kablagh! random thoughts and commentaries on the news
The rice shortage and soaring food prices
“World food shortages to stay; Riots a risk: UN.”
“The rice crisis, How could it happen?”
“Manila caught in rice squeeze; experts call for government action.”
These are but a few of the many similar headlines that hog the news these days. It is both surprising and disturbing that something very basic as food is in short supply in a world that claims to have made revolutionary advances in medicine and bio-technology. In the last 10 years, for example, government and international institutions extolled the virtues of hybrid seed technology as the death blow to world hunger and poverty.
Many reasons are cited for the current crisis. Technologists are quick to claim that this is because investment in bio-technology and R & D in agriculture has tapered off. Specifically, this means funding for the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) – yes, they still exist. Economists point to the rising demand for food from developing economies in Asia, particularly China and India, who together account for a third of the world’s population. Related to this, and perhaps more relevant for some countries than others, is the continued growth in population. Yet other analysts blame increasing production cost and decreasing productivity as the major causes of this crisis. Some scientists blame poor, erratic weather. Another telling factor is the depreciation of the US Dollar, which has heavy implications for countries heavily dependent on importation of food, such as the Philippines, one of the world’s biggest importer of rice, as well as the rising cost of oil.
Perhaps all of these given reasons are true but some analyses extend beyond understanding why this is happening. One controversial claim is that the rising food prices benefit farmers and that they are happier these days due to increased earnings. Others predict that the incentive to farmers to plant early and produce more will stave off the crisis in time.
Then of course there are other expected issues of hoarding, pilferage, and other similar criminal tendencies, as well as importation policies, and the role and responsibilities of government of ensuring that their citizens get access to food.
The Philippines government is reported to have buckled down to work, taking over the monopoly of directly distributing cheaper imported rice, raiding warehouses suspected to be involved in hoarding, especially of the highly political commodity, rice, and threatening life imprisonment for those who will be proven guilty of hoarding.
At the global level, the UN World Food Programme (WFP) says international donors should increase funding for food aid. Other technocrats went to town and called for the revival and agreement of the Doha Round of trade talks.
These are all very interesting views and almost invariably expressed by so-called experts – the technocrats, the bureaucrats, the politicians, and not surprisingly, the development experts. Their views heavily laden with serious political and social implications. Meanwhile, the food crisis continue and more poor – including the small producedrs themselves, continue to go hungry.
In short, scarcity, rising cost, increased demand, worsening poverty, and the inability of various responsible actors to address these issues all contributed to this crisis. The solutions being offered are more aid, more subsidies, more technology development, and further trade liberalisation.
Technology, more technology
The many views also give way to more questions than useful answers. For one, how much more investment will it take to ensure that technology developed for improving agriculture productivity is also sustainable, without requiring more and more intensive capital and technology input? The answer will probably go against the logic of what has been driving research and technology development in agriculture – and that is profit. Could it be that the solution lies in technology that is not in itself profitable?
Seeds, for one, is a billion dollar industry. According to earlier research, about 70% of all the commercial rice seeds in the global market today, are controlled by only 5 giant multinational agribusiness corporations – led by the likes of Monsanto, Syngenta, and Cargill. All these seeds, claimed to be products of innovation and biotechnological processes, promise either increased production and added nutritional value – largely seen as keys to ending world hunger. All these seeds are for sale, and whoever uses these seeds, however they are obtained, are liable to pay for the property rights owned by these companies, or face punitive legal actions. Traditionally, farmers freely save and exchange seeds to breed and continue to improve on their crops. Now, they need to make sure that the stocks they use are not under patent or some form of legal, private property rights.
Not surprisingly, most of the technological innovations on seeds carry with them further requirements for more input of equally high-tech fertilisers, pesticides, and other chemicals, before they realise the promise of increased production. Hybrid seeds, for example, if they are to deliver the promised high-volume yield, need to have exact levels of moisture content and undergo very specific milling techniques – possible only with expensive technology-based application of drying, temperature and humidity-controlled storage, and milling facilities – among the many things beyond the reach of most ordinary farmers.
Obviously, millions of dollars have been poured into the development of these technologies. Hence the high cost of use of and access to these technology products. But is there really any motivation, incentive, or support for developing low-cost / free technology or any inexpensive method for increasing agriculture productivity?
