Védegylet - On food crisis and the need for change

An interview with Patrick Mulvany - At this time when the crises of food, agriculture, energy and climate change are at the top of national and international agendas, he will share his views on why the crises are happening, who are the winners and losers and what measures and collective actions are needed to resolve the underlying long-term problems and secure future food supplies, healthy people and a vital biosphere.

Védegylet (Protect the Future), Summer University
Horány, Hungary, July 2008
Patrick Mulvany, UK

Agriculture is not a business like any other
it beats to the drum of biology
On food crisis and the need for change

Patrick Mulvany,

works with NGOs in the UK. He is senior policy adviser to Practical Action, formerly the Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG ). He is also Chair of the UK Food Group (UKFG ), the principal civil society network of UK organisations concerned with global food and farming issues and which also represents UK NGOs in the European Food Security Group of CONCORD. Mr. Mulvany is also an active participant in the civil society lobbies at the Food & Agriculture Organisation of the UN (FAO) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as well as international food sovereignty networks, including those which created Nyeleni 2007: Forum for Food Sovereignty and the recent Terra Petra forum. His work focuses on food sovereignty and the related issues of the governance of agriculture, biodiversity and technology.

At this time when the crises of food, agriculture, energy and climate change are at the top of national and international agendas, he will share his views on why the crises are happening, who are the winners and losers and what measures and collective actions are needed to resolve the underlying long-term problems and secure future food supplies, healthy people and a vital biosphere.

The interview:

- We are here at the summer university, organised by Védegylet (Protect the Future), a Hungarian civil organisation. We have been through a series of lectures. Today you gave a talk about the global food crisis and problems associated with climate change. What message should we send to concerned people in Hungary after your talk this morning?

- As you say, this morning we were talking about the food crisis. It is connected to other problems in the world, and to what the response has been by countries in the world, and to what should be the response from individuals. I think it is fair to say that we are in the middle of a perfect storm. A perfect storm which is the combination of the global food, energy and climate crises. Never before in the history of humankind have those three coincided. And it is extremely serious for the millions of people who are without food, the hundreds of thousands who rioted in many countries of the world, in Haiti with the effect of the government falling. The increase of the price of food in many countries is now well over 50% of the household budget. This is terribly serious.

- How come that a crisis of that range and effect could happen that unexpectedly?

- It causes one to think hard about what the reason is that suddenly this crisis has occurred? What people do not realise is the interrelationship of the problems of the production of food, yes, the availability of food, yes, but most importantly, the financial crisis and the impact that it has had on the price of food. In July 2007, a most significant event occurred and that was: banks stopped lending to each other. And the impact of that was a credit crunch of enormous proportions, because money was not available to do things people normally did. Instead of the normal activities of finance, money suddenly started flowing into speculative futures markets, which eventually ended up in speculating on food. At one point, I think it was the end of last year, beginning of this year, the speculation in the food futures markets was so intense that some 30 times the amount of food available in the world was traded in this way. I mean it is nonsense, an absolute nonsense. It should have been regulated against, those firms should have been closed down instantly, but they were not, they are part of the international financial mechanism. That is really what has triggered the increase in food price.

- People tend to associate the crisis more with increased need for food from Asia and need for agrofuels.

- Of course there were additional triggers, like the conversion of land for agrofuels, industrial biofuel production, and there was reduced harvest in Australia because of the drought, there is increased demand for livestock products in India and China - and all of these are additional pressures that increased the price of food, but the main underlying cause for the increase in the price of food was speculation. And that is borne out by many studies subsequently. Indeed, a recent report by the United Nations on the food crisis points out exactly that. We have to recognise that this food price crisis is the result of greed and speculation, and of proprietary interests. It is devastating, absolutely devastating. There are hundreds of millions of people affected, who will join the ranks of the starving and the hungry around the world. At the moment thee are about 850 million starving people, the number will increase to 1.2 billion in a few years and it is devastating for them.

- So the food crisis seems to be an urgent priority to solve. How do you see the reaction to that?

- Well, this has caused society in general, international organisations and people around the world to start talking again seriously about food and agriculture. And I suppose, in a funny sort of way, we should welcome that. But we should welcome it with caution, as we have seen in a number of UN meetings e.g. the Convention on Biological Diversity [in May] and the FAO summit in early June - one leader after another of countries and many UN organisations leaders came to the podium, and used the opportunity of the food price crisis to promote their own particular interests. Their interests particularly to extend globalisation, to call for increased inputs into agriculture using fertilisers, pesticides, genetically modified seeds, whatever, using the opportunity of the crisis to further their own particular projects. And it was obscene in the FAO summit to see the transnationals clustering around the cadaver of the crisis to see what gain they could get out of it. In fact there was one meeting in FAO in early June, where they sat around with FAO and said: Yes, we have the technology. You could give us some public funds and we will be able to help to solve it [the crisis].

