A recent promise by G-8 leaders to help the world’s poor obtain food security has left many critics skeptical due to a history of policies that some say have looked after the interests of major agribusinesses before those of the world’s poorest farmers and most malnourished citizens.

At the G-8 summit in L’Aquila, Italy, member nations promised to donate $20 billion to programs that President Obama said would “help people become self-sufficient, provide for their families and lift their standards of living.” Obama also said that recipient countries — especially African ones — must do their part to stop corruption, which has exacerbated Africa’s dependence on food aid, a message that he repeated in directly to Africans after the summit on a visit to Ghana. But a lack of owning up to its own responsibility, coupled with proposed solutions that some say don’t address the heart of the problem, have some anxious that G-8 have little intention of ensuring food security to the billion people around the world who currently lack it.

A history of woe

While the President certainly has a point about corruption hindering Africa, the failure to recognize how G-8 countries have helped push Africa to the brink of starvation in the first place has some worried that the G-8’s proposed remedy will do more harm than good. How can anything else be expected when past injustices aren’t recognized?

African leaders may have a history of corruption, but the behavior of global financial institutions and Western governments has been equally shameful. Since decolonization, the IMF and World Bank imposed numerous structural adjustment policies on African governments, by which they were forced to adopt certain policies in order to refinance recklessly lent loans — money that was lent, in many cases, to unpopular dictators no longer in power. These policies, which included the opening up of agricultural markets to industrially-produced subsidized agriculture from richer countries and the cessation of government funded financial support for farmers, turned Africa from a net food exporter decades ago, to a net food importer today.

The IMF and World Bank could have chalked up these debts to unwise lending practices, forgave the debt and called it a day, but instead pursued them. The African countries, not wanting to be financial pariahs, had little choice but to accept the terms.

G-8 nations’ culpability in the current food crisis does not stop with the World Bank and IMF, either. African food shortages, in recent years, have been exacerbated by speculation on commodity prices, “land grabbing”, and increased investment in biomass energies throughout the world. These latest phenomena saw global food prices spike last year, leading to unrest around the world. This sort of instability is precisely what the G-8 is hoping to prevent from happening again, particularly as the world battles a protracted global recession. However, in the G-8 joint statement on food security, land grabbing was not mentioned at all, and biomass and speculation were only given cursory mentions.

One step forward…

Richer countries may be shirking responsibility by denying the massive role that they have played in Africa’s demise. But by trying to reduce the dependence of African countries on food aid, G-8 leaders are at least implicitly acknowledging the ineffectiveness of prior aid efforts — efforts that in many cases were geared more towards pushing corporate farming interests than helping African countries feed themselves.

Here is the paradox in combating hunger: When food aid is given in-kind, like 90% of U.S. agricultural aid was in 2005, farmers in poorer countries take a massive hit. How can they sell their products when the U.S. government buys up corporate surpluses and dumps them on their markets? All this is made more troubling by the fact that legislation for “Title I food aid programs” give priority to exporting food to poorer countries in order to pry open commercial markets (pdf). Just who are we trying to aid, anyway?

It may seem counter-intuitive that richer countries can somehow be responsible for depressing prices and raising them, but the proof is in the pudding… or lack thereof. This didn’t happen overnight, either. “First they destroyed Africa’s capacity to produce its own food,” explained Eric Holt-Gimenez, Executive Director of Food First, an agricultural research institution based in Oakland, “then global commodity prices went through the roof.”

…Two steps back

Changing the focus from merely giving food aid to spending money on reducing poor countries dependence on food aid is, in the long run, the right policy. Just don’t bet the farm on the aid being effective, if it actually is spent, that is. Not only did G-8 leaders fail to acknowledge the problem of unfair distribution in their joint statement, but according to experts, much of the $20 billion represents aid that was already pledged, but is yet to be delivered.

“This is getting ridiculous. Every time the G-8 gets together, we get new pledges and they never come through,” said Eric Holt-Gimenez,. “At best, it will bring them up to prior obligations,” he said, citing promises made as far back at the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, that have never been fulfilled.

Even if the aid money represented only new assistance, and if it and old pledges are actually spent, critics are concerned that the G-8 will adopt unwise policies anyway. Speculation is set to continue: commodities like food are a safe bet in rough economic times, and G-8 leaders remain committed to open markets (for Western producers, anyway).  Land grabbing, too, has received little recognition as a negative force from the G-8, and with agricultural subsidies set to continue as they are, why not recognize that free trade is a myth, and scrap it? Africa could feed itself and then some when its agriculture was protected, so why not let them protect it again?

