M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation Conference

Chennai, India, 7 August 2007

"There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread."
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)


Ladies and Gentlemen,

I wish to thank you for being given the opportunity to come back once again to this magnificent historical city of Chennai, and discuss with you the unacceptable plight of the people in the world so hungry that “God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread”, as the great and humble Mahatma Ghandi said.

In 1999, I spoke in this city about the vision of a hunger-free century. Despite all the efforts made by countries to diminish the number of undernourished people, projections tell us that 582 million people will still be hungry in 2015. Progress over the last decade in alleviating hunger has been uneven, but also slower than over the previous two decades.

The concentration of hunger is still in rural areas, suggesting that no sustained reduction in hunger is possible without special emphasis on agricultural and rural development. It follows that investments in agriculture, and more broadly in the rural economy, are often a prerequisite for accelerated hunger reduction. In addition, the migration of the rural poor to the cities calls for more urban and peri-urban agriculture.

Armartya Sen quoting his former professor Joan Robinson affirms: ‘Whatever you can rightly say about India, the opposite is also true’. The genuinely impressive success story of Indian economic growth and its emergence as a global powerhouse is also confronted with a more pessimistic picture as a large proportion of the Indian population has yet to benefit from the dynamic changes underway in the country. The National Family Health Survey alerts us that 40% of the adult population in India are underweight, and 79% of the children between 3 months and 3 years suffer from some type of anaemia. No state in India is free from iodine deficiency disorders, and Vitamin A deficiency continues to be a public health problem among pre-school children. In a country with 348 million people aged under 14, these are alarming levels of child malnutrition, in spite of the presence of large national programmes such as the Integrated Child Development Services programme. Reducing food-borne diseases requires an integrated food chain approach.

India’s child malnutrition problems remain a critical priority for the country and the UN Country Team. FAO fully endorses the “Chennai Platform for Action” established in 2005, under the leadership of the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, linking nutrition and biodiversity for achieving the Millennium Development Goals. We also acknowledge India’s wish to co-host the next meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene ( CCFH) that will be held in October this year and the Global Forum of Agro-Industries in April 2008 (UNIDO/FAO/Government of India).

In the words of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission and the Union Finance Minister, Indian agriculture needs to grow at 4% from the current 2% if the overall economic growth and poverty reduction are to reach their targets.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

FAO has chosen the Right to Food as its World Food Day theme this year to draw attention to this essential, yet often overlooked, human right. It is the right to feed oneself and one’s family in dignity. It is the right to have continuous access to the resources for production, and to earn income to purchase adequate food.

The right to food is a legal obligation for the 156 countries that have ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These States have an obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the human right to food. The realization of this right is also a political commitment. At the World Food Summit, Heads of State and Government reaffirmed “the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger”. In the Plan of action (Objective 7.4), they recommended the “implementation and full and progressive realization of this right as a means of achieving food security for all”.

In November 2004, FAO members adopted voluntary guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security. India plays a pioneering and model role in implementing the right to food with contributions from all parts of society: the judiciary, government and civil society. When grain silos overflowed in some Indian regions and while Rajasthan’s drought-struck inhabitants went hungry, India’s Supreme Court ordered the distribution of reserves to remedy the situation. This order sets a trend for many developing and developed countries.

Another landmark decision was taken by the Indian Government when it adopted the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, developed the midday meal programs and established the Integrated Child Development Services programme. I am proud to stand here in the State of Tamil Nadu which pioneered the universalization of the school meal programme way back in the 1960s.

Amartya Sen’s work shows how a robust democracy managed to prevent large scale famines which were commonplace 60 years ago. Yet, the challenges remain daunting: 209 million people are still hungry in this country, only 5 million less than in 1992, and the downward trend in the number of undernourished has been reverted in recent years.

In its vision of a world without hunger, FAO advocates a village-by-village approach as a quick and effective way to achieve this goal. It is based on lessons learned from ten years of experience with pilot demonstration projects implemented through its Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS). One of the most important lessons was the need to act in a comprehensive manner on a scale sufficient to achieve WFS and MDG targets by 2015.

