Interview with Shenggen Fan, Global Food Policy Leader
FrontLines - July 2010
Shengenn Fan, the director general of the International Food Policy
Research Institute, discussed world hunger recently with FrontLines editor
Ben Barber. In 2009, IFPRI received $10 million out of its $63 million
budget from USAID, which was its largest source of funding.
|
Shenggen Fan
|
Q: Despite advances in hybrid
seeds, chemical fertilizer, and
science, hunger continues to
afflict a new total of 1 billion
people. Why is it we have all
these achievements and still
we’re unable to keep up?
FAN: First, technologies are
necessary but they are not a
sufficient condition for
improvement.
Second, these modern technologies
remain beyond the
reach of many smallholders. In
Africa, less than one-third of
farmers use modern seeds compared
to over 80 percent in Asia.
Third, because modern
inputs can be expensive and
can require higher output to
offset the greater cost, they can
entail increased risk if there’s a
drought or a flood, for example.
Fourth, African agricultural
extension systems have not
been able to develop seeds that
are tradeable in Africa.
Even if you increase production
with modern technology
and inputs, you still have to provide
adequate access to the
energy and micronutrients in the
food. In India, despite high economic
and agricultural growth,
many people remain hungry.
There’s a disconnect between
agricultural growth and a reduction
in hunger and poverty.
Q: Has the dispute over genetically
modified food gone away
or does it still block many farmers
from getting higher yields?
FAN: Again, technologies
alone cannot solve the complex
problems of hunger and poverty.
Some, including biotechnology,
do have great potential
to benefit poor populations in
developing countries. Because
this possibility exists, I believe
it would be irresponsible not to
assess the potential of genetically
modified crops such as
nutrient-enriched, droughttolerant,
and disease-resistant
varieties. Evidence on the potential
benefits and risks is needed
by all stakeholders, including
NGOs, governments, scientists,
and, more importantly, consumers
and producers. Ultimately, regulatory
bodies should ensure that
the products are safe to humans,
animals, and the environment,
and then consumers should
choose what to eat.
Q: So is there still a lot of possibility
to increase yields and
plant more GMO?
FAN: I think there’s potential to
use biotechnology to increase
yields, but sound regulatory policy
is needed to reduce the
health, environmental, and other
risks, and maximize the benefit
for consumers and society.
Q: Okay, if you were given a
limitless budget—billions and
billions of dollars—from the
World Bank and USAID, from
all of the aid groups, what three
steps would you take to provide
every human being with sufficient
food?
FAN: Even with limited
resources, we can still achieve a
world free of hunger. It is a matter
of political will, and of how
we work together.
First, donors and investors
should fulfill their commitments.
The G8 in 2005 pledged 0.75 percent
of their gross domestic product
(GDP) for development assistance:
Today, it’s only half of that.
Second, we need to ensure that
that money is used efficiently and
effectively to increase smallholders’
productivity.
Third, we must recognize that
many poor people are not able to
participate in growth because
they don’t have good health or
they lack access to other productive
assets. In such cases, we
need to adopt a targeted approach
to protect the poorest people and
to make sure that they can build
their human or financial assets.
Through this, they can come to
participate in the growth process.
Furthermore, donors should
really try to build each country’s
capacity to pursue its own strategy
and investment plans for
food security. Through research
and analysis, organizations such
as IFPRI can help build capacity
but the key is food security programs
that are led and driven by
the countries themselves.
Q: Norman Borlaug once told
me that building roads in Africa
was the key to fight hunger, that
roads would reduce the cost of
transporting fertilizer to farmers
and the cost of sending harvests
to the market. Do you agree, and
is enough being done to create
those roads?
FAN: In fact, maybe 10 years
ago, when Norman Borlaug was
in this building, he told me that
Africa needed three things—rural
roads, number one; number two,
rural roads; number three, rural
roads. I very much agree that
more and better roads in Africa
could reduce input costs and
allow better access to markets.
We’re finding, in India and
parts of Africa, that the returns
on rural roads are very high both
in terms of promoting agriculture
and helping poverty
reduction.
Q: How can the donor community
end sharecropping and other
forms of land ownership which
leave millions of people as landless
laborers or renters of land;
and end systems in which speculators
dictate the
price?
FAN: Well, sharecropping
was most
widespread in Asia
during the Green
Revolution period,
the ‘70s and ‘80s.
It served a purpose:
without it,
few farmers would
have had access to
land. It worked in
the context of certain
cultural norms,
however, and has
proven less desirable
as societies
have changed.
Obviously, people
without land are
subject to exploitation
by landowners
or land-grabbers
from other countries. To secure
the land for smallholders is critical,
and you need good governance,
regulation, and contract
enforcement.