Climate Change?
In Cambodia, the use of an unconventional method of rice cultivation called system for rice intensification (SRI) is spreading. The method, developed by a Jesuit priest in Madagascar, goes against the conventional wisdom of rice planting by espousing the use of a single seedling for transplanting and less, highly-controlled use of water. This method is apparently based on scientific observation and inference on the biology of rice plants – allowing for high growth and robust health of the plant, leading to more yield, sometimes boasting of 2 or 3 times the usual volume.
The proponents are quick to clarify that SRI is not as much a technology package than it is about enabling and empowering farmers to understand better the natural processes and biology of rice growth and reproduction, allowing them to experiment and innovate with confidence. It is also as much about critical thinking and endlessly challenging conventional wisdom.
From the modest beginning of 12 farmer families using the method, one of the main proponents and developer of the method, CEDAC, claims that 40,000-50,000 today practice SRI in Cambodia. This is further boosted by the show of support from the government through the creation of a joint government-NGO SRI secretariat within the Department of Agronomy and Land Improvement (DAALI) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF).
Yet, the challenges are daunting, and at times, seem insurmountable. Although SRI does espouse, or even require the use of much less amount of water for irrigation, it still cannot work without water. In fact, it is almost equally impossible to make it work with too much water either, which means in Cambodia, the lack of irrigation (true for almost 80% of farmlands) and water management infrastructure means increased vulnerability not only to drought but, equally, to flooding.
This illustrates a situation when clearly, initiatives by concerned scientists and farmers, make effective, appropraite, and relevant methods accessible to farmers, but bigger problems get in the way. Scientists predict that in this part of the world, global warming will result to increased precipitation, which should be good news for farmers, if they have a way of storing and distributing water effectively. The scale and cost of ensuring this happens will inevitably have to involve not only the national government but would necessitate the coordinated efforts of aid and development agencies operating in Cambodia and in the neighboring countries up- and downstream the Mekong.
Assuming these obstacles are overcome, will this then mean that farmers and poor people in Cambodia will no longer go hungry?
No Responses Yet to “The rice shortage and soaring food prices”
This entry was posted
on 24 April 2008 at 10:38 pm and is filed under commentaries , media , news and side comments.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Loading...
The rice shortage and soaring food prices
“World food shortages to stay; Riots a risk: UN.”
“The rice crisis, How could it happen?”
“Manila caught in rice squeeze; experts call for government action.”
These are but a few of the many similar headlines that hog the news these days. It is both surprising and disturbing that something very basic as food is in short supply in a world that claims to have made revolutionary advances in medicine and bio-technology. In the last 10 years, for example, government and international institutions extolled the virtues of hybrid seed technology as the death blow to world hunger and poverty.
Many reasons are cited for the current crisis. Technologists are quick to claim that this is because investment in bio-technology and R & D in agriculture has tapered off. Specifically, this means funding for the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) – yes, they still exist. Economists point to the rising demand for food from developing economies in Asia, particularly China and India, who together account for a third of the world’s population. Related to this, and perhaps more relevant for some countries than others, is the continued growth in population. Yet other analysts blame increasing production cost and decreasing productivity as the major causes of this crisis. Some scientists blame poor, erratic weather. Another telling factor is the depreciation of the US Dollar, which has heavy implications for countries heavily dependent on importation of food, such as the Philippines, one of the world’s biggest importer of rice, as well as the rising cost of oil.
Perhaps all of these given reasons are true but some analyses extend beyond understanding why this is happening. One controversial claim is that the rising food prices benefit farmers and that they are happier these days due to increased earnings. Others predict that the incentive to farmers to plant early and produce more will stave off the crisis in time.
Then of course there are other expected issues of hoarding, pilferage, and other similar criminal tendencies, as well as importation policies, and the role and responsibilities of government of ensuring that their citizens get access to food.
The Philippines government is reported to have buckled down to work, taking over the monopoly of directly distributing cheaper imported rice, raiding warehouses suspected to be involved in hoarding, especially of the highly political commodity, rice, and threatening life imprisonment for those who will be proven guilty of hoarding.
At the global level, the UN World Food Programme (WFP) says international donors should increase funding for food aid. Other technocrats went to town and called for the revival and agreement of the Doha Round of trade talks.