These were the same corporations that had gained immeasurably from the increase in food prices. One corporation has made an increase of 86% in its profits in the first quarter of the current year and many others have benefited equally from the increase of the value of food and the value of the inputs. These were the corporations who caused the crisis and yet, they were there demanding more public money in order to extend their outreach for food markets in the troubled areas it is obscene. For many of us in social movements, it is fact that there is a food crisis but the real issue is a long term food emergency that has been going on for decades. Many of us have been talking about it for a long time, saying that unless things change fairly radically and fairly dramatically, there will be serious problems in the future. Indeed, we are in the middle of one at the moment. But those problems will continue unless there are radical changes.

- Radical changes in what specific direction?

- My top line message to everybody is to say: think of the long term, think what is needed to to change in terms of the models of food production, the way it is distributed - the way in which people engage with food and are able to make rational choices about where their food comes from, what they eat, what they give to their children, and how that can be sustained in the future. Think about those things very-very carefully, and maybe use this moment when there is an increased interest in food and agriculture to promote sane and rational alternatives.

- Could you give an example of what you mean?

- We know that productivity per unit area can be improved and increased by diversifying the food system, by having more diversity, more species, more varieties in production and landscape, more agricultural biodiversity in the field, by lowering the amount of fossil fuel input, less fertilizers, less pesticides, ending up with a diverse, low input system, which, on a smaller scale, will have a much higher productivity per unit area we know we can do that. But what has been promoted, with the blessing and pushing of transnational corporations in these food summits and in the press, in the media every day, is an increase in input of fertilizers, of pesticides, a simplification of the production system, using fewer genes, mostly genetically modified, to have their way to a high input low diversity system and yes, indeed, in a very short term that would increase yield, but on the long term it cannot be sustained. And so we, society, politicians have a political choice at the moment: which way do we move production? Do we move it towards a more diverse, lower input system or towards a simplified, low diversity, high input type of agriculture? We have, in these days, to take those decisions. Because if you move in the one direction, it will be devastating for the future. If you move in the other direction, it will be sustained production for future generations. So that is a big political question.

The second huge question is: where to put investment in science and technology? Science and technology at the moment is being invested almost exclusively into simplifying agricultural systems, genetically modifying crops, looking into using higher levels of inputs, be it fertilizers or pesticides, in order to be able to secure production in a way that secures profit for the corporations. And almost no investment is being put into a more diverse type of agricultural system. But more crucially, very little is being invested in transforming these high fossil fuel dependent agricultural production systems into high diversity low input systems to be able to make that transformation without crashing yields, without losing yield in the process.

- How could you see this change happen?

- There is a course, a large body of opinion, the social movements of farmers, e.g. Via Campesina - that represent hundreds of millions of farmers world wide, who understand and know how to do this. The organic movement in Europe is very strong and is progressing extremely well in that direction. The consumers that have enough money, are able to choose more diverse, lower input foods. But at the root the difficulty is to try and find the way to make the institutional changes necessary to move science and technology towards a more diverse system. In April this year a UN-World Bank report was published, a result of 400 scientists working for 4 years, called the International Assessment on Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), a massive 2000 page report, a huge amount of scientific evidence, which shows quite conclusively that if we continue the same path of simplifying systems, moving towards a higher input lower diversity system, hunger will increase, there will be greater social inequity, and environmental destruction. We have to radically change the way science and technology works, and the institutions that are doing that. A greater inclusion of women, a better way of thinking about the way science and technology are operating. And they call for greater investment in agro-ecological sciences and technology, greater focus on smaller scale production, and particularly the involvement of women, and the necessary institutional changes, which will enable a broader spectrum of views to be applied when choosing what kind of science to use.

- How can you influence that institutional change?

- Well, this is extremely difficult and a very good question. Of all the heads of states that spoke at the FAO summit, only one, Switzerland, mentioned this assessment although 57 governments had actually signed and approved that report. Mostly they avoided mentioning it because the findings are inconvenient, because they do not promote the technologies and toys of the corporations, they do not promote proprietary technologies, do not promote technologies that can be patented, from which rent can be extracted. Instead, [IAASTD] promotes and talks about the kind of technologies that are not proprietary, that cannot be patented. You cannot take out intellectual property rights on those technologies, ones which can be collectively owned by communities, ones which can serve societal goals and not corporate goals. So it is huge, huge struggle.

