Notes for the Dublin Speech : Why agriculture matters for sustainable development

Ian Johnson

Good evening to all of you and, again a special thank you to the Department of

Agriculture and Food and the government of Ireland for their generous hospitality and

efforts in helping us host this two day meeting.

Over the past five to ten years we have seen the growth of a great many

environmental treaties. The international treaties on climate change (including the Kyoto

Protocol); ozone depleting substances; biodiversity; desertification, and, more recently,

the convention on persistent organic pollutants have placed the global environment firmly

on the international agenda. The Earth Summit followed by the most recent meeting in

Johannesburg has moved our thinking from environment and development to sustainable

development. At the turn of the millennium, world leaders pledged their commitment to

the so called millennium development goals – or MDGs – an ambitious agenda together

with specific targets dedicated to reducing global poverty. Earlier this year, the

Monterrey meeting on finance and development provided new development funds

designed to meet the MDGs. In agriculture we have witnessed the start up of the Doha

round on trade as well as the International undertaking on genetic resources. To this we

can add a great many other treaties, international meetings and commitments.

This breath-taking increase in ostensible internationalism and the rich mosaic of

international commitments presents unparalleled opportunities for the world to “fix itself”
by both tackling the crippling poverty and injustice we see in today’s world as well as

facing the challenges of tomorrow’s world by placing our planet on a long term

sustainable path. If the political will is found and sustained to meet all the targets, and

commitments are made to fund actions to match the fine rhetoric we will have made a

good start to the long and arduous journey towards a truly sustainable and just world.

Failure cannot be contemplated.

In many respects the Johannesburg meeting broke new ground. The quality,

intensity and breadth of debate amongst all segments of civil society (governments,

NGOs, and the private sector) truly moved inter-stakeholder discourse to a new level.

The discourse was wide ranging reflecting the need to think broadly about sustainable

development and not simply about adding an environmental dimension. The discussions

were about our immediate future as well as the future for our children and their children.

And increasingly a view by many at the meeting that we are a highly connected part of a

small global village. Long term sustainable development required growth with

environmental and social responsibility by all. Johannesburg provided much to feast

upon.

Indeed, as with other summits, they can be defining meetings -- shaping agendas

and issues well beyond the consummate word-smithing of diligent bureaucrats. Such

summits provide broad platforms to air big issues. I believe that the Johannesburg

legacy may well be that

(one) it positioned the issue of poverty well beyond an issue of development assistance

but at the heart of the long-term sustainability of our planet. Poverty reduction was

discussed as an economic, ecological and moral imperative.

(two) it implicitly suggested that we need new institutions to deal with the emerging

issues faced by our planet. To some, it signaled the limitations of inter-governmental

negotiations and the cry for new approaches to public policy making -- approaches that

are inclusive of all stakeholders (including governments) yet agile and efficient.

Consultations without decisions, actions without new forms of broad-based

accountability are doomed in the long term. Such thinking is also fully aligned with many

organizational theorists such as Peter Drucker who argue that future institutions will be

network-based, agile and inclusive – something not in great evidence in the inter-

governmental tradition.

(three) it identified key sectoral issues that needed to be addressed over the long-term to

ensure both increased prosperity and poverty elimination but also to ensure

environmental sustainability and social accountability. WEHAB -- a concocted acronym

-- was invented to target water, energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity, all central to

long term sustainability although I believe it was a mistake to not include education also.

Perhaps it would have produced a less saleable acronym -- WEHEAB!

(four) it explicitly placed long-term thinking and actions that underpin sustainability.

Thinking long-term -- in our World Bank contributions to the meeting we chose 2050 as
a useful frame of reference -- helps assess the actions, institutions and alliances needed

today to meet tomorrows challenges. It helps us think through what social, technological,

economic and ecological transformations will be needed to move us towards

sustainability.

Our thoughts about tomorrow’s world must , of course, not undermine our

concern for today’s world. And indeed for many the Johannesburg dialogue on

sustainable development coincided with much uncertainty and trepidation about today –

the tragic food crisis on South Africa’s doorstep, affecting over 14 million people. The

constant thought of war, civil disturbance and disruption. The large and increasing social

inequities within and between countries. The injustice of massive trade distortions and

the low flow of funds from North to South. The concern of global poverty – with 2 billion

people living on less than a dollar a day with poor access to basic services and with

hunger affecting over 800 million and not improving.

Tomorrow’s World

And yet let us look ahead – to fifty years hence – within some of our lifetimes and

certainly within the lifetime of our children. By then – with even modest growth rates

consistent with meeting the 2015 goals and then eliminating absolute poverty we will be

looking at a world GDP of around $140 trillion (compared with the $37.5 trillion

economy of today) – an increment of around $100 trillion! We will have more than an

additional 2 billion on this planet, almost all of whom will be living in the developing

world. Demand for food will at least have doubled from today – driven both by extra

mouths to feed and by the impact of modest income growth on food demand. Hunger
will be both an issue of access and supply. Energy needs will keep pace with per capita

income growth and will likely result in a demand for electricity that will approach an

additional 150 million Gigawatts of installed capacity. Demand for water will increase

dramatically – for agriculture and for household use and with limited remedial action we

could see half the world living under water stressed conditions. In addition, we will, by

then have become an urban world. The infrastructure and housing needs if urban dwellers

are to live healthy and productive lives will be huge. Neglecting our common

environment could begin to impose high and as yet unknown costs : climate change and

loss of biological diversity, both essentially irreversible at least in the medium term.

