This afternoon, the G8 leaders put out a statement on global food security in response to the troubling crisis which has dragging millions more of the world’s vulnerable into poverty (see previous post). Going into the summit, what can the G8 do, as a group of heavily industrialized and rich nations, to effectively to counter mounting energy and food prices was rather vague.
Speculation began on Friday that the G8 would announce a food and grain stockpile system to use in case of crises to stabilize prices. However, the language in today’s statement avoided any commitment to such an arrangement. In paragraph 6, the leaders stated, “We will explore options on a coordinated approach on stock management, including the pros and cons of building a ‘virtual’ internationally coordinated reserve system for humanitarian purposes.” Weak language, to say the least.
In the media centre, some are thinking that the stockpile idea came onto the leaders’ radar too late. As Japan and Germany are the only G8 countries to currently have food surplus in reserve, it is thought that they would push for the other six to adopt similar policy. The line in paragraph 6, calling on countries “with sufficient food stocks to make available a part of their surplus for countries in need, in times of significantly increasing prices and in a way not to distort trade” could be seen as a conciliation of this approach. A stockpile would be a considerable shift without clear measurable benchmarks for success. Additionally, the line in the final statement on “humanitarian purposes” raises the question of what sort of crisis would be needed to allow deployment of the stockpile.
Criticism on such a policy has come from a number of sources; first, from Africa advocates who decried this idea a systemic suppression of the poor, cutting them off from available food and grain sources. And second, from farmers who suggested a stockpile would serve as a disincentive to produce greater food harvests.
The Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP) received a positive endorsement in the statement, urging a reversal of declining agro-aid and investment, in the hope of rebuilding a sustainable African agro-industry. The International Fund for Agricultural Development, the World Bank and the IMF were also given kudos for their work in this area.
Among the medium and long-term goals in paragraph 7 is a commitment to oversee policy compatibility of sustainable production and the use of bio-fuels. Rising grain costs have largely been blamed on more expensive inputs like petroleum products (fertilizers and transportation) and the increase in use of grains as bio-fuels, forcing a supply-side increase in prices. Domestic political pressure in the U.S. has forced Congressional support of corn-based ethanol, which has now proven to be short-sided, having severe effects on the economy with arguably little savings in CO2 emissions.
Today’s statement will hopefully see a shift towards greater investment cellulosic ethanol which is produced from non-food sources. The endorsement of consumption of locally-grown food stuffs could go a long way towards reversing the debilitating effects of the globalization of the food supply chain.
Tags: Africa, Aid, food, food crisis, Food Security, G8, ODA
February 7, 2009 at 6:54 am |
[...] While pressure was focused on governments to provide answers – with the issue even made it to the G8 agenda – the bulk of responsibility lies with corporations and lobby-groups (with little accountability). [...]