The COVID-19 pandemic, rising rates of global poverty and inequality, persistent conflict, and the escalating climate and biodiversity crises are shocks and stresses that contribute to increasing hunger, as well as growing food and nutrition insecurity.
To help tackle this urgent problem more effectively, and make the global food system more stable and resilient, governments should consider establishing a new, multilateral, UN-led food systems stability board (FSSB).
Today, between 720 million and 811 million people — about 10 percent of the world’s population — go to bed hungry every night, and at least 2.4 billion lack access to a healthy and nutritious diet.
Illustration: Mountain People
Absent major international action, these trends are likely to persist. An Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report last month showed that global warming’s effects have left no region untouched, with significant implications for food systems over the coming decades.
Food systems underpin the security of the global economy, as well as national security in many countries: Hunger and lack of access to food have historically driven civil unrest.
These systems are also among the principal drivers of ecosystem loss and climate change, with agriculture and land-use change responsible for one-quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.
At the same time, ecosystems such as forests, mangroves and oceans are central to humanity’s efforts to adapt to the climatic changes already under way.
Ensuring the long-term resilience of the global food system will require a significant multilateral collaborative effort. This should build on existing structures and institutions such as the Committee on World Food Security, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Food Programme and the World Bank. It will also demand concerted attention from heads of state and government, ministers of finance, and the leaders of multilateral financial institutions.
A quartet of international meetings — the UN Food Systems Summit this month, the G20 summit next month, the UN climate conference in November and the Nutrition for Growth Summit hosted by the Japanese government in December — offer a rare opportunity to focus international attention on the hunger and food-security crisis, and its links to the changing climate. Each of these gatherings could pave the way for the creation of an FSSB of national governments and international organizations working to address this issue.
This could be part of a broader global effort to enhance food governance and achieve — in the words of the Indonesian government, which will hold the G20 presidency next year — a “just and affordable transition toward net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions.
Moreover, there is an encouraging precedent for such a body. The Financial Stability Board (FSB), which was established by the G20 finance ministers in April 2009 with the aim of preventing a repeat of the 2008 global financial crisis, has positively contributed to global macroeconomic stability, and is now an authoritative, independent and well-respected body. Its findings directly influence the decisionmaking of G20 finance ministers, as well as that of the heads of the IMF, the World Bank and regional development banks.
In a similar fashion, an FSSB, if established, would be charged with promoting the health and resilience of the global food system, including by addressing issues such as price stability, trade, strategic reserves and the effects of climate change on production.
The board would fully respect national sovereignty, and not issue legally binding recommendations. Rather, it would give credible advice to governments on how to build a food system that is better prepared to withstand shocks and ensure greater global access to nutritious food.
While governments would decide the precise scope, structure and composition of the FSSB, the body could play a helpful role in several ways.
For example, it could analyze early warning systems and risk-modeling data on hunger, agriculture and climate, including from the Agricultural Market Information System database. It could also advise the WTO and national governments on food-related trade policies, while helping countries respond to changing market dynamics and a volatile climate.
Additionally, the FSSB could support and enable countries to submit voluntary five-year food system risk assessments and resilience plans. It could also gather and share knowledge about global food-trade vulnerabilities, such as those relating to climate change, conflict, lack of crop diversity, pollinator loss and other threats, and identify and review the regulatory, supervisory and voluntary measures needed to address them.
The FSSB could support contingency planning for cross-border crisis management, especially with regard to systemically important food crops or areas particularly affected by climate vulnerability, biodiversity loss, and/or future pandemics.
Lastly, the board could collaborate with the IMF to include more consideration of risks related to climate, biodiversity, and food and land-use systems in the fund’s regular consultations with member countries.
The FSSB could comprise relevant national representatives from ministries of agriculture and rural affairs, trade and commerce, health, environment, and finance, as well as international standard setters and leading scientists in the field of global food-system risks.
As with the FSB, the institution’s audience would be member states, including heads of government, finance ministers and other portfolios.
The absence of an FSSB is a notable gap in the international governance architecture required to bolster the sustainability, equity and resilience of the global food system in this century and beyond. At the UN General Assembly and UN Food Systems Summit — both taking place this month — governments could agree to initiate a one-year consultation process to explore the creation of such a body.
By doing so, they could contribute to a better future for hundreds of millions of vulnerable people — and ensure access to food and security for all.
Sandrine Dixson-Decleve is copresident of the Club of Rome. Jose Antonio Ocampo, a former Colombian minister of finance and UN undersecretary general, is a professor at Columbia University and an ambassador of the Food and Land Use Coalition. Felia Salim, chairwoman of the Partnership for Governance Reform’s board of directors, is an ambassador of the Food and Land Use Coalition.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry