UN Call: Fast for a Day

War on Hunger

However, let us pray that influential members attending the Summit will fast as well, and in the process realize that their policies only benefit self interested parties; and that starving on a planet where there is enough food for all is a serious indication that there is something wrong with those policies. To remind us as to what is happening, in the recently released 2008-09 U.N. progress report UN High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis:

Examples of those countries hit by food insecurity in the report include the following:

Food insecurity exists for the following:

Afghanistan– 35 – 40% of the population

Is hit by:

One hundred million more people are starving than in 2008. Mechanisms were put in place in response to a crisis that brought many protesting out on the streets in 2008, yet 1 million more people are starving! Drawing our attention the crisis, the assessment of the situation in the report only genuinely covers the problem in fiscal terms:

Either the increase in 100 million people going hungry is a reflection of progress, i.e. it could have been worse without the above measures, or the situation is worse, and the above measures have had no real impact on the ground. At the time of the food price crisis the reasons for the crisis promoted were:

The report continues to reinforce the above, but provide a more comprehensive list of reasons for the compromise in food security:

The result has been according to the report:

On the Ground!

One example given in the report of efforts made by the World Bank has been the distribution of fertilizer and seeds given to farmers in Rwanda, Tajikistan, Togo, Somalia, Benin, Kenya, Kyrgyz Republic, Guinea, Ethiopia, Southern Sudan, and the Niger. Assistance can always be appreciated, but if given the choice to fertilize the land knowing that it will undermine the fertility of one’s land in the long term, or that it will fertilize one’s land in the short-term, what would one choose to do? If one is hungry, this is an unfair decision to make.

Then there are the seeds that will be given. These seeds are certified seeds, meaning they are the seeds accepted by international standards. Those standards are dependent on water-intensive farming, and are chemically dependent. Those standards wish to impose themselves on Africa, which has water security issues. Those standards do not recognize uncertified seeds, which are local, affordable, and suited to farming in the environs from which they have a long standing relationship.

Certified seeds create profits for large companies, because the seeds can only be used once, and therefore every sowing season, new seeds have to be bought. This reduces the variety of seeds available locally that have a compatibility with the land, from which new seeds can be obtained from the crops, reduces land fertility, and increases the risk of water insecurity.

According to Filipino farmers, certified seeds have contributed towards the food price crisis, and turning their country from being a top rice producer, to a top rice importer. Estrella Catarata, executive director of the Central Visayas Farmers Development Center is quoted as saying:

Catarata is not the first farmer to echo those sentiments. In fact that is a reality which has been repeated by farmers since the infamous Green Revolution (1965 – 83). That reality has been ignored by the powers that be in favour of capitalists who continue to profit, and whose only concern is profit.In the process, investment in farming has decreased, and investment in food companies and related industries have increased to the point whereby they control the food we eat.

At the peak of the food price crisis last year, countries like Nigeria, and Germany realized the impact the drop in investment had on food security, and pledged to increase investment in their respective agricultural industries. Meanwhile, WTO, WHO, U.N., have been reviewing the situation in favour of the globalization policies that brought us to this point.

Social Protectionism

One of the globalization policies has been social protection schemes, which in light of the above have been questioned. If the aim is to secure food, then the programmes should reflect that. Instead, the ‘protection’ of what for whom has taken the form of:

We will take a quick look at the first three.

Short term benefits can be appreciated, but where is the long term benefit in providing school feeding programmes? Would it not be more beneficial to provide land attached to each school whereby the children can learn how to grow food? By learning how to grow food as part of the educational process a child learns to do what we have unlearnt that is the importance of agriculture.

They can learn to provide food for themselves, their families, and their communities. Any surplus could go towards a school store, whereby the children can learn about trade in practice, and whereby the surplus can be sold at local prices to those who want/need extra, of which the income can go towards this school project. Equally any surplus food can go to the teaching staff to supplement their income.

Cash-for-work is hardly a novel idea, but food-for-worker schemes have been implemented even in the Palestinian Occupied Territories. Cash-for-work allows for the employee to determine how they dispose of their income. Food-for-work only leads to the ability to stave off hunger, and once that is done, the head of any family will naturally look to long term needs.

Children growing up in this sort of environment do not exactly have living examples of taking responsibility for ones commitments, unless that work concerns the building of community sustainability. There are fiscal implications in food-for-work, which show like any form of food aid, that the local agricultural sector is undermined because the recipients do not have the means or are deprived of the means to provide for themselves.

Aid-for-trade has colonialistic overtones whereby the donor cum importer sets the standards of rate of exchange, which pretty much does not differ from what takes place now. The U.K. based aid-for-trade website states:

All could be forgiven under such a scheme that almost sounds Islamic. However, in the 2008 report The Reality of Aid, the following is noted:

The reality check here is that aid-for-trade is trade liberalization in disguise in favour of the developed countries, and is not about putting food on the table or providing a sustainable future for developing countries. This is what happens when self interest groups form policies, one law for the rich, and another for the poor!

Sources:

Aid for Trade website

Reality of Aid Project Reality of Aid

Saldago, R.T Farmers Upset Over Seed Industry’s Indifference to Climate Change, Farmers’ Rights

U.N. UN High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis

Hwaa Irfan is the Managing Editor of the society, Cyber and Parenting Counselor Pages at Islamonline.net. She can be contacted at foundationsoflife@iolteam.com