Now as then, a world of plenty struggles to feed millions
Haya Al Hussein says the drastic drop in food aid in recent years means that, even today, one in eight people around the world go hungry
Today, in scores of nations across the globe, there will be conferences, speeches and editorials to celebrate World Food Day. Children will learn about the latest issues - fast food versus slow food, food losses and waste, farming and global warming. This is a good thing - unless you are among the world's 842 million hungry. Few of them even know there is a World Food Day.
For years, the conventional wisdom was that ending poverty would end hunger. Globally, we have made good progress in halving poverty and reaching that UN Millennium Development Goal by 2015, with Chinese economic growth being a driving force. But, somehow, the number of hungry people globally has declined little. East Asian countries have made major advances in reducing malnutrition, but sub-Saharan Africa and parts of South Asia still lag behind.
While we have failed to make much headway on hunger, donors have drastically cut back their commitments to food aid. In the mid-1990s, global food aid reached a peak of nearly 17 million tonnes, but has since collapsed to just 3.9 million tonnes in 2011. Aid officials cite sharp food price rises and try to disguise this huge decline by publicising donations in cash terms not tonnes of food reaching needy people.
When asked, development officials often explain that they have shifted funds from food aid into "food security projects" to solve the root causes of hunger. Yes, there has been a modest increase in these projects and that is very positive, but the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports that the percentage of development assistance devoted to food security still remains stuck at a measly 7 per cent. If these projects were sufficient, would we not see more downward movement in the numbers of malnourished? And why act as if we must choose between food security and food aid when we clearly need both?
I sometimes wonder how you would explain this food aid versus food security debate to the hungry themselves. Food security projects are critical, but they feed no child today. Lack of proper nutrition in the first 1,000 days of life can undermine mental and physical performance for an entire lifetime. Millions of children in poor countries have already been irreparably damaged.
If donors are really serious about reaching out to the hungry, they can. First, rebuild food aid levels and sharpen the focus. Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), Unicef and the World Food Programme have promoted integrated aid packages that give children in poor communities high-nutrient foods, clean water, parasite control and nutrition education. Much larger investments in projects like these could have a huge impact.
Second, curb the remaining agricultural subsidies in richer countries that make it difficult for developing-country farmers to compete. Third, reform biofuels programmes so they do not push up prices of cereals. Finally, provide all of the extra US$30 billion in annual investments the Food and Agriculture Organisation says are needed to curb hunger worldwide.
Until we take real steps like these, we will be stuck in a world of fast food, slow food and no food. And that is nothing to celebrate.
