The cost of the shopping cart in Spain goes up and up. A drama. But not an exception. The same happens in many other places. “The crisis is global”, quotes Michael Fakhri (Montreal, Canada, 1977), United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food. And although it is usually blamed on the war in Ukraine, or the skyrocketing price of energy, he warns: it's worse, it's structural, he would anticipate a major economic crisis like in 2007. Then came the financial crash of 2008.
Hunger in the world seemed to be less. Is it now growing structurally and in the long term? There are soaring prices, logistical problems, war...
Hunger and malnutrition in the world began to increase again in 2015, before the pandemic. As soon as this began, since 2020, in addition, a food crisis is unleashed. And now, at the same time, you see a rise in conflict and violence, one of the main drivers of hunger and malnutrition. It is a structural problem. And the last time we had a world food price crisis was in 2007-2008, before the global financial crisis of 2008. Many of the problems that caused that crisis still exist today. And when there is a crisis like this, it is often the first step before seeing a deeper economic-financial crisis. It is the current situation.
In 2007-2008 there was a problem of speculation with food... Is speculation back and at the worst moment?
Yes, unequivocally. I'll give you a very concrete example: when Russia invaded the Ukraine, what happened almost immediately was that the price of wheat skyrocketed. It was said that it was due to the reduction of the offer due to the war. Russia and Ukraine are the largest wheat producers. But if you look closely and look at global supply the expected immediate disruption was going to be only 1% and prices shot up 70%. The price did not reflect actual supply and demand, it reflected panic and hoarding by speculators, it reflected an unstable market because since at least the year 2000 food is increasingly treated as a financial instrument that is traded like any other and less and less as real food necessary for life itself. The market, shot through with speculation, amplified a European regional war and turned it into a global crisis.
Even if the Ukraine war ends, will high food prices continue? Also in Spain, for example?
Even if the covid disappeared tomorrow and the war in Ukraine ended tomorrow and Russia withdrew from all Ukrainian territory, we would still be in a food crisis. The problem, also for Spain, is that the market is broken. The rules on food trade are outdated and food is treated as a financial instrument with the problem that prices are fluctuating. There is an unstable market. go up a lot And then go down. And then it goes back up. The rules are designed to maximize profit for corporations. We see its effects today.
The Chicago Mercantile Exchange is believed to be key here because it is there where everything is traded.
In 2000, the US passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and, to this day, it allows speculators to bet on the evolution of food prices. In other words, they do not actually trade the real raw material, but rather financial instruments that affect people's access to food. The Chicago Stock Exchange is one of the main commodity markets in the world. It significantly influences world prices. This is definitely the place to start settings. It would have global repercussions. Others also point to the London markets.
He has defended that food cannot be used as a weapon of war. But somehow everyone uses it?
Yes it's true. The blockade in Yemen led to famine and thousands of children starving, and very little was done by the international community. And it also happens in Russia and Ukraine. We see it over and over again. The flip side is that the Black Sea grain deal between Russia and Ukraine to allow wheat, fertilizer and other essential agricultural inputs to leave their ports makes it clear that even in wartime enemies have to work together because the entire food system is interconnected. Using food as a weapon to harm the enemy always harms your own people and harms yourself. And yet the laws of war, unfortunately, allow it. International law is also part of the problem.
Much has been said that when China and India reach Europe's energy consumption, there will be problems with prices, supply, etc. Can we say the same about food?
I don't think so, although the war in the Ukraine has shown Europe that international trade cannot be trusted as much as it has been up until now. In the last 60 years many countries have depended on the export of food and agricultural products and many others on their import. What this war has revealed is that the system is not sustainable. It has never been sustainable. You can't depend so much on trade. And most importantly: relations can no longer be based strictly on commercial relations, they have to be based on solidarity, as some would say; I would say reciprocity.
The former chief economist of the World Bank Branko Milanovic, in a recent interview in La Vanguardia, stated that "globalization has come to an end." If we add to this adverse weather etc., can we expect higher prices and the danger of a new South in the North?
It's a point to keep in mind, but governments during the pandemic learned what worked to ensure that people had access to good food. For example: universal free school meals, supporting local farmers and local farmers markets, protecting workers… The list is there. It is not a mystery. What is now frustrating is that these programs are treated as temporary relief measures in times of emergency; they should be made permanent because they have worked.
The usual answer will be: “There is no budget”.
And my answer is: "Is there no budget for a program that feeds your people in a way that guarantees the right to food?" Has no sense. And as for the prices, they are not magic, they reflect who has more bargaining power. They are determined by political decisions. Governments decide what they support and what they don't. We learned this in the 2007 food crisis because the price of food skyrocketed and that created hunger but it was still too low to support our farmers. So the price was neither high nor low. It was irrational. Prices are also determined by incentives, subsidies, regulation. This is where the right to food comes into play and once we value food in human and ecological terms, then we can build and create proper institutions to reflect that value, not as an economic one. Prices have to be fair and stable.
Who presses more against that change? Because nothing has changed.
There is the status quo of those who benefit from a system that kills everyone, that of industrial agriculture. It's the model promoted since at least the 1960s. Then there's a group that feels we can live with inequality and corporate power and believes it's the policies that need to change. And then there is the group that I would place myself in, which comes from a perspective of human rights and justice. The starting position is that it is not about politics, it is about power. You have to distribute it. We cannot allow what happened in the pandemic, that supermarkets and agri-food companies made billions while people suffered.
The industrial food production system made it possible to feed the entire world. Now, in the face of the climate crisis, a more ecological agriculture is called for, which is opposed to it. Is there an exit? Do you have to choose?
Hunger, historically, since the 1960s, has always been a political failure. And never a lack of supply. And if we go back historically even further, some 100-150 years, most commonly famine and starvation were also caused by political failure, rarely by lack of sufficient food. Agroecology has shown time and again over the last 20 years that it can produce enough food to meet everyone's needs from the hand of nature. The challenge is how. It's almost like dealing with a drug addict. We have a system addicted to chemical fertilizers and corporations and you can't stop immediately. The speed will be different for different communities. Some countries will have to rely on trade more than others. But you have to start thinking about how as soon as possible.
Do we need a global government?
The UN Committee on World Food Security is a great place to start. He has the right to food by mission and civil society is represented. Includes everyone. The structure is already there. The challenge has been and is the blockade of the powerful countries. The majority consensus is to use it to create a coordinated plan to respond to the food crisis and climate change based on the right to food and human rights. Here's the irony: the two main countries blocking it are the US and Russia. Moscow and Washington are at odds geopolitically but agree that they do not like the right to food and human rights to be at the center of the solution; While they agree that they do not want to use the Committee to address the issue from a multilateral perspective, Russia and the US are blocking a coordinated international plan based on multilateralism and human rights.
