Food Security, Environment and Equity Issues

The first World Food Day was celebrated - no, not celebrated, since there is not much to celebrate-about the increasing number of hungry people in the Third World countries - on October 16in 1981.I presume the FAO which started this annual event wished to focus world attention on the emerging crisis in global food situation and to influence events in the direction of greater food security. It is now almost ten years, since the first World Food Day deliberations took place; I wish therefore, to discuss the future of food security, especially in the Third World countries; the declining productivity of the earth because of increasing land and environmental degradation; and the widening gap between the rich industrialized countries and the poor developing countries, as well-as between the rich and the poor within a given developing country; and the impact of equity issues on food security, human environment and development.

ebrated, since there is not much to celebrate-about the increasing number of hungry people in the Third World countries -on October 16in 1981.I presume the FAO which started this annual event wished to focus world attention on the emerging crisis in global food situation and to influence events in the direction of greater food security.
It is now almost ten years, since the first World Food Day deliberations took place; I wish therefore, to discuss the future of food security, especially in the Third World countries; the declining productivity of the earth because of increasing land and environmental degradation; and the widening gap between the rich industrialized countries and the poor developing countries, as well-as between the rich and the poor within a given developing country; and the impact of equity issues on food security, human environment and development.

Future of Food Security
By the year 2000, world population would be more than 6 billionit is now around 5 billionand will require food and agriculture output some 50 to 60% higher as compared to 1980. With population growth pushing ahead of potential food production, the future in terms of food security and poverty related issues is likely to be grim. FAO estimates that 64 developing countries, out of 117, would be unable to feed their population adequately, and that 38 of these countries would be able to support less than half of their projected population.! The international debts are frightening to contemplate for developing countries.
An increasing number of human lives are being lost to hunger and malnutrition. According to the World Food Council, in 1988, the number of hungry people had increased 5 times faster in the 80s than in the previous decade. There were also more malnourished people in the 80s than in the 70s. Although the largest increase in the number of hungry people is in Africa, the majority of undernourished people live in Asia. 2 Estimates of severely malnourished people range from 450 million (FAO) to a billion (World Bank). Experts agree that the absolute number of hungry people has never been so high and that these numbers are increasing.
According to UNICEFabout 15million children die of hunger and hunger-related diseases. Asia has 83% of all malnourished children under 5 in the world. In South Asia two-thirds of all children under 5 are malnourished. How much food is required to save 15 million children? Calculations by Susan George indicate that 15 million children would need just 3-6 million tonnes of cereals, a bare 0.002% of global harvests (i.e. 1556 m tonne.;" The total amount of food required to end global hunger is also fairly small. Based on FAO and IFPRI (International Food and Policy Research Institute) calculations only 15 to 20 million tonnes of cereals would be sufficient to end world hunger. In terms of world food production this is a small figure. The world, if it so desired could easily end this hunger. The problem does not seem to lie merely in global food production, but in North-South relationships, and the power of the North in serving its own interests. At the national level too governments of the South have not paid sufficient attention to issues related to equity, justice and basic human needs consequently affecting hunger and food security.

The Problems of Equity
The rich countries, not quite 25% of the world population, consume between two-thirds and three-quarters of the world's food production. Their animals alone eat almost a third of all cereal grains harvested3. These widening disparities between North and South as the South Commission Report has stated are not merely due to economic progress but also due to an enlargement of the North's power vis-a-vis the rest of the world. The leading countries of the North now more readily use that power in pursuit of their objectives. The fate of the South is increasingly dictated by the perceptions and policies of governments in the North, by the multilateral institutions which a few of these governments control. Domination has been reinforced where partnership was needed and hoped for by the South. 6 In most countries with serious food problems, at least one third to one half the population is landless or near landless. Land reforms introduced have not been implemented, with the result that 5 to 10% of the land-lords control 70% or more of agriculture land. Prevailing land tenure systems too demand exobitant rents and threats of eviction. Tribals and others dependent on forests for their survival are kept outside forests so that forest produce could be used for state revenue. and industrial purposes. Unemployment and under-employment is high in most developing countries, and therefore, access to food is difficult. The consumption patterns of the rich and the poor vary widely, with seasonal hunger as part of at least half the rural population of landless and near landless.