I have to say there was only one head of state at this FAO summit who really spoke the truth in the sense of identifying what the problem is: that was Stjepan Mesić, the President of Croatia. He started by saying: We, collectively, governments and society, have to take responsibility. We have to take responsibility for the position we are in at the moment. Because none of what happened is the result of any natural disaster, there has not been a meteor hitting the earth out of space. It has been an institutional failure in the governments and the governance of the planet that allowed this crisis to occur, and over a long period of time. And he asked questions that made you reflect quite deeply. He says Why is it that Mexico, which is the country where maize was discovered, invented, developed by women and men thousands of years ago, why is it that Mexico, a major producer of maize is now a net importer? Why is it that the Philippines that until ten years ago was exporting rice to the rest of the world is now importing rice? Why is it that the grain stocks of the world have been run down?

But of course the answers to all of these questions are very obvious to anybody who has read anything and understands the way in which the World Trade Organisation operates. It has been part of the globalisation, the liberalisation of markets, project to ensure that trade increased, that local control of agriculture and food production diminished, that stocks were run down. But he goes further. He says We have to accept responsibility for what has happened, and we have to recognise that what has happened has been the product of policy and governance of human societies over recent years.

- With a stronger Europe that is in the making can you see changes in either direction? For good or for bad?

- Well, the EU is a very heterogeneous collection of 27 countries, due to be many more in the near future, possibly with the inclusion of Croatia. And it will always have a wide variety of opinions. It is the only countervailing force to the United States, with a few countries within the EU very much aligned with the Untied States, causing problems in Europe. But it is a potential countervailing force to the United States, and from that perspective it is fortunate that it can promote slightly different policies.

But it is weakening, in the sense that as the troubles in the world increase, as the dominance of northern economies that are parasites on the rest of the world weakens, they will seek to have a greater hegemony with the United States. So you will have a more united economic structure with the United States, Japan, Europe, basically the OECD countries, fighting against the rest of the world to retain their positions. And it is no secret, I think, that at the G8 meeting in Japan a few weeks ago the leaders of the eight most powerful economies were secretly extremely concerned about the food and energy crises. Because what they were worried about is the possibility that it will challenge their dominant projects, challenge the globalisation project, challenge their authority and position in the world. And they are seeking very rapidly to dampen any civil unrest and political activity that might arise as the result of this political crisis.

I think they are extremely worried at this point of time. Because in many of these northern and economically very rich countries, what are they doing other than laundering money? There is very little productive activity going on. Most of the productive activities are exported to other countries and other regions. And if the stability of those regions is in question, of course it undermines the economy of the northern countries. So they are extremely worried.

In fact, there is an opportunity at this moment to be extremely challenging to this dominant project, and to propose alternatives. And the alternative is essentially food sovereignty. The alternative is essentially localising food systems. It is enabling people to take more control over their local food system, thinking of food production as essentially producing food rather than commodities. It is working with nature rather than against nature; of developing local knowledge and skills, localising markets. To do all the things that we know ourselves are good for the production of good local food, which can be sustained in the future but which are absolutely in contrast and contrary to the globalisation project which is promoted by the rich countries. I think it is absolutely clear now (it has been clear before) that those who are promoting the globalisation project are doing so in the face of the knowledge that it is the wrong thing to do. And particularly for food production, and possibly for fuel and energy, localisation is the only answer, food sovereignty is the framework that must be followed.

- Have you got guidelines for such localisation? How should it happen? How can you see it happen?

- I think if one looks in detail [at] what is proposed in the Food Sovereignty Framework, that provides an extremely clear point of reference of how to organise food production.

- Let us take Hungarian food producers, how could you see it happen in Hungary?

- What I know is that Hungary, like many other countries in Eastern Europe, has gone through quite dramatic and traumatic changes in its agricultural system in the past hundred years, and particularly in recent times. I suspect that in Hungarian agriculture there is less collective concern about production and more personal proprietary concern. In some countries, e.g. in Mali, Africa, they are very willing, ready and able to make this transformation to a much more collective, localised food system, less dependent on imports.

In Hungary it is going to be very difficult from what I know about the country. The challenge in Hungarian society could well be to the schools in agriculture, to the scientific establishment, to consumers as well, to have them reflect on what the purpose of agriculture is? Is the purpose of agriculture to make money, principally? Or is the purpose of agriculture to provide food? And wholesome food as that.

