The global food system is broken. Although it produces more than enough calories to feed everyone, up to 811 million people — more than 10 percent of the world’s population — go to bed hungry each night. Sadly, effective governance to ensure access to food for all is still lacking. A globally coordinated effort to address the short and long-term aspects of the hunger crisis must therefore be the top priority.
Today, all four dimensions of food security — availability, access, stability and utilization — are threatened by the combined negative effects of climate change, conflict, COVID-19 and cost. By disrupting global trade and pushing up food prices, these four “Cs” are creating a short-term challenge of increasing hunger. At the same time, the climate crisis engendered by humankind poses a medium to long-term threat.
Climate change has already started to affect the environment in which food can be produced. Exceptional droughts, heat waves and floods are undermining farming in regions as different as the Horn of Africa and the US midwest. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report leaves no doubt: The climate crisis will have increasingly damaging consequences for food systems around the world.
Russia’s war against Ukraine is aggravating this already dire situation. Armed conflicts have long been major causes of hunger, usually at the regional level, but the Ukraine war, involving two of the world’s largest producers of agricultural commodities, is distorting global trade. As a result, the food price index compiled by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization hit an all-time high in March.
Prices of basic commodities such as flour and vegetable oil have tripled in some regions since the war began. Food producers also face skyrocketing prices for fossil fuel-based fertilizers, of which Russia is one of the biggest exporters. In severely affected countries, rising food prices might threaten social stability. When food prices soared in 2008, more than 20 countries reported social unrest and instability.
Then there is COVID-19. According to the UN, the pandemic has caused tens of millions of people to go hungry, and lockdowns aimed at combating the virus have disrupted supply chains, adding to the upward pressure on food prices.
Our food systems face further challenges. Overconsumption of cheap calories, enabled by global trade in commodities and fossil fuel-based inputs, has led to widespread obesity and caused severe environmental problems. However, the negative effects of production systems on the environment have often been treated as economic externalities and thus ignored.
More generally, and notwithstanding the UN Food Systems Summit in September last year, there have been very few holistic approaches to food-system transformation. Industrialized agriculture continues to hold sway.
That means there is much to be done. Threats to global food security would increase if policymakers trying to stem the immediate hunger crisis continue to ignore the climate and biodiversity crises, and delay necessary steps to make food systems more sustainable. For example, postponing the implementation of the EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy, as some have proposed, would not provide the amount of food needed in the coming months and would further undermine the resilience of European agriculture.
As risks to food security mount, we cannot exclude the possibility that agricultural production from the food, feed, fiber, and fuel sectors would be insufficient to meet demand. Scarce supplies and disruptions to global trade will force us to make choices.
Countering the effects of the Ukraine war and the four Cs will require a globally coordinated response. The key question is whether the multilateral system would be able to provide an active platform where states and all stakeholders can manage these challenges effectively. If existing multilateral mechanisms are not up to the task, global solidarity demands a swift response by the G7.
The G7 has started to address the situation, and new pledges are being made to equip multilateral financing mechanisms to support countries in need. Furthermore, G7 countries should make a firm commitment to share grains currently used as animal feed and biofuel with poorer economies.
Such a step would demonstrate that the rich world has learned its lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic, when it shared too few tests, vaccines and other supplies with poorer countries. A G7 agreement would provide a fast solution, create trust and thus could spur the multilateral system to act, both now and to avert future food crises.
Again, it is vital that immediate responses to the current hunger crisis also support the long-term transformation of our food systems. Albert Einstein reportedly defined insanity as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. So, why try to revive a broken system in times of crisis? The G7 initiative would create a starting point for the much-needed transformation of food systems everywhere. The alternative is increasing hunger and further instability.
Alexander Muller is managing director at TMG Think Tank for Sustainability. Violet Shivutse is the founder and coordinator of Shibuye Community Health Workers. Jes Weigelt is head of programs at TMG Think Tank for Sustainability.
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
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
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
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