Does Agriculture matter for the future?

Let us now turn to the focus of this evening’s speech – to address the question of

whether agriculture matters for tomorrow’s world and, if it does, what actions are needed

to ensure it plays a full role in a sustainable future.

From the outset, let me make no apologies for my conclusion -- that, along with

energy, health and education, the agricultural sector is a cornerstone sector of long term

sustainable development.

I will structure my comments around two broad themes --

(i) Agricultures role in poverty reduction both through its impact on

economic growth and its impact more directly on poverty reduction.

(ii) Agricultures role in environmental sustainability.

 I will conclude my talk with some observations on what actions are needed to

move the agricultural agenda to provide us with a period of sustained responsible

growth and prosperity.

The role of agriculture for wealth creation and poverty reduction

Today, in most OECD countries, agriculture accounts for less than 5% of Gross

Domestic Product (GDP). The share of agriculture has historically fallen over the past

two hundred years as mechanization, increased productivity and economic diversity have

increased. In developing countries, agriculture remains at around 24%., although for the

least developed countries, and especially those in Africa, it ranges from around 25% to

68%. In much of east and south Asia agricultures role has fallen somewhat but still

remains an important sector.

Few countries have been able to grow their economies without a solid

contribution by agriculture -- it has long been an engine of growth. Indeed the Green

Revolution and its emphasis on high yielding varieties provided the growth and aggregate

economic surpluses that underpinned the Asian miracle.

Wherever agriculture represents more than 10 to 15 % of GDP agricultural

productivity and growth will be central to economic growth, and wherever fifty per cent

or more of the population is rural and poor, agriculture is central to employment creation.
 There is much empirical evidence on the relationship between agricultural growth

and poverty reduction :

A one per cent increase in agricultural GDP per capita led to a 1.6 per cent gain in

the per capita incomes of the lowest income fifth of the population in 35 least developed

countries analyzed (Timmer, 1997).

A 10% increase in crop yields led to a reduction of between 6% and 10% of

people living on less than a $ a day. For African countries, a 10% increase in yields led to

a 9% decrease in the percentage of those living on $1 a day (Irz et al, 2001).

Agricultural productivity gains in India between 1973 and 1994 increased real

incomes of small farmers by 90% and that of landless laborers by 125% (World

Bank,2001).

Forests and forest products provide livelihoods for around 500 million people,

most of whom are poor (World Bank).

The demand for agricultural products will rise. Today, the world food problem

stems largely from insufficient purchasing power in the hands of poor people, not from

global productivity constraints per se. Total average calories per day has continued to

increase world-wide and today stands at 3190 kilocalories per day for developed

countries and 2385 kilocalories per day for developing countries (FAO) compared with

an average benchmark of around 2200 kilocalories per day. Of course, such averages

mask large variations – we still have over 800 million people who go to bed hungry and

this number appears tragically to be growing. Targetting assistance to the hungry

continues to be a high priority for the world – the 2015 MDG target on hunger represents

one of the key international commitments. Dealing with structural hunger, political

hunger ( a sad reality in many countries affected by conflict) and environmental hunger (

as a result of episodic drought and inclement weather) must be kept under close and

constant scrutiny. Total food availability also masks tremendous differences in micronut

rient deficiencies – what M.S Swaminanthan has appropriately called the “hidden

hunger” caused by deficiencies in iron, zinc and vitamin A. Targetted nutritional

programs deserve increased support.

Yet tomorrow we will witness an increase in demand for food. Population

increases in the developing countries will clearly place new demands for food as we add

2 to 2.5 billion additional mouths to be fed by the middle of the century. But equally

important will be changing dietary demands as incomes grow and households become

less poor. We are already beginning to witness such transformations :

Take India for example: In 1970 milk consumption was around 20 million tons

(in contrast say with the United States at around 60 million tons). Today, consumption in

India stands at a little above 80 million tons (and has just surpassed the United States)

and growth in demand shows no signs of abating.

Global meat demand is projected to grow from 209 million tons in 1997 to 327

million tons in 2020. Production of meat and milk in developing countries is expected to

grow at rates of around six times greater than those of the developed world. :

consumption doubling every 25 years or so. The impacts of such dramatic changes have
been called the “livestock revolution” – a revolution that places even greater strains on

grain production, land use and natural habitats, and the environment (Delgado et al).

Indeed, growth in demand for meat and milk is highly correlated with growth in

income – in low income countries high income elasticities of up to 3 have been estimated

(World Bank). Fish consumption is also increasing exponentially – average daily

consumption has doubled in the past 40 years or so resulting in a huge growth in fish

farming. Aquaculture has moved from around 8 per cent of total catch in the early 1980s

to 25% today and within 25 years will be more than half of total catch globally.