National Programmes for Food Security (NPFS) were consequently introduced by FAO in 2002 as an instrument for countries to implement the village-by-village approach on a national scale. While the NPFS often include an expansion of activities that proved successful during the pilot phase of the SPFS, the overall framework is quite broad, covering, inter alia, productivity improvement, storage and packaging, market performance, sustainable rural livelihoods, nutrition and food safety, as well as capacity-building for small farmers, rural communities, extension workers and local government officers.

At the regional level, complementary components may include trade negotiations, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, quarantines and control of transboundary pests and diseases, harmonization of legislation and regulations in the area of food quality and safety standards, market information and early warning, research and extension, road construction and maintenance, resource mobilization and rural finance.

To date, NPFS activities have already begun or are about to begin in some 50 countries, Regional Programmes for Food Security (RPFS), currently operational in four regions, are addressing issues of shared water and environmental resources management. Investment requirements in 12 low-income food-deficit countries where NPFS are already operational are estimated at over US$5 billion over five years, of which some US$1.2 billion has so far been mobilised.

In Africa, the Comprehensive Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) was approved by Heads of State and Government at their Maputo Summit in Mozambique in July 2003. In this framework, National Medium-Term Investment Programmes for Food Security (NMTIPs) and Bankable Investment Project Profiles (BIPPs) have been formulated with FAO’s support. To date, project profiles have been prepared for 50 African countries, with a total value of around US$ 10 billion. These reflect the investment priorities that African governments have identified and consider of high priority for their agriculture and rural development agenda from both technical and political perspectives.

Cooperation between developing countries has been an important source of technical support for countries implementing SPFS projects since 1996. Experience has shown that in many instances, specific kinds of expertise or innovative technologies are not readily available within the country or region. In these instances, South-South Cooperation (SSC), which is both cost effective and practical, can play a vital gap-filling role. With the growing number of large-scale NPFS and RPFS, the demand for such support is expected to increase. Recently, FAO entered into a strategic alliance with the Government of China for the deployment of 3 000 SSC experts and technicians, thus increasing those already fielded from 11 other cooperating countries.

Under these new strategic alliances, greater flexibility in the cost-sharing arrangements and the terms of reference and contract duration for SSC personnel are being introduced and provision for training personnel from recipient countries in cooperating country institutions will be included. India has been a strong believer in, and supporter of, South-South Cooperation, providing expertise to Eritrea, Lesotho and Mozambique, and with a major new programme of support to Afghanistan under preparation. FAO looks forward to entering into a strategic cooperation with the Government of India, as a practical and effective means of engaging together in the race against hunger.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The intensification of international agricultural trade, coupled with the widespread planting of few varieties over large areas, which may be sensitive to the emergence of new pathogen strains increases the threats to plant and animal health. A virulent strain of the wheat stem rust first identified in East Africa in 1999 has now been confirmed in Yemen and it is expected that it would soon be moving to other parts of the Near East, Central and South Asia. FAO, together with ICARDA and CIMMYT, is actively assisting the national programmes of countries concerned in the surveillance and monitoring of this strain and in the rapid development of new resistant varieties.

Plant pest and disease surveillance, faces two major challenges: (1) to ensure that quality standards are met in collecting data from different sources; and (2) to provide a common national platform to integrate data. The aim should be to ensure accurate and timely information being shared by governments on pest or disease outbreaks. Such cooperation would need to be developed on a regional basis. FAO is currently providing assistance to the Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage in New Delhi in a project to facilitate this exchange of information, and develop a technical prototype for such a platform. The development of an effective Plant Quarantine network is also key to success. Centres, such as the one in Chennai, have the capacity to perform science-based risk analysis, enabling the country to take pre-emptive measures against the introduction of pests or diseases through imports.

The principles of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) are widely accepted, and the numbers of farmers and farmer-facilitators trained through their field school programmes, in particular in agro-ecosystem analysis, run into the thousands in the larger states. IPM policies have led to significant reductions in pesticide consumption in agriculture, with no reduction in food production.

Transboundary animal diseases threats are also at the forefront of India’s agenda. Despite past success stories, such as rinderpest eradication during the 1990s or, more recently, the elimination of avian influenza, there are a number of disease agents that demand continued vigilance. India 's impressive dairy sector and national ruminant herd are top ranking globally. Still, devastating disease problems such as different forms of foot-and-mouth disease viruses continue to constrain the productivity of animals.

But there are risks that avian influenza will flare up again with a potential catastrophe for the poultry industry. Despite the commendable efforts by the veterinary and other public services during 2006, in terms of early warning and swift response mechanisms, there are good reasons to believe that highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 may again enter the country. Risk factors for introduction, spread and persistence, as observed in other Asian countries, comprise the overall size of the poultry sector, the density of the production plants, combinations of large-scale commercial and smallholder units applying conflicting biosecurity regimes, live bird markets, mix of domestic waterfowl and terrestrial poultry species such as chicken, quail and turkey, possible contact with wild water birds, and large populations and congregations of domestic ducks and geese. Given the presence and persistence of bird flu H5N1 viruses in neighbouring countries, it is possible that India will face repeated incursions of this important threat to both animals and humans.

The complex nature of the bird flu has heightened the need for a more strategic and integrated approach to the policy and regulatory frameworks that manage risks in food safety, animal and plant health, including the environment. FAO is considering a proposal formulated by the National Farmers’ Commission under the chairmanship of Prof. Swaminathan, with this objective.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Science and technology must spearhead agricultural production in the next 30 years at a pace faster than the Green Revolution did during the past 30 years. Exploiting the new biotechnologies, including in particular in vitro culture, embryo transfer and the use of DNA markers, can supplement conventional breeding approaches, thus enhancing yield levels, increasing input-use efficiency, reducing risk, and enhancing nutritional quality.

With respect to genetically modified (GM) crops that are currently cultivated, mostly herbicide-tolerant and pest-resistant soybean, cotton, maize and rapeseed, they represent already about 15% of the global crop protection market and 16% of the global commercial seed market. Cultivation of GM crops for resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses, such as drought, extreme temperatures, soil acidity and salinity, are not yet a reality.

I cannot sufficiently underline the need to also address the needs of resource-poor farmers in rainfed areas and on marginal lands. Ensuring that new biotechnologies help achieve this goal, in full awareness of biosafety, socio-economic and ethical concerns associated with the use of some of these technologies remains a challenge for the entire scientific community. India’s comprehensive national programme on biotechnology, which is successfully coupled with an appropriate functioning biosafety framework, is becoming a repository of knowledge and expertise that can be of great help in this endeavour. India’s wealth of experience, innovation and successful practice can and is being shared and replicated. I am certain that this aspect will be central during your discussions of the coming days.

The world is facing new challenges that may add pressure to the already delicate environmental balance. Much research is taking place on regional impacts and geographical shifts in agricultural land and productivity potential resulting from climate change and variability together with the implications for food security. To summarize in one sentence, industrialized countries could gain in production potential, while developing countries may lose.

Crop yield potential is likely to increase at higher latitudes for global average temperature increases of up to 1-3°C depending on the crop, and then decrease beyond that. On the contrary, at lower latitudes, especially in the seasonally dry tropics, crop yield potential is likely to dec line for even small global temperature rises, which would increase the risk of hunger. Greater frequency of droughts and floods would affect local production negatively, especially in subsistence sectors at low latitudes. Rainfed agriculture in marginal areas in semi-arid and sub-humid regions is mostly at risk. India could lose 125 million tons, equivalent to 18% of its rainfed cereal production.

Impacts of climate change on forests and, in turn, on forest-dependent people and environmental conditions are already evident. Increased incidence of forest fires and of severe outbreaks of forest pests and diseases is being linked to climate change. At the same time, the role that forests play in climate change mitigation and adaptation is paramount. Deforestation in developing countries accounts for an estimated 20% of greenhouse gas emissions globally. Efforts to reduce forest degradation and to conserve forest carbon stocks could have a major impact on the global carbon balance and, at the same time, may enhance sustainable development in developing countries. FAO has a multi-faceted programme in forests and climate change, including support for field activities, capacity strengthening and technical input to the policy process taking place under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Climate change adaptation will be needed in a variety of ecosystems, including agro-ecosystems (crops, livestock and grasslands), forests and woodlands, inland waters and coastal and marine ecosystems. The implications of climate change on water sources are still uncertain. We should observe a reduction in the precipitations in certain regions, including Southern Africa and the Mediterranean region, an increase in variability of rainfall in semi-arid regions, as well as in major mountain systems, with a consequent reduction in the capacity to regulate the course of water, affecting water sources in the most populated basins of the world such as the Ganges and Brahmapoutre.

Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Large areas of the Arctic Ocean could lose year-round ice cover by the end of the 21st century if human greenhouse gas emissions reach the higher end of current estimates. The extent of Arctic sea ice coverage has already shrunk by about 2.7% per decade since 1978. Estimates for sea-level rise due to ocean expansion and glacier melt by the end of the century indicate that it may increase from 28-58 cm compared to 1989-1999 levels. However, larger values of up to one metre by 2100 cannot be ruled out if ice sheets continue to melt as temperature rises.

There is currently a water programme of work in 35 UN agencies and programmes, coordinated by UN-Water, currently under the presidency of FAO for the period 2007-2008. FAO’s priority in food security decision-making, with regard to climate change, focuses on the need to establish early warning systems to produce viable, relevant and credible information, for use in responding to short-term emergencies as well as contributing to sustainable development. FAO’s multidisciplinary expertise in agriculture, forestry and fisheries and their technical, economic and social dimensions could, with the due involvement of farmers, scientists and policymakers, facilitate an integrated approach to climate change adaptation.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

High and volatile petroleum prices and growing environmental concerns are driving the search for alternative energy sources. The development of environmentally-friendly bioenergy could promote energy access, create new income sources and generate employment opportunities in rural areas, thus reducing poverty. At the same time, demand for bioenergy could place substantial pressure on the natural resource base, with potentially harmful environmental and social consequences, particularly for the world’s poorest people who already lack access to energy, food, land and water.

We cannot ignore that the production of bioenergy may have substantial effects on agricultural world markets and food prices. Many of FAO’s member countries have been caught in the treadmill of ever declining agricultural commodity prices. More competition and a strong link to demand for energy could result in an increase in agricultural GDP. Sugar prices seem to track world oil prices and if the world’s major maize production is metabolized into bioethanol rather than food export, there might be strong implications for food availability and prices. A wider range of options, including feedstock crops for bioenergy could increase flexibility in terms of reaction to price fluctuations, to global economic change, and to climate and environmental impacts.

The economic efficiency and environmental efficacy of different bioenergy options vary with agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions. Bioenergy development is complex and generalized policy recommendations beyond a few broad principles are unsound. Case-specific analysis of the whole life-cycle is required to derive more general guidance. Social and environmental concerns need to be addressed through effective policy frameworks that ensure that benefits from bioenergy also reach those that have always been excluded, the urban poor and the marginalized in rural areas. FAO will provide assistance to its members to allow them to make sustainable use of their biomass resources, by identifying the qualitative and quantitative linkages between bioenergy and food security. Capacity building, policies, and strategies will help to maximize synergies and minimize the negative impacts. To pursue these goals, FAO will put in place a fully-fledged Bioenergy Programme by the end of 2007.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

To conclude, I will reiterate that the challenge of eliminating chronic hunger is no longer a question of lack of means in the hands of the global community. The vision of a hunger-free century is still possible if there is political will to mobilize those resources to the benefit of the hungry. Concrete action – and changes – will be necessary.

I know that you are tirelessly devoting your scientific knowledge and your great wisdom to analyze the critical paths involved in successfully transforming research ou tputs into development outcomes. You are therefore creating the conditions that will make it possible to increase food and nutrition security and positively impact rural livelihoods. You are already greatly contributing to the challenge of making hunger history, and the right to food a reality for all.

FAO, on its part, pledges to continue the struggle to fulfil the mandate of its founding fathers, so that its slogan “Fiat Panis” (“Let there be bread”) becomes reality, allowing those suffering from extreme hunger to free themselves from the yoke of unsatisfied basic biological needs to rise up to the spiritual and ethical vision of God.

I thank you for your kind attention.

Back to 2007 statements