If that last sentence seems a bit over-the-top to you, recall that many people believe that food supply insecurity was one of the major contributors to the revolutions that swept the Middle East. That topic was discussed in Climate Change, Food Security, and Revolution.
Brown discusses the issues associated with food production and consumption in considerable detail. Here the focus will be on just one of his topics: "The Global Land Rush."
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) tallies a global food price index. A plot of that quantity over time is provided below.
Note the sharp rise over the last decade. The price has about doubled in that time. Those in the wealthier nations have been little affected by this increase, but in countries where food makes up the dominant component of a family’s budget, a doubling in price is a tragedy.
Note also the sharp spike in price that occurred in the 2007-2008 timeframe. Brown tells us that period was a shock to the major players and led to changes in strategy.
The largest area of land that could still be converted to modern agricultural use resides in sub-Saharan Africa. The idea of wealthy countries going into poorer countries and extracting produce for their own use is the traditional colonial approach. But this time, the wealthy countries are attempting to produce their basic food needs in areas where the native population is having a hard time feeding itself. This is something new.
The roster of countries that seem to need additional land in order to feed their people is rather scary. Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia, along with South Korea, China, and India appear to be the major players.
Saudi Arabia is rapidly consuming its underground water supply while continuing to increase its population, making it ever more dependent on food imports. A politically volatile Middle East facing long-term food security issues is not a promising scenario. The fact that the two most populous countries on earth are unable to feed their own populations does not bode well.
Information on this quest for other counties’ land is difficult to obtain. Many sales or long-term leases are negotiated secretly.
Many of the targeted nations are poorly governed and do not have a well-established system of property rights. Often the land sought for "development" has long been used by local farmers who have no claim to the land other than tradition.
The World Bank has attempted to track these land deals and issued a report in 2011 in which 464 projects were identified.
This land rush has attracted all sorts of bidders, including speculators. The quest for renewable energy has even led to land that could have produced food being diverted to producing biofuels.
Because land can be obtained most cheaply in sub-Saharan Africa, about two-thirds of the acquired land was from that region.
The idea of removing arable land from use by the local population is not an obvious benefit to the targeted country.
Brown also points out that more intense agricultural activities in these areas will lead to increased water usage. That will have regional ramifications. Reducing the flow of water into the Nile basin is something that Egypt will certainly notice.
Those interested in using the acquired land for industrial scale agriculture will be required to invest in the necessary infrastructure to support those activities, and will be hiring some local workers as part of their activities. The argument is made that this will produce a net benefit to the host countries. Brown has serious doubts.
"The displaced villagers will be left without land or livelihoods in a situation where agriculture has become highly mechanized, employing few people. The principle social effect of these massive land acquisitions may well be an increase in the ranks of the world’s hungry."
Many of these targeted countries are not only poor, they are also politically unstable. A traditional means of fomenting political turmoil is by taking land away from a large number of small farmers. Evidence of such discontent is beginning to appear.
Given that the sub-Saharan region is expected to see a dramatic increase in population in the coming decades, any activity that would constrain the ability of those nations to produce food for their own populations seems misguided at best. It would be far better to assist these countries in increasing their agricultural output and then let them sell any excess on the open market. The current activity appears to be yet another occasion where the rich take advantage of the poor.
Brown would seem to agree.
No comments:
Post a Comment