At the international level too, there are serious problems of equity that makes it difficult for the developing countries to be self-sufficient and self-reliant in food. The 1980's decade has been characterised as a lost decade for the Third World countries. In their grim struggle against hunger, poverty, malnutrition and disease they seem to be slipping backwards. President Miquel de la Madrid Hurtado of Mexico,voicing the concerns of the Third World leaders, said, liThe 1980snot only represent lost . time in terms of growth but backward steps have unhappily" been taken. The South has been virtually kept out of the economic decisions that most concern it. Our raw materials are bought at prices that are less and less remunerative while products with higher value added find their access to international markets blocked by artificial obstacles sometimes with political overtones."4 The Nineties The decade of the 90s in terms of food security will be even more grim than the decade of the 80s. FAO has predicted that annual growth in cereal production in developing countries would fall from 3.8% in 1970-85to 2.6% in 1984-2000.This will mean that import requirements of cereals for the developing countries will increase from 55 million tonnes in 1986 to an estimated 96 million tonnes in the year 2000.This will also mean more dependency, more international debt, more destruction of natural resources and of course more hunger and poverty. As the Prime Minister of Malaysia pointed out, "Fifteen years later after the call for a new international economic order, we continue to find ourselves enmeshed in external debts frustrated by extensive and growing protectionism, bedeviled by fluctuations of commodity prices in favour of the developed countries of the North."4 Equity issues between North & South are not likely to be solved merely by the good-will of the developed nations. As the South Commission has pointed out, "The countries of the South are unfavourably placed in the world economic systems and they are individually powerless to influence these processes and institutions.6 The South will need to organize itself for moving towards a new economic order which promises greater equity and justice. The South must learn to work together, t~act as a countervailing force, to resist the moves of the dominant countries of the North in redesigning the economic system to their own advantage. The leaders of the South believe that "the South as a whole has sufficient markets, technology, and financial resources to make South-South cooperation an effective means for widening the development options for its economies. Intensified South-South cooperation has to become an important part of southern strategies for autonomous, self-reliant develop-ment."6 Only when the South learns to speak with a united voice are there any chances of food security, of banishing poverty, and moving towards sustained economic growth.
Environmental Degradation: Loss of Food Security All forms of environmental degradation adversely affect agriculture and food production in one way or another. TheStateof the WorldReport(1990)mentions that soil erosion has slowly undermined the productivity of about one-third of the world's cropland. Deforestation has added to soil erosion because of increased rainfall run-off. Deforestation also results in more frequent floods and droughts causing immense damage to crops and cattle. Deforestation can also alter the local hydrological cycle diminishing water tables for agricultural use. A recent study in Nepal showed that increasing deforestation meant long distances for collecting fuel-wood thus reducing the time the women could pay to agriculture resulting in further decreases of agricultural output in already marginal lands. Deforestation in the Himalayan watershed has resulted in massive landslides, whole villages with their agricultural lands being wiped out. Deforestation also means that cow dung and crop residues are used as fuel depriving soil of nutrients and organic matter that help maintain healthy soil structure and productivity.
Through the building of large dams and canals for irrigation, water-logging and salinity has increased affecting at least a fourth of the world's irrigated cropland. In countries like India and Pakistan, in many parts, half of their irrigated land over time has turned saline because of bad drainage. When productivity decreases on these saline lands they are abandoned as degraded lands. Victor Kovda, a Soviet agronomist, has calculated that about 1.0 to 1.5 m. ha of irrigated lands are abandoned, resulting in a loss of 2.4 to 3.6 m. tonnes of food annually.
Air-pollution and add rain especially in the industrialized countries have also destroyed forests and damaged crops. Experimental data regarding the influence of the ozone hole and the resulting increase of uln:a-violet radiation have shown that productivity of certain crops decreases (e.g. soybeans). The effect of global climate change is likely to be the most serious. There is the danger of low-lying areas being submerged as a result of the rising of the oceans. There is a real threat to islands 12 JOURNALOF ECOLOGICAL SOCIE'IY,VOL. 5,1992 security unless corrective steps are taken to reverse the environmental damage. Appropriate policies, institutional mechanism, political will, all will be required to protect soil, conserve the diminishing water resources and water tables, and reverse the tide of deforestation if food security for the next decade is to be realised. Lester Brown believes that the population and environmental trends in the world may mean that food emergency is inevitable.
like Mauritius and Sri Lanka, and countries like India and Bangladesh, and other such areas around the world. Global warming will mean famines, flash floods and droughts. The exact magnitude of productivity losses is hard to predict at this stage, although it is clear fro~accumulating evidence that the productive capacity of the world will be seriously impaired. The world's farmers lose an estimated 24 billion tonnes of topsoil each year. Conservative calculations by World Watch indicate that this means a loss of 21 million tonnes of grain production each year. In Australia Prime Minister Hawke said that "none of Australia's environmental problems is more serious than its soil degradationover two-thirds of Australia's arable land". The Soviet Union too reports about the catastrophic decline in its soil fertility. India is reported to be losing 6 billion tonnes of soil each year.
