are directly affected, as well as on national development efforts and economic growth. Investment in hunger reduction is too often seen as “welfare”, but, in fact, it is an investment that has high economic rates of return.
A third lesson learnt is that investment in rural infrastructure, small-scale water management, storage facilities and ports, agricultural research, education and extension is essential for stimulating agricultural production and productivity. However actual public expenditures for agriculture and rural development in the developing world do not reflect the importance of the sector to their national economies and the livelihood of their populations. Analysis of public expenditure patterns shows that actually government expenditures on agriculture come closest to matching the economic importance of the sector in those countries where hunger is least prevalent.
A fourth lesson is that science can contribute, but under the right conditions. Improved technology, especially for small-scale farmers, can accelerate poverty reduction through increased crop yields and higher incomes. Progress in agricultural output over the past 40 years has come mainly from an increase in yield per hectare rather than area expansion. The decline in food prices, in real terms, has benefited poor consumers. However, in many places of the developing world poor farmers’ access to technology has been constrained by gaps in infrastructure, input markets, extension systems and credit.
A fifth lesson is that development assistance is fundamental for poor countries with limited ability to mobilize domestic savings for investment. It is particularly critical for agriculture, which is largely bypassed by foreign private investors. And yet, official development assistance to agriculture, broadly defined, declined dramatically in real terms in the course of most of the 1980s and the early 1990s and has never again approached earlier levels.
A sixth lesson is that trade can offer opportunities for the poor. Recent country experiences offer evidence that increasing agricultural exports and integration into international markets can contribute both to economic growth and to reducing hunger, especially when combined with investments in infrastructure and a favourable policy environment. However, a positive impact of trade liberalization on poverty is far from automatic. Opening national agricultural markets to international competition before basic institutions and infrastructures are in place can undermine the agricultural sector, with long-term negative effects for poverty and food security.
The seventh lesson is that of all the necessary conditions needed for economic growth and poverty reduction, none is more important than peace and stability. Protracted conflicts and civil crises undermine food security, while at the same time food insecurity may lead to or exacerbate conflict, particularly when compounded by other shocks and stresses. In sub-Saharan Africa, from 1990-92 to 2001-03, the number of undernourished people increased by 37 million people, with five war-torn countries alone accounting for 29 million of this increase.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
When designing effective strategies and interventions for accelerated hunger reduction, we must also look not only to lessons from past experience but also to new challenges.
An important current trend with implications for effective poverty reduction and food security is undoubtedly rapid urbanization. Virtually all of the world’s population growth between 2000 and 2030 is expected in urban areas. As a result there will be an increasing commercial orientation of production systems and major changes in marketing and distribution systems. The pressures to meet the requirements of more exacting food systems are raising concerns over the ability of small farmers to participate and the risk of their progressive marginalization.
Another major challenge lies in harnessing science and technology for development. The past four decades have seen two waves of agricultural technology development and diffusion to developing countries. The Green Revolution made improved germplasm available to developing countries as a public good through a strategy for technology development and diffusion. The second wave was generated by the “Gene Revolution”, in which a global and largely private agricultural research system is creating improved agricultural technologies that are flowing to developing countries primarily through market transactions. There are justified concerns regarding the potential of such Revolution to generate benefits for small farmers in poor countries. Existing international networks for sharing technologies across countries are coming increasingly under threat. The urgent need today is for a system of technology flows which preserves the incentives for private sector innovation while at the same time meeting the needs of poor farmers.
A third challenge lies in preserving and enhancing the natural resource base. Today, the provision of ecosystem services is under threat as never before by the combined effects of an expanding population, rapid economic growth and greater global integration. At the same time the close relationship between poverty, hunger and ecosystem degradation is becoming ever clearer. Many of the world’s poor live in marginal environments. Preserving and enhancing the natural resource base on which they depend is crucial for lifting them out of poverty.
The role of biodiversity for the future of humanity is barely disputed today. The initiative on biodiversity for food and nutrition, led by FAO and Biodiversity International, identifies agricultural biodiversity as a priority to improve the nutrition and food security of the poor. It also focuses on issues such as micronutrient deficiencies, the decline of dietary diversity and the rapid rise in obesity. It stresses the promotion of the use of local biodiversity as a sustainable source of quality nutrition.
