MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti economic commentator Vlad Grinkevich)
In recent months, the financial crisis has pushed back the food crisis, which had dominated the headlines for the past eighteen months. But falling prices and corporate bankruptcies cannot hide an appalling fact - if not starvation, at least a shortage of food looms in the future.
Last week, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) held its 53rd meeting in Rome, and was attended by Russia. However, it failed to offer any meaningful solution.
The situation is complicated - currently, 970 million people across the world are suffering from lack of food - 44 million more than at the start of the year. The world economic downturn is threatening to make things worse.
Only Brazil, Russia, the United States, Canada and Australia have freely available land and water resources that can be used for farming. The arable potential is shrinking, while the world's population is growing and will do so for several decades more. This means food prices will continue to climb, and food might become a luxury item for most of the planet's population.
What does FAO propose? Nothing new: the rich should share with the poor, it says. FAO director Jacques Diouf urged developing countries to contribute $30 billion each year to fight starvation on the planet. The international body also called for the withdrawal of subsidies from farmers in rich countries (subsidies improve their competitive position on the world market) and abolition of customs tariffs and other obstacles in the way of produce from the poor countries to world markets.
This approach is likely to create problems for farmers in developed nations rather than solve those of developing ones. No developed country will ever agree to reduce its own consumption to help the poor, because the amounts allocated will be enough only to ease the conscience of bureaucrats and not to feed the starving.
Indeed, can any high-ranking official take half of his child's ration and give it to a starving boy or girl in another country? Or sacrifice his family's annual holidays to contribute the money to the needy?
International organizations have been doing the good work for years, yet the numbers of poor and hungry people, instead of falling, are only rising.
The All-Russian Research Institute of Agricultural Economics says: food-sufficient countries are least affected by the food crisis. As an example it cites the European Union, which is 100% food-sufficient and has one of the world's lowest inflation rates - 3.6%.
Russia is not among the countries needing assistance to prevent mass hunger. (According to the UN, there are 36 such countries.) But the economic crisis can worsen the plight of its population.
According to the Institute, Russians consume 20% less milk and meat and 45% less fish than is recommended by nutritionists. The poor eat 2.1 to 2.5 times less meat, milk, vegetables and fish than do Russians with high incomes.
Nor is its food sufficiency among the best: the Russian market is 40% dependent on food imports, with meat accounting for 41% and milk, 26%. Large cities import as much as 70% of their food.
Analysts from the Institute say when imports surpass 20%, domestic farming grinds to a halt, unable to develop on its own.
The main headaches of Russian farming are well-known: state agricultural support in Russia is way below that in developed countries, which also happen to have better climatic conditions, such as the U.S. and the EU. Russian farmers are also under a lot of official pressure - despite the lip service about agricultural support many regions continue closing bankrupt farms. More than 50% of the bankruptcy cases are filed on orders from the top.
While the issue in Russia is more concerned with the desire or lack of it among the authorities to deal with farming or the food situation properly, the global food crisis has deeper roots and is due to such problems as global overpopulation.
The term sounds scary, but hunger or its threat has been humankind's companions for most of its history until Western civilization put agriculture on an industrial footing, which happened in the 19th century.
In the middle of the 20th century, former colonial countries passed advanced agrarian technologies to developing nations. But now that these "green revolutions" have run out of steam, a number of developing countries might again revert to agricultural overpopulation and face the need to feed more mouths than they can afford.
This problem came up for discussion as long ago as the 1980s. Developing countries were cautioned to adopt birth control techniques to counter impending hunger (as was once done in Europe) and introduce new technologies.
But after a few years the idea was safely put to rest. All-conquering (but often misplaced) political correctness dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's: cultural traditions of some barred them from practicing birth control, while others' medicine and education were at so low a level that it was simply impossible.
What about advanced farming technologies? Developed countries are in no great hurry to share them with developing nations, because that would mean reductions in exports and a blow to their own farmers. The poor countries are unable to carry out a technological revolution of their own. So it only remains to compensate the poor by rendering them aid. The problem, however, is: how long can this go on?
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