Land degradation in many countries has also taken place because of excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides changing the soil chemistry and resulting in lowered productivities.
In developing countries increase in environmental degradation means increasing poverty. These two are related in a vicious downward spiral. The poor are forced to overuse common resources for survival; the resulting degradation of common resources further increases their poverty and problems of survival.
Degradation of land resources increases landlessness, rural unemployment, indebtedness, and exploitation of the weak. Efficiency and productivity suffers with such inequality. Also the whole social and community fabric collapses leading to social and political violence and instability.
The prospect for expanding land for agriculture especially in Asia is now limited. World's agricultural output kept pace with its growing population until 1950.However, land per capita has been declining since then, especially in developing countries. In India, cultivable land per capita has declined from 0.48 ha in 1951to 0.26 ha in 1981.By the year 2000it is likely to be around 0.14 ha per capita. World-wide the decline in grain area per capita was from 0.16 ha in 1980, to 0.14 ha in 1990, and to an estimated 0.12 ha in the year 2000.
In general, a tough decade lies ahead, in terms of food Equity: a Challenge to Development Three-fourths of the world population is from developing countries and accounts for more than two-thirds of the earth's land. Yet these countries live on the fringes of the rich industrialized nations without the benefits of prosperity, forced into subservient role by the international economic order dominated by a few countries of the North. Whereas the people of the North are affluent, the majority of the people in the South are desperately poor. Close to a billion people in the South are too poor to buy food. Whereas by and large the rich countries control their own destinies, this is not true of the poor developing countries where their destinies are vulnerable to external factors and institutions controlled by the North. Take for instance, the international debt situation. Julius Nyerere, the Chairman of the South Commission, pointed out "Creditors are strongly organised in their own interests; they constantly meet for discussions on debt questions and when confronted with individual debtors they work together.Debtorsare unorganizedall this leads to creditors taking political advantage of their ignorance". It is only through a reform of the international system governing flows of trade, capital and technology, based on equity and justice that the developing countries can improve the life of their people.
In the trade negotiations in GAITthe developing countries continue to face many discriminatory barriers to their exports to the powerful industrialized countries. In the Uruguay Round of discussions the grievances of the developing countries for a more equitable system were pushed aside. 4 Many of the developing countries gained their independence in 1950s or 60s. The economies of these newly independent countries were fragile and fragmented. Centuries of colonial rule and exploitation left them weak with not much of an infrastructure for development. Added to these difficulties were the international arrangements for world markets and economy which were designed basically to serve the interests of the developed countries, leaving the developing countries defenceless.
In order to get greater equity and justice in the international economic order, the developing countries have begun to realise that they must organise themselvesthe Group of 77, the Non-Aligned Movement, and the South Commission are all efforts to fight collectively for a more equitable system for the South in the global economic order.
There are other questions of equity in relation to the poor Third World countries. Drugs, medicines, pesticides no longer relevant in their own countries are often dumped in the Third World countries. John Madeley, the editor of the International AgricultureDevelopmentin an article entitled Britainand the Third Worldwrote, "Britain has continued to use the Third World as a dump for pesticides, with British firms setting formulations that contain active ingredients (such as disulfoton and terbulos) which are either banned or severely restricted on health or environmental grounds in Britain and other countries."7 The dumping of toxic waste in Third World countries is yet another problem to be reckoned with in the context of equity, justice and human rights. There is also the concern relating to relocating polluting industries in the Third World to escape 'controls' in their own countries, and/or accidents such as the Bhopal gas leak case of a multi-national in India. Of course, all industrialized countries are not the same. There are economic, social and cultural differences among these countries as is the case in developing countries. They also differ in their approach to environment, equity and development issues and in their attitudes towards developing countries of the Third World.
The current domination of the developed coul)tries must be replaced by a more equitable management of global affairw hich satisfies the interests of the developed and the developing countries and requires the interdependence of the world's people. It has opened the doors for a dialogue, for a political accommodation. A common environmental crisis is moving nations towards greater collaborative effort..The Montreal Convention on reduction of CFCs, the recent London meet on global warming, the forthcoming U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 are steps towards global decisionmaking and collaboration on critical environment and development issues.