Q: Hernando de Soto points out
that, if small farmers in Latin
America had the title of their
land, they could get a loan and
buy a small tractor or irrigation.
FAN: In some instances, I agree.
Smallholders may need to establish
ownership of the land in
order to access credit and generate
income for the family. But
the issue is broader and more
nuanced than this, and it leaves
open the question of the right
type of title.
In some settings, evidence
suggests that communal land tenure
has a better effect than individual
ownership in terms of
local decisionmaking, gender
dynamics, cultural preservation,
and natural resource management.
And in any case, ownership
doesn’t preclude an active rental
market. In China, for example,
farmers who leave the countryside
for insecure jobs in the city
rent out their land for the income
and to preserve the option of
returning to their farms should
they become unemployed.
Q: If subsidies and trade protection
by wealthy countries
ended, what impact would that
have on food production and
availability?
FAN: We would expect global
food prices to rise. Smallholder
farmers in many developing
countries who produce
more than their households
consume would benefit and
would have incentives to
increase production. However,
there would be risks as well,
especially for poor urban consumers
and subsistence farmers.
National policies would
need to manage social safety
nets carefully.
Any such process would
have to be gradual so that
farmers in developing countries
could adjust to higher
prices. Food prices went up in
the last few years but smallholders
were not able to
respond because this happened
too suddenly and they lacked
access to inputs, infrastructure,
and financial information to
seize the opportunity. At the
same time, poor consumers
were not sufficiently protected
from the price shocks.
Q: What are the cutting-edge
food policies and scientific
advances that you believe will
do the most to shrink hunger?
FAN: In my view, we need a
significant re-orientation of
food policies and interventions.
We should come away
from top-down, donor-driven,
or capital city-driven programs
that tell countries or people
what they should do and what
is best for them. We should
involve more farmers’ and
grassroots organizations, such
as those emerging across
Africa.
We should support countries
that are willing to pursue evidence-
based food policies and
implement country-driven strategies.
A country-driven strategy
can really help smallholders
and local communities. We
have to make sure they increase
smallholder production and we
have to monitor progress and
enable them to adjust policy
where necessary.
Q: You’ve recently taken
over here as head of IFPRI.
Do you want to move IFPRI
in a particular direction or set
up new policies?
FAN: I was glad to take over
a successful and well established
institution with a good
reputation among key stakeholders.
I want to continue
this course.
Food security’s context
and challenges are always
changing and we have to
anticipate and adapt. Major
factors affecting the prospects
for food security include globalization,
increasing
incomes, and population
growth. At the same time,
climate change will reduce
yields if we don’t do something
about it.
In addition, we have to
look at the implications for
agriculture and food security
of economic growth and of
macroeconomic policymaking—
in general and particularly
in light of the food, fuel,
and financial crises. We also
want to deepen research on
the linkages between agriculture,
health, and nutrition. We
assume that closer cooperation
between these sectors
could unleash synergies.
Underlying all this work is
a profound need to help countries
to build their capacity to
pursue their own food security
programs.
Q: The USAID administrator,
Rajiv Shah, recently
noted that a large percentage
of the USAID budget used
to be on agriculture but in
recent years it fell to only 1
percent. Why did the donor
nations stop investing in
agriculture?
FAN: I think part of the
problem was complacency.
Towards the end of the ’80s
and in the ’90s, global food
prices were low. There was
plenty of food.
Domestic politics in donor
countries also played a role.
Farm lobbies, environmental
organizations, and groups
opposed to what they see as
corporate-led economic globalization
may have affected
some donors’ behavior. The
ensuing reduction in investment
for agriculture and food
security has been as widespread
as it has been dramatic.
For all OECD countries,
not just the U.S., around
1990, the percentage of foreign
aid devoted to agriculture
was about 10 percent.
Today, it’s 4 percent.
Q: Is this protectionism?
FAN: Yes, in the case of, say,
a lobby that tried to get more
farm subsidies and other barriers
against imports. But not
all the pressure has been
motivated by protectionism.
Consider the many environmental
concerns that have
been raised, for example.
Regardless of motives,
however, and to the extent
that these domestic pressures
have impeded agricultural
development in poorer countries,
the typical argument is
that these countries don’t
need to produce more
because there is food aid. It
has not worked. It won’t
work in the future.
★
FrontLines is published
by the Bureau for Legislative and Public Affairs
U.S. Agency for International Development
To have FrontLines delivered
to you via postal mail, please subscribe.
Material should be submitted
by mail to Editor, FrontLines, USAID,
RRB, Suite 6.10, Washington, DC 20523-6100;
by FAX to 202-216-3035; or by e-mail to frontlines@usaid.gov
To view PDF files, download
the Adobe
Acrobat Reader.
Back to Top ^
|
