By James Ingram

The outcome of the recently concluded World Food Summit attracted little
reporting in the Australian media. Unfortunately the focus as usual was on
personalities, notably the attendance of Presidents Mugabe and Ahmadi-nejad.
Otherwise it was not seen as especially newsworthy.
It is true that the participants failed to deal with what some see as the
immediate critical issue, i.e. reining back production of bio-fuels.
Unquestionably the explosion in the USA in ethanol production from corn has
contributed to the rise in its price. The floods in Iowa, heart of the US
Corn Belt, are already causing corn futures to rise. If the price of
petroleum fuels continues to escalate we may well see oil importing
developing countries feel obliged to begin production. Given the surge in
investment in new plants in the US it was unrealistic to expect agreement at
this early stage. As a way of papering over differences the summit called
for ?in-depth studies?. Beyond studies, a first step might be agreement to
reduce subsidization of bio-fuels.

To expect the Rome summit to reach concrete plans of action is to
misunderstand the function of this kind of global conference. Its importance
lay in the fact that its purpose was to bring home to national leaders two
things, first that feeding the world population in the next decades is as
big a challenge as sufficiently constraining global green house gas
emissions; and secondly that the two issues are connected.

Over the last thirty years investment in agriculture in developing countries
has fallen away including in agricultural research. Official development
assistance to the agricultural sector fell from about 18 per cent of total
aid to around 3.5 per cent in 2004. Other sectors became more fashionable
such as ?security?, governance and democratization. Donors and recipients
lost sight of the reality that the foundation of economic development in
poor countries remains a sustained rise in agricultural productivity. For
most of the last thirty years food has been cheap and stocks high. Surpluses
in developed countries meant that food aid was abundant. The consequence for
some food deficit poor countries, especially in Africa, was a preferential
shift in demand for imported wheat and rice in place of traditional staples.

With food stocks falling food aid is a diminishing resource. The United
Nations World Food Programme (WFP) reports food aid deliveries in 2007 fell
by 15 per cent to 5.9 million tons, their lowest level since records began
in 1961. As a consequence it has become difficult even to supply sufficient
food to the victims of natural disasters and those displaced by armed
conflict. Quite correctly the Rome meeting did not emphasise food aid as
such though it did refer to the need for the relevant UN agencies to be
assured of the ?resources?, i.e. cash or food aid, to ?enhance safety net
programs through ?local or regional? purchase of food?.

Some of the same adverse effects of climate change on agricultural output
that we worry about in Australia are beginning to be evident also in much of
Africa and Asia. Appropriately the Summit saw it as ?essential to address
the fundamental question of how to increase the resilience of present food
production systems to challenges posed by climate change?. To that end it
called for a ?decisive step up in science and technology for food and
agriculture? and for a reduction in ?trade barriers and market distorting
policies?.

On the whole the international community has a poor record in taking action
to implement agreed general principles but their articulation is an
essential first step. Meeting the climate change challenge is daunting
enough. At the same time food production must be increased enormously in the
next decades not just to keep people alive but also to enable the billion or
more expected to move out of poverty to enjoy more varied diets.

Making real progress on the food and climate fronts will require strong,
disinterested leadership that ideally should come from the UN Secretary
General. Ban ki-moon?s attendance and involvement at the Rome (and Bali)
Summits may signal that he seeks to do so beyond issues of peace and
security which have preoccupied his predecessors.

In his keynote message to the Rome Summit Pope Benedict XVI called for 'new
strategies' to promote food production. The Vatican intends to play its
part. The Pontifical Academy of Science is establishing an expert panel to
consider contentious issues surrounding genetically modified foods.

The Summit failed to deal with this issue although many scientists are
convinced that without them it will not be possible to meet future global
food needs.

Career Australian diplomat and international civil servant, James Ingram was
Executive Director of the United Nations World Food Program from 1982?92,
with the personal rank of Under Secretary General.
www.checkbiotech.org