Equity and Development
The equity dimension in the development process of Third World countries has also been very disappointing. After independence, and in a concern for speedy growth, development models were borrowed from the West and strategies were adopted which brought in modernization and industrialization but without ensuring equity, employment, or minimum needs of food, shelter or clothing -all goals which the developing countries aimed at, but remained unfulfilled.
In the search for food security, modernization of agriculture was given great importance. The Green Revolution, requiring irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, access to credit, increased wheat production, but the beneficiaries were largely the big farmers. Although land reforms and land tenure systems were introduced these were not effectively implemented, with the result the rich farmers became richer and the poor farmers landless and more impoverished. In spite of modernized agriculture and the Green Revolution there are in absolute numbers more poor and hungry people than ever before. Forty years of development experience in India and without empowering people is hollow and meaningless.
Although 80% of India's population lives in rural areas and more than half of them are landless, unemployed and oppressed, the development bias in terms of investment, education and training and infrastructure development, supports the urbanized population. It is the urban sector that contains the intelligentzia, the articulate and the organised sector, as well as access to power and influence. Inevitably resources get diverted. Whether it is the Pay Commission, the posting of senior civil servants in rural areas, the access to roads and electricity, the price of milk and other agricultural products, it is the urban bias that wins. Forty years after Independence, a large part of rural India is without drinking water, without electricity or other Rethinking the Future According to Lester Brown, world grain harvest increased 2.6 fold between 1950and 1984.But between 1984and 1989,overall production rose only by 1%. Lester Brown predicts that in the decade of the 90s, whereas, population growth is likely to increase by 2%, net increases in grain output are likely to be under 1%. This will mean world grain prices will rise, developing countries will need to import food at exorbitant prices, there will be further deterioration in the international debt situation, and in the resource base pushing developing countries further into hunger, poverty and malnutrition. Barring any dramatic technological breakthrough, or a new international economic order, or a change of value systems and life styles, the decade of the 90s presents a grim picture.

The Gandhian Way
There are enough studies, reports, accumulated data that seem to indicate that the world is moving in the wrong direction, and needs rethinking about its future. Mahatma Gandhi emphasized the moral principle in development. His priorities focused on the rural poor. He believed in denying oneself what could not be shared with the least. Mahatma Gandhi practised what he preached. He lived a life of austerity because as he said "He who has made the ideal of equal distribution a part of his being would reduce his wants to a minimum bearing in mind the poverty of India."s Throughout the ages, philosophers and religious leaders have denounced the material way of life as a path to fulfillment. In the last two to three hundred years the use of science and technology has achieved materialism of a high order. Only now with growing awareness of the implications of industrialization and the global environmental crisis do we realize the price of such growth. As Lester Brownnotes in his Stateof the WorldReport, 1990: "Becauseof the strain on resourcesit creates,materialism simply cannot survive the transition to a sustainable world. As public understanding of the need to adopt simpler and less consumptive life styles spreads, it will become unfashionable to own fancy new cars and clothes. This shift, however, will be the hardest to make. As the amassing of personal and national wealth becomes less of a goal, the gap between have and havenots will gradually close, eliminating many societal tensions." Mahatma Gandhi too believed in putting a voluntary curb on energy resources, without schools and health facilities, roads etc. India like many other developing countries has been two Indias -the modern, industrialized, urbanised India with living and consumption standards close to the Western nations, and the poor rural India with its hunger, poverty, unemployment, exploitation, disease and malnutrition. Unless measures of greater equity, of human rights, of dignity and self-reliance are pursued with passion, development will elude the poor countries.
The economic indicators of growth are flawed in a fundamental way; they do not distinguish between resource uses that sustain progress and those that undermine it. The over-use of resources by a few at the expense of others, whether of water, forests, land etc. are reflected as increases in GNP even though it increases the misery of many who are left bereft. In India in spite of the increases in GNP, in the 1960s,there were 17000villages in UP plagued with water shortages. In 1985they had increased to 70000 villages. In Gujarat in 1979 there were 3840 villages with water shortages, in 1986 t!1erewere 12250 villages thirsting for water. Placing too much confidence in the theory that growth would trickle down, they took little direct action to improve the productivity and raise incomes of the poor, or to ensure a less unequal distribution of land, water and energy, or other benefits of growth such as infrastructure and services of health, education, etc. The consequences of such development are evid~nt. Inequalities and oppression tended to widen, as the economy grew and became more modern.