These are all very interesting views and almost invariably expressed by so-called experts – the technocrats, the bureaucrats, the politicians, and not surprisingly, the development experts. Their views heavily laden with serious political and social implications. Meanwhile, the food crisis continue and more poor – including the small producedrs themselves, continue to go hungry.
In short, scarcity, rising cost, increased demand, worsening poverty, and the inability of various responsible actors to address these issues all contributed to this crisis. The solutions being offered are more aid, more subsidies, more technology development, and further trade liberalisation.
Technology, more technology
The many views also give way to more questions than useful answers. For one, how much more investment will it take to ensure that technology developed for improving agriculture productivity is also sustainable, without requiring more and more intensive capital and technology input? The answer will probably go against the logic of what has been driving research and technology development in agriculture – and that is profit. Could it be that the solution lies in technology that is not in itself profitable?
Seeds, for one, is a billion dollar industry. According to earlier research, about 70% of all the commercial rice seeds in the global market today, are controlled by only 5 giant multinational agribusiness corporations – led by the likes of Monsanto, Syngenta, and Cargill. All these seeds, claimed to be products of innovation and biotechnological processes, promise either increased production and added nutritional value – largely seen as keys to ending world hunger. All these seeds are for sale, and whoever uses these seeds, however they are obtained, are liable to pay for the property rights owned by these companies, or face punitive legal actions. Traditionally, farmers freely save and exchange seeds to breed and continue to improve on their crops. Now, they need to make sure that the stocks they use are not under patent or some form of legal, private property rights.
Not surprisingly, most of the technological innovations on seeds carry with them further requirements for more input of equally high-tech fertilisers, pesticides, and other chemicals, before they realise the promise of increased production. Hybrid seeds, for example, if they are to deliver the promised high-volume yield, need to have exact levels of moisture content and undergo very specific milling techniques – possible only with expensive technology-based application of drying, temperature and humidity-controlled storage, and milling facilities – among the many things beyond the reach of most ordinary farmers.
Obviously, millions of dollars have been poured into the development of these technologies. Hence the high cost of use of and access to these technology products. But is there really any motivation, incentive, or support for developing low-cost / free technology or any inexpensive method for increasing agriculture productivity?
Climate Change?
In Cambodia, the use of an unconventional method of rice cultivation called system for rice intensification (SRI) is spreading. The method, developed by a Jesuit priest in Madagascar, goes against the conventional wisdom of rice planting by espousing the use of a single seedling for transplanting and less, highly-controlled use of water. This method is apparently based on scientific observation and inference on the biology of rice plants – allowing for high growth and robust health of the plant, leading to more yield, sometimes boasting of 2 or 3 times the usual volume.
The proponents are quick to clarify that SRI is not as much a technology package than it is about enabling and empowering farmers to understand better the natural processes and biology of rice growth and reproduction, allowing them to experiment and innovate with confidence. It is also as much about critical thinking and endlessly challenging conventional wisdom.
From the modest beginning of 12 farmer families using the method, one of the main proponents and developer of the method, CEDAC, claims that 40,000-50,000 today practice SRI in Cambodia. This is further boosted by the show of support from the government through the creation of a joint government-NGO SRI secretariat within the Department of Agronomy and Land Improvement (DAALI) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF).
Yet, the challenges are daunting, and at times, seem insurmountable. Although SRI does espouse, or even require the use of much less amount of water for irrigation, it still cannot work without water. In fact, it is almost equally impossible to make it work with too much water either, which means in Cambodia, the lack of irrigation (true for almost 80% of farmlands) and water management infrastructure means increased vulnerability not only to drought but, equally, to flooding.
This illustrates a situation when clearly, initiatives by concerned scientists and farmers, make effective, appropraite, and relevant methods accessible to farmers, but bigger problems get in the way. Scientists predict that in this part of the world, global warming will result to increased precipitation, which should be good news for farmers, if they have a way of storing and distributing water effectively. The scale and cost of ensuring this happens will inevitably have to involve not only the national government but would necessitate the coordinated efforts of aid and development agencies operating in Cambodia and in the neighboring countries up- and downstream the Mekong.
Assuming these obstacles are overcome, will this then mean that farmers and poor people in Cambodia will no longer go hungry?