And when people reflect upon that, I think they would realise that actually the production of food, wholesome local food, is perhaps the most important thing. And the scientific establishment might want to reflect on their role is their role to provide scientific advice to corporations on how they can maximise their profits from agriculture, or is it to work with farmers, with consumers, with local communities in recognition that agriculture is not an economic activity per se, it is essentially a biological activity.

- What is the difference?

- A friend of mine, Colin Tudge, wrote a book a couple of years ago with the title So shall we reap. In that book he says: Agriculture is not a business like any other it beats to the drum of biology. In other words: it is an activity where humans interact with nature, with biology, in order to maximise the value we get from ecosystems, maximise ecosystem functions, maximise diversity in the field and landscape, in order to produce food - quality food. And everybody who forgets that agriculture is essentially biological, not only misses the point, but also misses the opportunity to ensure that it is sustainable. I suspect that those are the kinds of realisations people will have come to, that agriculture is primarily about the production of food - good quality, uncontaminated, unmodified food - for people. Not producing commodities, not maximising profits, but providing a service to humanity.

Of course people have to make a living, and there have to be incentives for young people to get into agriculture. Absolutely, they have to be paid for it. But they have to be paid for doing the right thing. And the Food Sovereignty Framework really provides the guidance for how to judge whether or not a food system is moving into the direction that is useful to society or not. And I sincerely believe that by one means or another, we will have to adapt to that Food Sovereignty Framework as a guiding principle for the production of food in the future. Or else there will be increased hunger, increased social inequity, increased environmental destruction.

- Your message to civil society organisations in Hungary?

- Campaign for good food. Campaign for the regulation of any organisation, institution or company that is involved in the food business, to ensure the delivery of wholesome good food of the type which is adequate for the particular area of the country. Do not allow Brussels to dictate what food quality should be. Ensure there is sufficient autonomy in Hungary to be able to determine for itself what classifies as good quality food, and have vigorous civil society monitoring the quality of food, and its delivery and price, for example, so that the consumer is informed about the quantity of pesticides that reside in the food. That the consumer is informed about the working conditions of the labourers who produce the food, whether it is in Hungary or in other countries from which the food is imported. That people are aware of the carbon-intensity of the food they are buying, and whether it is consuming a huge quantity of fossil fuel. And most importantly if the production system from which that food has been produced is sustainable in the future. Hungary has got some wonderful soils, some magnificent agricultural landscapes, but is all very delicate.

Unless there is a very strong consumer watchdog, which is vigorously examining what the government is doing, what the EU is insisting on the government do, is providing the right kind of signals to the farming community to support those elements in the farming community that are producing good quality food and to bring to account those that are not, that are more interested in industrial food production and their profits. I think that unless there is a vigorous consumer campaign, it would be very difficult. So my suggestion is that if there is one area to focus on it is building those consumer campaigns to ensure good, local food is provided.

- And what about consumers? What can they do on their own?

- I think it is the same message for consumers, consumers need to be vigilant about what they are purchasing, to recognise that buying the cheapest of any particular food is not necessarily the best thing for them and for their families. And to be very cautious, to look very carefully at labels, and more importantly, to ensure that somebody they know is watching what is being provided in shops, and what is being provided at the farm gate, so that they have the confidence to know that what they have been given is good local food.

- My last question: how do you like the atmosphere here? It is a summer university, with lots of people from international organisations also present, lots of interesting topics on social justice, global food crisis, climate change ...

- Oh, it is a wonderful privilege to be here and to participate in an event which is so pluralistic. I mean I have met people from all age ranges, from many different disciplines. People have expertise in a very wide range of disciplines ... It is very productive. I am absolutely delighted to meet so many enthusiastic people, particularly younger people who (of course it is not only a cliché - but they) are the future. But most importantly people who are able to articulate and see how it is possible to change things in order to ensure that the future is better for all. And I think you need many more of these all over Hungary, in Europe and the rest of the world.

- Thank you for the interview and thank you for being here.

Background reading for the interview:

Address by Stjepan Mesić, Croatian president at the FAO Global Food Safety Summit in June 2008, in which he points out the responsibility of the worlds leading political powers regarding the food crisis.

Article of Bolivian president Evo Morales about the current round of negotiations at the WTO a critical analysis of the Doha Development Round, arguing that the interest of global justice and sustainability is outweighed by the profit interests of Northern multinationals.

Closing statement and action plan of the Terra Preta NGO/CSO Forum. The document provides clear strategic guidelines and a concrete action plan for actors of the international Food Sovereignty movement.