View previous stories
	A smarter way to combat hunger by Pedro A. Sanchez Earth Institute at Columbia University   Mar 2009   Traditional approaches to supplying food are an inefficient "band aid", says Pedro A. Sanchez. New evidence shows that helping farmers to help themselves is more effective and would be six times cheaper.   After decades of progress in the fight to vanquish world hunger, the number of undernourished people is growing again. Estimates from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations suggest that 963 million people in poor countries are chronically or acutely hungry — up 109 million from 2004 estimates. The underlying causes — changes in food and energy prices — have been exacerbated by the financial crisis and obsolete development policies.   Policies should shift from prioritizing food aid to providing poor farmers with access to training, markets and to farm inputs such as fertilizer and improved seed. In addition to being cheaper, such investments allow farmers to grow food to feed themselves, to sell the surplus and to diversify into high-value crops, livestock and tree products. This creates a sustainable exit from the poverty trap, thereby decreasing the requirement for aid. Although marginal populations, or those affected by disasters, will still require assistance, procuring this food from within developing countries provides a cheaper alternative than shipping it from abroad.   The predominant policies to tackle hunger epitomize a "band-aid" approach — quick fixes that fail to address the causes of hunger. In 2006, the United States spent US$1.2 billion in food aid for Africa, but only $60 million on agricultural development there. The international response has generally been similar. But according to estimates from 2004, only 10% of those who are hungry in poor countries are acutely hungry — those facing famine caused by wars, natural disasters or sheer destitution. The other 90% are chronically hungry, leading to malnutrition that compromises immune systems and contributes to the prevalence of diarrhoea, malaria and other diseases that result in high child mortality. Most of those who are chronically hungry live in rural farm households in Africa and South Asia.   Food aid fails to provide a sustainable solution to hunger and poverty and it is comparatively expensive. It costs $812 to deliver one tonne of maize as US food aid to a distribution point in Africa. As part of the Millennium Villages project, which I co-direct, smallholder farmers (those who farm 0.1–5 hectares) in hunger hot spots across Africa were provided with access to fertilizers, improved seed, technical support and markets. As a result, maize yields more than doubled — from 1.7 to 4.1 tonnes per hectare. And following a national "smart" subsidy programme for fertilizer and hybrid seed in Malawi, average maize yields increased from 0.8 to 2.0 tonnes per hectare in two years.   The fertilizer and improved seed required to produce an additional tonne of maize grain by Millennium Village farmers cost an average of $135 at April 2008 prices, six times less than through food aid. Purchasing that same tonne of maize locally — in an African country or a neighbouring one — costs approximately $320. If farmers in Africa raise their average cereal yields to 3 tonnes per hectare, the additional 200 million tonnes grown in the 100 million hectares of smallholder crop land will more than compensate for the 3.2 million tonnes of food aid.   Shifting 50% of the current US food-aid budget to "smart" subsidies or credit could help millions supply their own food and meet much of the aid demand.   Even buying food locally represents an important step away from the inefficient food-aid approach. Some institutions have already begun to change their methods. In 2007, CARE International, announced that it would stop monetizing food aid. Also in 2007, the World Food Programme procured 43% of the 2 million tonnes of food required for its Africa relief operations from farmers in Africa at an average cost of $280 per tonne — compared with the average cost of $436 for purchases elsewhere. The new Purchase for Progress programme, launched in September 2008 and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation further empowers the World Food Programme to purchase food from African farmers.   * Pedro A. Sanchez is senior research scholar and director of tropical agriculture at the Earth Institute at Columbia University. The Universal Rights Network notes that the head of the UN Food & Agricultural Organization has repeatedly requested $30 billion a year as necessary to adequately address the World Food Crisis.   Nov 2008 (FAO)   FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf has appealed to world leaders to design a new agricultural order and find $30 billion a year to eradicate hunger from the Earth once and for all.   Addressing a special session of the FAO’s 191-member-nation governing Conference, Diouf declared the World Summit was needed because, “After more than 60 years [since FAO’s foundation] it is essential to create a new system of world food security”.   The Director-General continued: “We must correct the present system that generates world food insecurity on account of international market distortions resulting from agricultural subsidies, customs tariffs and technical barriers to trade, but also from skewed distribution of resources of official development assistance and of national budgets of developing countries”.   The Summit, proposed for the first half of 2009, “should lay the ground for a new system of governance of world food security and an agricultural trade that offers farmers, in developed and developing countries alike, the means of earning a decent living,” he said. “We must have the intelligence and imagination to devise agricultural development policies together with rules and mechanisms that will ensure not only free but also fair international trade.”   Saving humankind from hunger   The Summit should also “come up with $30 billion per year to build rural infrastructure and increase agricultural productivity in the developing world,” he said. Proposing to commit such a sum to save humanity from hunger was not unreasonable given it had taken only few weeks to find more than 100 times that amount to deal with a global financial meltdown. The amount was modest compared to $365 billion of total support to agriculture in OECD countries in 2007 and 1 340 billion in world military expenditure the same year by developed and developing countries.   At the proposed Meeting, State and Government Heads should also agree to create an “Emergency Intervention Fund” to provide rapid-reaction resources to boost food production in poor countries heavily dependent on food imports, Diouf said.   To boost international food security, Diouf suggested building on the present Committee on World Food Security (CFS) created in 1974 after the World Food Conference to monitor the international food situation. “As an intergovernmental mechanism, the CFS is universal and is open to all Member Nations of FAO and the UN and to representatives of other international organizations, NGOs, civil society and the private sector,” he noted.   Specifically, the CFS’ role would be to prevent international food crises and help develop and implement the necessary policies at national, regional and international levels to ensure food security in the world. It could also act as a forum for debate on the pro-security principles that should govern the international agricultural system.   One of its tasks would be to analyze future risks and needs and formulate appropriate policy recommendations.   It should be enhanced as a system for coherence in the governance of world food security. It should include a “global partnership for food security” building on existing alliances and an international panel of top-ranking experts building on existing external advisory panels of experts in crop, livestock, fisheries, forestry and socio-economic aspects of food and agriculture, possibly along the lines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).   Diouf stressed that FAO knew very well what had to be done to eradicate hunger from the world and to double world food production by 2050 to feed a population of nine billion. “Plans, programmes and projects to resolve the problem of food insecurity in the world do exist,” he underlined. Achieving those goals was a political and funding problem rather than a technical one, he noted.
