I doubt you missed it, even if you only caught a headline out of the corner of your eye: the G-8 leaders gathered for three days, July 8-10, (in what looked like a splendid meeting room) in L'Aquila, Italy (63 miles east-north-east of Rome). They meet every July, and every year I hope the very expensive habit will somehow have died a quiet death. No luck so far, but reportedly Angela Merkel of Germany agrees with me. I see that as a positive sign that change is nigh. Not that Merkel's proposal is all that useful—it sort of misses the point about exclusion. But it is better than just 8.
Anyway, the leaders talked about food, as they
did last year. In fact, this year saw the first ever G-8 meeting of Agriculture Ministers, back in April. (
Check it out—Vandana Shiva was there). The G-8 leaders made a statement on the food crisis—
read it here. The statement was signed by a big crowd of others (see the last para of the statement), all of whom attended the day given over to the food crisis. All this is heartening to me. It would be nice to see some farmers and peasants invited, not just business dressed in technology for charity garb, but nonetheless, it is important and useful to see that the G-8 does not think it can do this on its own. There was a big build-up to the meeting, and IATP joined others in sending their thoughts on what the governments should do to the press. Our press release was joint with CIDSE, a network of Catholic social justice organizations. (
Read it here.)
The official declarations is a parson's egg—good in parts. Which is better than being all bad. More production, more trade, more private sector (all in need of lots of finessing to be palatable); also more power for small-holders and women, more civic engagement and an emphasis on access (whew—not just about production, which has become almost a code word for funding particular kinds of biotechnology that have little if anything to do with food security or small-holders' needs). Last year's interest in grain reserves seems to persist. This year's text says:
"The feasibility, effectiveness and administrative modalities of a system of stockholding in dealing with humanitarian food emergencies or as a means to limit price volatility need to be further explored. We call upon the relevant International Institutions to provide us with evidence allowing us to make responsible strategic choices on this specific issue." (last para in bullet point 6)."
All good. Not about the pros and cons anymore, but about evidence-based choices: we seem to be making some small but important headway. For the U.S., the big announcements are potentially
really big. At least, expensive. For instance, the Chicago Council of Foreign Relations (as reported in the
Financial Times by Javier Blas on 6 July) claims, "US annual spending on African farming projects topped $400m in the 1980s, but by 2006 had dwindled to $60m." Obama is now talking about US$3.5 billion for agriculture over 3 years: the U.S. share of the $20 billion commitment for agriculture signed by the G-8 governments (not that they deliver on their promises, most years).
So now the crux of it all: how will the money be spent? Note that absent from the G-8 food crisis confab was the
IAASTD; or UNEP and UNCTAD, who jointly published
a fascinating and important report on the value of organic agriculture in Africa. Why is that? Well, because all the talk about technology and boosting production and opening trade highlights what the governments just don't get yet.
I hope Obama gets eight years to get it right—at this rate, on trade and on development both, he looks like he is going to need the time. Full kudos on getting past food aid, which is where U.S. public investment in agricultural development has been stuck for two decades. Now for a little honest self-reflection on what Africa really needs and how the U.S. can best support what is needed. Hint: the money can certainly be used, but it is much more about policies, including U.S. domestic agricultural policies. Are you ready, Mr. President? Do you really want to end the scourge of hunger? Because we can do it. Not with lectures about governance abroad. Let's start in your own backyard. Literally. The Victory Garden and all it stands for is the place to start building your answers.