Global warming is another issue with likely profound effects on agriculture and food security. Crops, livestock and forestry are directly involved as sources or sinks of Greenhouse gases, but they are also among the most vulnerable victims of the foreseen changes. Current projections suggest that the potential for crop production will increase in temperate latitudes but decline in parts of the tropics and sub-tropics. Rising sea levels will threaten crop production and livelihoods in countries with large areas of low-lying land. Food insecurity for some vulnerable groups in developing countries may well worsen.
Global warming could increase the number and the intensity of natural disasters. Raising this subject, I cannot avoid thinking about the catastrophic floods that India is facing at present in several regions, with thousands of victims and major difficulties for the population, agriculture and infrastructures. I wish to express my solidarity to the Indian people in this hour of trial and hardship, and to the national and local authorities which are fighting against this natural disaster.
The global production of biofuels has doubled in the last five years and is likely to double again in the next four years. The rapid emergence of bioenergy as a viable option for countries to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels, to mitigate climate change, and to diversify their agriculture production brings with it concerns related to food security and environmental sustainability. However, sustainable bioenergy development can deliver much needed benefits to rural agriculture and livelihoods in developing countries. Countries must fully exploit their comparative advantage for producing feedstocks while taking fully into account the moral and economic obligations to protect vulnerable populations, to ensure sufficient food supplies and to manage natural resources using the highest standards and best practices available.
We must step up dramatically our efforts to reduce hunger and poverty. FAO considers that the main building blocks of an enhanced global effort for accelerated hunger reduction in the years to come are:
Programmes and investments must focus on poverty and hunger “hotspots” – those areas around the world and within a country where a significant proportion of people are afflicted by under-nourishment and poverty. Among the developing regions, the biggest challenge is located in sub-Saharan Africa. Within countries, the main challenge is generally found in the rural areas.
Accelerated hunger reduction must be based on a twin-track approach. The first includes interventions to strengthen the productivity and incomes of the hungry and poor, with a special emphasis on agriculture and rural development as well as a pro-poor focus which creates employment and ensures access by the poor to productive assets. Policies and programmes for agriculture should also aim at the generation of off-farm activities, rural employment and wages. T he second track is to respond to the immediate needs of the poor and the food insecure. The latter includes social safety nets, cash transfers, health interventions and food and nutrition programmes. These are critical for allowing the hungry to take advantage of pro-poor development policies and escape the “hunger-poverty” trap.
Investments in agriculture and rural development must be increased. Governments of low-income countries can direct a greater portion of their budgetary expenditures towards these two sectors. Governments in Africa have recognized the urgency of committing their own resources to agriculture. In the “Maputo Declaration” in 2003, Heads of State committed their governments to allocating 10 percent of their national budgets to agriculture and rural development within five years.
Simultaneously, donor countries must keep their promise of contributing 0.7 percent of GNI to official development assistance (ODA), which should improve its effectiveness. ODA and public domestic resources must be well coordinated and targeted.
Equal importance should be given to private sector investment, including by small farmers themselves. Policies should induce complementarity of the flows of both investments. The quality and transparency of governance and public administration, political stability, reliable market institutions and macroeconomic discipline are all essential for this purpose.
Finally, in an era of globalization, poor and food insecure countries must be allowed to benefit from international trade. Developing countries could benefit from the removal of trade barriers for products in which they have a comparative advantage, from reduced tariffs for processed agricultural commodities and from deeper preferential access to markets for the least developed countries. However, benefits to poor countries would depend crucially on investments in rural infrastructure, small-scale water control, improved seed varieties, storage facilities, as well as in human capital, to overcome their supply-side constraints and improve their productivity and competitiveness.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In a world with abundant resources and technical means of feeding its population, the persistence of hunger is a scandal. There are 820 million people in the developing countries that continue to go to bed hungry every night. They cannot wait.
The international community must step up dramatically its efforts and stand up to its commitments to make hunger history.
Simply, the hungry cannot wait, and agriculture cannot wait.
I thank you for your kind attention.
Back to 2007 statements |