	Brazil extends Bolsa Familia during the economic crisis by International Labour Organization (ILO) UNDP Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth Brazil   Mar 2009   When the first signs of financial trouble emerged in the industrialized world, predictions were that the “decoupling effect” would insulate the developing world from the crisis. Today, the economic crisis is clearly global and no country is immune. In Brazil, one key measure has been extending a successful cash-transfer programme – Bolsa Familia – to a larger number of poor families. Bolsa Familia was discussed at recent a special session of the ILO Governing Body.   Bolsa Familia is not just another cash transfer programme. With over 11 million families as beneficiaries, it is the largest in the world and has been emulated across Latin America and even in the US.   Launched in 2003, it provides an invaluable safety net for a quarter of Brazil’s population, providing basic social protection income support at a cost equivalent to 0.4 percent of the country’s GDP.   The Brazilian government –like other Latin American countries suffering from the global economic slowdown – has now decided to include an additional 1.3 million families in the programme.   “One very positive aspect of Bolsa Familia – and other cash transfer programmes as well – is that while rescuing millions of people from extreme poverty it also turns them into consumers and helps stimulate local and regional economies”, said the Brazilian Minister of Social Development and Fight Against Hunger, Patrus Ananias, during his presentation of the programme at the ILO.   The idea is simple but makes good economic sense. Since low income families have high propensity to consume, the programme boosts demand for food and basic consumer goods that are mostly produced at the local and regional levels.   Bolsa Familia is perhaps the most visible of Brazil’s cash transfer programmes, but it is not the only or first one. During the 1990’s, the Brazilian reform strategies centred on strengthening the public pay-as-you-go system and extending social security coverage.   This has led to a reduction of 0.7 points per year from 2001 to 2007 in Brazil’s Gini Coefficient, which measures inequality of income distribution. In countries like Sweden, the Netherlands, Canada and France, sustained decreases over large periods of time in the Gini Coefficient have been associated with the development of strong welfare states.   “The Bolsa Familia programme covers an ethical and moral demand to protect human rights. The construction of a fairer society should certainly incorporate programmes such as this one as part of the development strategy”, said Mr Arnaldo de Souza Benedetti, representative of the Worker’s group in the Governing Body session and a member of the General Workers’ Union of Brazil (UGT).   “Practically all countries that have succeeded in eradicating extreme poverty have applied some sort of cash transfer policy. Even in high-income countries, there are parts of the population that cannot guarantee their own subsistence through work. Addressing this reality through cash-transfer programmes is taking a decisive step towards the construction of fairer societies”, said the Employer’s representative, Mr. Dagoberto Lima Godoy, Senior Adviser of CNI (the National Confederation of Industry of Brazil). He also pointed out some aspects in which Bolsa Familia should be improved.   Unlike social programmes which provide universal assistance to the poor, Bolsa Familia has some conditionalities. It provides income support to families subject to their fulfilling of certain human development requirements, for example school attendance, vaccinations, nutritional monitoring and prenatal and post natal tests.   The rationale for designing the programme in this way is that poor families can become trapped into poverty over several generations if they are not able to access resources such as education, health, financial capital and networks.   “Poor children are likely to become poor adults unless steps are taken to improve their skills, avoid child labour and enable them to overcome the social and economic barriers faced by their parents. The Brazilian experience is an encouragement for all of us who work for the extension of social security to all. It is a good example of how to implement a massive and rapid social inclusion process at a relatively low cost. This evidence is consistent with several studies conducted by the ILO which show that developing countries can afford to build a comprehensive, even if basic, social protection package”, said Assane Diop, Executive Director for Social Protection at the ILO.   “Given its employment and social protection approach, the Brazilian experience in cash transfer programmes can be seen as a strong reflection of a national Decent Work Agenda”, he added Visit the related web page
	View more stories