“The shift is to invest in agriculture,” Holt-Gimenez said, explaining why more practical policy measures have been avoided.  “And it seems new: it comes out of a World Bank report, the first one on agriculture in 20 years. The problem is what does that mean?  It means opening up markets for genetically engineered (GE) crops, and further research for GE crops, particularly in Africa.”

Some believe that GE crops can increase farm yields to alleviate the world’s hunger pangs, though not all are convinced. Monsanto and other firms that make GE foods have been trying for some time to incorrectly assert that the a consensus exists within the scientific community regarding the safety of GE crops, recent research by the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (ISAATD), an international, inter-disciplinary study of agriculture funded by the U.N. and the World Bank found that the use of GE crops were “not appropriate.” Monsanto, too, had worked with the ISAATD, until they did not get their way, left the association and attempted to bring its work under disrepute.

Yet it is not the only study appealing to governments to err on the side of caution with respect to GE foods. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called GE foods dangerous in a position paper, and said that GE crops, in the field, are not proven to have a higher yield than conventional crops. Due to their findings, the AAEM called for a moratorium on GE crops — very concerning when one considers that GE don’t even have to be labeled as such in this country.

Not only are the benefits of GE crops questioned by the scientific community, but the need to buy patents for the seeds on an annual basis will be an additional burden to already impoverished farmers around the world. Even if they don’t chose to use GE seeds (that is, if the market for seeds remains competitive), farmers could find themselves on the wrong end of lawsuits. Moreover, GE crops resistant to insects and other animals can harm biodiversity — the fragile balance that allows some ecosystems to thrive.

“If [genetically engineered agriculture] is where the money is going, it’s worse than no money at all,” Holt-Gimenez warned. Though the technology is unproven, expensive and controversial, Africans should brace themselves, because according to Monsanto, it’s coming to them.

“Some experts suggest we will need to produce more food in the next 50 years than we have in the past 10,000 combined,” said Nick Weber, a spokesperson for Monsanto, making his company’s case. “In order to meet these demands, farmers, regardless of size or location, need access to the best tools, which includes high-yielding hybrid seed many of which have powerful biotechnologies inside. These seeds can also increase yields even further with the use of quality fertilizer and improved agronomic practices. The world needs all farmers to be successful to meet these growing demands, and at Monsanto, we’re pleased that the G-8 is supporting the success of farmers in developing nations.”

Both production and distribution?

Weber and companies like Monsanto do have a point — agricultural production in poorer countries could likely use a boost in order to support large populations and enrich farmers, but what sort of boost? Wouldn’t production in Africa increase if African farmers were protected from a glut of foodstuff from abroad? Do they really need transgenic species to help them, especially ones that require annual patent purchases? Are “quality fertilizer” and “improved agronomic practices” enough? What about simply improving small farmers’ — the majority of Africa’s agriculturalists — access to land and water?

Thanks to the G-8, we are unlikely to find out the answer to any of these questions. In the joint statement, member nations do allude to “biodiversity”, “sustainability” and “social protection.” But one can’t help but think that “increased agricultural productivity” and “free markets” will win the day, as they have in recent times. Even if the markets aren’t free, and agricultural productivity, in the long run, doesn’t increase. Besides, the G-8 is missing the point, somewhat — regulating speculation, land-grabbing and trade could help solve the problem all the same.

“We have one and a half times the amount required to feed every man, woman and child on earth,” Eric Holt-Gimenez said. Although the amount of food per capita is diminishing with population growth, the point is that the current food crisis should not necessarily be seen as a failure of farms to produce enough, even with Africa’s agricultural production capacity left in tatters by richer countries.

“The G-8 doesn’t want to address the root cause of the crisis, though,” Holt-Gimenez said. “There is too much money to be made.”

Other Guest Columns:

[+] Op-ed: With liberty, justice and innovation for all
by Teri Schindler

[+] Op-ed: The Good Business of Good Citizenship
by Patrick Davis

[+] Revitalizing Public Service: Primed for Change, Fueled by Passion
by Ruby DeMesme

[+] Where does government fit into Obama’s call to service?
by Chris Asch

[+] Raising the visibility of public service
by Chris Asch