Oops, page not found

"The only way to judge the World Food Summit 2002 in Rome, is through a measurement of the extent to which it will ease hunger that gnaws at more than 800m people around the world, and the prognosis does not look good," commented a journalist friend as we left Rome on June 14th after participating in the WFS and International NGO-CSO Forum on Food Sovereignty. The "World Food Summit-five years later" was

Civil society organisations had already expressed their deep concern to FAO and governments in 1996 that the WFS plan of action would fail. Their concerns were not baseless as FAO Director General Jacques Diouf admitted in his opening speech that the second Summit owed its very existence to the failed goals of first one--halving of the number of undernourished people in the world by 2015. According to Diouf, "the main underlying reason for the persistence of hunger is due to the lack of political will, as a result of this, the resources to fight hunger have not been mobilised to the extent required." He said that targets of first WFS could not be met as agriculture still played second fiddle in the development plans which is far from commensurate with its importance in the lives of the most needy people.

Diouf was stressing for more official development assistance (ODA) for reducing hunger, whereas the representatives of civil society organisations from all over the world were stressing on a radical change in the approach. They felt that the roots of hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity were deeply embedded in the international trade-led hegemonic economic model, based on the Washington consensus. "There are enough resources and political will in the world, but they have been placed at the service of Washington-based model," was a consensus among the participants of the NGO Forum. The civil society representatives were pressing hard for two major objectives:

* recognition of right to food as a fundamental human right

* discourage the use of biotechnology as a way to address hunger.

To achieve their objectives, they started their activities with a solidarity march in Central Rome on June 8th. Around 25,000 activists from all over the world attended the long march and the participants were holding placards and banners, demanding food sovereignty and right to food as a fundamental human right. Civil society representatives were getting ready to lobby their official delegates for their demands when they came to know that the leaders of developed nations never gave WFS any importance. All in all, it was a low-impact conference, attended by the leaders of only two industrialised countries--Italian Prime Minister and summit host Silvio Berlusconi, and Spanish Prime Minister and European Union President Jose Maria Aznar. These two heads of governments from the industrialised North were among the 80 heads of states/governments attending the WFS.

Criticizing the low attendance of "world leaders" in the summit, South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki said that to him it was a shame that more political leaders had not arrived: "I suppose that's because they don't think the problem of 800m people going hungry in the world is important. I think that shows insufficient concern about human life." Thus it was very clear in the beginning that Diouf's pledge for increased ODA would be in vain as major donor countries were being represented by low-profile persons who were not able to make any commitments on behalf of their governments.

As was expected the 182 governments at the four-day WFS pledged no new aid commitments for hunger, reiterating instead the still-unmet goal of halving the number of the hungry that was set at the first food summit six years ago. They also showed little evidence of renewed political will to deal with controversial issues like the agricultural subsidies that developing country leaders here said kept them poor and their people hungry, and reflected the double standards of industrialised countries who otherwise call for free trade.

With the US leading the way, the WFS formally endorsed biotechnology, while shying away from any reference to organic farming despite the high profile hoopla by NGOs opposed to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and advocating natural farming methods. The declaration of the WFS 2002, in a key departure from the 1996 declaration, which was silent on the issue, states openly: "We are committed to study, share and facilitate the responsible use of biotechnology in addressing development needs." It also asks for advancement of "research into new technologies, including biotechnology". Furthermore, "The introduction of tried and tested new technologies including biotechnology should be accomplished in a safe manner and adapted to local conditions to help improve agricultural productivity in developing countries."

The participants of the NGO Forum Summit were stunted by the lack of any reference to organic farming and the explicit endorsement to biotechnology. The US government, on the other hand, reiterated its commitment to promote biotechnology and US Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman told the WFS that the US Agency for International Development (USAID) is launching a 10-year, $100m collaborative Agriculture Biotechnology Initiative to advance research on varieties better suited to growing conditions in developing countries. She also announced that the US would hold a ministerial-level science and technology conference next year to focus on the needs of developing countries in adopting new food and agriculture technologies.

Her speech made it clear that now US would decide what should be grown in which country and through which technology. It was difficult to deny the NGOs' allegation that the summit was serving the interests of industry and not the people. One can expect that in the proposed ministerial conference on agriculture technology the US government may declare a war against hunger and may come up with "the right type" of technology for hunger-ridden countries. Those who would accept US prescription would be "friends" and those who would hesitate would have to face dire consequences for not joining in the war against hunger. US is already passing off of GM foods in food aid and those who don't want to eat genetically modified food should remain hungry as beggars are never the chosers!