In most developing countries there is now a deep awareness of the limitations of 'borrowed' development strategies from the industrialized nations. The development of our countries will have to be largely fueled by our own resources taking into account the social and cultural realities, with emphasis on equity and people-centred approaches. Depending on developed countries cannot be counted on for they are likely to take politicaleconomic decisions in their own favour, unless there is a radical change in the international economic order and in the 'minds of men'. material wants. Said Gandhi, "The mind is a restless bird, the more it gets the more it wants and still remains unsatisfied. Our forefathers knew that if we set our hearts on such things we would become slaves and lose our moral fibre."s In a final sense sustainable development, removal of poverty hunger and inequalities, the improvement in quality of life are not merely the function of economic planning, nor of technological achievements, but stems from a moral force which does not accept hunger, the widening disparities between the rich and the poor, nor the over-exploitation of national resources. Sustainable global development will require more equitable sharing of resources, and voluntarily giving up consumptive life styles so that we can live within the planet's ecological resources.
The Green Party too advocates the reduction of consumption. In its manifesto it makes the following statement about the conflicting interests of the North and the South, "As long as our economy depends on increasing consumption it cannot create justice in international relationships. Control of the sources of raw materials and cutting the cost of transferring them to the rich world will always be the top priorities. Thus the poor will stay poor, children will continue to die of hunger, and Western governments will turn a blind eye on oppression, fraud and environmental destruction." Petra Kelly, one of the leaders of the Green Movement said, "The actual danger as well as the potential solutions are not out there. Both lie within us". We can begin, she says, "by reducing our consumption of goods, take only our share of world resources and not take what belongs to someone else." She further stated, "a life style and method of production which rely on endless supply of raw materials, a lavish use of those raw materials, generates the motive for the violent appropriation of raw materials from other countries. In contrast a responsible use of those raw materials reduces the risk of violence." 'Equity, non-violence, ecological living are based on simple life styles,and on a beliefin ahimsa. Thesecannot be preached.
They have to be practised and this is the great challenge before the environmentalists. Gandhi had said, "My life is my message"; Can we do it? In a final sense taking responsibility for our personal behaviour is about the only thing on which we can have control.
The UNESCO Declaration that, "Since wars begin in the minds of men it is in the minds of men that defenses of peace are to be constructed" is equally relevant about poverty, environment and sustainable development issues. It is in the "minds of men" that radical changes will have to be made in order to ensure food security, equity and sustainable development. It is in the minds of men that issues of justice, human rights, 'apartheid' between the rich and poor, between North and South between men and women will have to be fought to ensure a better world.

Comments
The writer is India's eminent management expert. When I read her article, the first thought that came to my mind was the failure of the theory and practice of management in promoting sustainable growth. The growth model that our management experts preach and profess probably accentuates inequitous growth.
In a starkly material world, it is not sufficient to appeal to the moral fibre of man, by preaching simplicity and abstinence in life styles. Even a moralist of the stature of Mahatma Gandhi JourruU of Ecologiad Society, Vol. 5,1992 failed to bring about that change.
What we need is a rationally devised alternative model of growth. Devising such a model is not possible without a deep knowledge of ecology (biological and environmental inter-relationships) both in theory and practice. It is high time ecology is given its due share equal, if not more, to economics and statistics in national planning. (Editor)

PrakashCole
Irrigation has changed the face of India's countryside. Dry riverbeds and stony uplands are replaced by sprawling reservoirs and farm greenery. Canals have brought water to parched lands and thirsty throats. Water is transported or lifted to drench soils in ravines and hill-tops. A large portion of the river basins and stream catchments now lies submerged.
When hundreds and thousands of hectares of land are transformed, it is bound to affect the ecology of innumerable lifeforms that are or were the residents of the countryside. Also as the avowed aim of providing water is to bring about a change in peoples' lives, their activities bring about secondary and tertiary changes in the ecology of the countryside.
I was fortunate to get an opportunity to study these changes brought about by one of the largest irrigation reservoirs in Maharashtra. It is the irrigation reservoir created by a dam near Ujni village in Solapur district on the river Bheema. As a part of the centrally funded project, I am carrying out ecological and socio-economicsurveys of non-human and human beings on the periphery of the Ujni reservoir. Here are the preliminary results of the work we carried out between June 1990and March 1991.