"GMOs are not the way to solve the problem of world hunger. There are too many health risks, they make small farmers dependent on large multinational corporations, and they will mean the end of biodiversity," said Sergio Marelli, president of the NGO Forum. NGOs also criticised the conference outcome, arguing that it was in fact a step backward. "This new Plan of Action continues the error of more of the same failed medicine with destructive prescriptions that will make the situation even worse,'' said Pattrice Jones coordinator of Global Hunger Alliance.

The only document that Heads of State and other officials signed at the second WFS was a pre-determined declaration. It was adopted before the summit began and was presented to the Summit on June 10th. The declaration did not advance any of the old commitments or enshrine a right to food, an issue that many had been looking forward to under the concept of ''food sovereignty''. It called on all stakeholders in society "to make voluntary contributions to the FAO Trust Fund for food security and other voluntary instruments". The original declaration proposed an international code of conduct on food rights, but this was watered down amid concerns by countries like the United States about the legal implications such language about the right to food. In the end, the declaration called for ''voluntary guidelines'' to achieve the right to adequate food, to be done by FAO and its stakeholders two years from this summit.

Likewise, a proposal called simply the "anti-hunger plan" and jointly penned by Harvard University economist Jeffrey Sachs and the FAO got short shrift, although it tried to put a realistic price tag on ending hunger. Sachs has calculated that it would take $24b to deal with hunger--and proposes joint funding by national governments and donors. Now it is likely that the plan will be taken to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa in August, where its authors hope there will be a greater understanding of food security as a primary social development indicator. What an irony, the delegates of WFS, who were committed to substantial reduction of world hunger, lacked understanding of food security.

Pakistani delegation to WFS was headed by the Federal Minister of Agriculture Khair Mohammad Junejo. He began his address to the summit (a stance that was never shared with any of the civil society organisations, nor made public at home) with a reminder of what the present government in Pakistan had done to reduce hunger and poverty. He referred towards the government's efforts of agricultural liberalisation and privatisation as a major tool for reducing poverty. He also stressed upon the importance of adoption of new agricultural technologies and encouraged civil society to play its role in reducing hunger. Perhaps he never realised that civil society couldn't be encouraged to play its role as long as States are not ready to adopt transparency and participation. There was not even a single "Pre-Summit" briefing for general public or civil society in Pakistan. Government never held any consultation about its stance that she would take in the WFS, and the honourable minister talks of encouraging the participation of civil society in reducing hunger!

There was a great applause when the honourable minister touched upon the issue of food security and WTO. He said: "The issue of market access, export subsidies and domestic support in the developed world continue to limit the economic access to food and contribute to food insecurity in the developing countries. The developed world continues to spend over a billion dollars a day in subsidies, denying the farmers of the developing countries a level playing field. Providing this level playing field is now a universal demand of the developing world. The Doha Declaration holds some promise. While we move on to the negotiation stage, it is incumbent upon us to respect the spirit of this Declaration. Moreover, we must make the Doha Round a truly 'Developmental Round' which could substantially and meaningfully contribute to meeting the Millennium Development Goals, not least the Goal of the World Food Summit."

I wish he could have also informed the delegates how Government of Pakistan has lost the chance of having a level playing field by signing an agreement with Asian Development Bank on agricultural structural reforms, thus committing itself to withdraw all subsides and phase out support price mechanisms on agricultural crops.

Coming back to measuring the effectiveness of WFS 2002, in halving the world hunger by 2015 as per my journalist friend's criteria. I think WFS 2002 cannot do much as we have forgotten that hunger stems from very wilful policies (like ours) that use war and free trade to rob communities of the control of natural resources that sustain their livelihoods and maintain their dignities. NGOs' congregation in Italy has called for a totally new human sustainable development paradigm having as one of its central goals the promotion of food and nutritional security for all within the overarching framework of a human rights based approach to food sovereignty with gender equity. It requires among others, strong family and community-based farming, fisherfolk and livestock-based economies; decent working conditions, a sustainable distribution of population between rural and urban areas, and a society free of any tension of war and conflicts. Unless and until our governments are not willing to work for meeting these requirements, we cannot think of food sovereignty.