But future agriculture will also not only be focused on food security : multi-

functionality will be a reality for many farmers in the South. Agro-forestry, carbon

farming, ecology management and other services may well become important. The Kyoto

Protocol for example offers new and exciting opportunities for engaging small farmers in

agro-forestry, low till agriculture and other climate friendly activities that can be both

profitable and environmentally responsible.

Given the growth in demand then what can we expect with regard to future

productivity ?

Certainly we have witnessed a productivity boom since early agrarian times.

From 8000 BC to around 1900 rice yields increased in India from one to two tons per

hectare to today were potential yields of 12 tons per hectare are possible (Swaminathan).

The “green revolution” provided considerable impetus for productivity gains and

countries such as India and China have now become amongst the world’s largest
producers of rice, wheat, sugarcane and cotton. Not withstanding this major achievement

however actual total productivity remains well below the potential at least when

compared to the most productive. The figures for India are worth noting:

Crop production rank Productivity (rank) world highest

Rice second 2.8 ton/ha (51) 7.4 ton/ha (Ukraine)

Wheat second 2.5 ton/ha (32) 9.0 ton/ha (Ireland)

Pulses First 0.6 ton/ha (118) 4.8 ton/ha (France)

In Africa we see even greater productivity gaps – for example for comparable

crops and ecosystems an African farmer produces roughly one third of his or her east

asian counterpart. While recognizing the important caveats on policy, weather variation

and the like it is hard not to conclude that productivity gains within existing and known

technologies are entirely feasible – something borne out of the recent successes in west

Africa with respect to the high yielding African rice (NERICAs).

Agriculture and environmental management

Since our quest is to review the potential for agriculture to simultaneously

increase incomes as well as protect the environment it is worth dwelling on the

synergistic relationship between agriculture and environment : agriculture is dependent

on the natural environment but equally our future environment is highly dependent on

future farming practices

 Jared Diamond has written prophetically about the relationship between

agriculture and sustainability. In his research on the collapse of pre-industrial societies

he points the finger to what he terms “ecological suicide” driven largely by unsustainable

farming and harvesting practices. His analysis of the collapse of Easter Island is

especially prophetic driven by extensive agriculture, massive land degradation and

biodiversity mining and leads Diamond to note : “ the fate of Easter Island society seizes

hold of the imagination, because the parallel between Easter Island isolated in the Pacific

Ocean and Planet Earth isolated in our own galaxy is so obvious” (Diamond).

But lets shift to contemporary times. We know that :

Agriculture is the largest user and abuser of scarce water resources. More than 70

per cent of all water abstraction is used in agriculture, often highly inefficiently.

Agricultural practices in some parts of the world are exacting a heavy toll on the

quality and quantity of land. Land degradation in the tropics has been estimated to result

in losses of agricultural GDP of up to 12 per cent per annum (Dixon, World Bank).

The estimated population on ecologically fragile lands has doubled since 1950.

Today, a quarter of the people in developing countries – 1.3 billion – survive on fragile

lands, especially in arid and mountainous areas. Most eke out a living in agriculture.

Many of these fragile lands are home to key biological diversity zones. Indeed,

worldwide around 60 per cent of our known terrestial species occupy only 1.4 per cent of

our land mass, mostly in developing countries and much of it under immediate threat
through land clearing, migration and unsustainable agricultural practices. (Conservation

International).

The growth in, and movement of, livestock also places new burdens on ecological

management. Intensive livestock management and waste management in the developed

world; land degradation in the arid and semi arid zones; and livestock and wildlife

competition are all likely to be magnified in the future as we witness the livestock

revolution mentioned earlier. Africa will present a special challenge – in the next few

years modern science is almost certainly likely to reduce the impact of crippling bovine

diseases (such as East Coast Cattle fever) which could result in an unheralded growth in

cattle in areas of high biodiversity.

Climate change and its effect on weather patterns could also spell doom for many

poor farmers. The impact of climate change will be felt most by poor countries, and by

poor people in those countries. In the absence of remedial actions, crop losses could be as

high as 20 per cent. Climate change may exact many tolls – to the extent that it will

increase the probability of natural disasters it is instructive to note that since 1975 the

total number of people negatively affected by weather events is well over 4 billion, most

in developing countries. Deaths due to flood and drought are ten times greater than those

from earthquakes (Varangis). Increasing effort on both mitigation and adaptation must

have a high priority for policy makers. The vagaries of weather have, of course, been a

constant factor in determining farm income – in developing countries however such

vagaries exact a high toll. Take the case of Morrocco where the principal determinant of

economic growth and performance is directly related to weather and agricultural

performance : GDP growth rates since 1992 have been negative in every year with poor

rainfall (as high as minus 6 per cent) yet as high as 12 per cent plus in years of good

rainfall.

Yet the environment may also offer opportunities to the agricultural sector. Low

and no tillage schemes and community forestry management programs could provide

supplemental income to farmers. Small scale “carbon farming” is being piloted by the

World Bank through its community carbon fund. Farmers are the natural stewards of

natural resources and could begin to play a broader role in ecological management as is

occurring in some parts of Africa and Europe. Local knowledge will yield a high

premium.

The Social Dimensions of Agriculture.

Let me now turn to the final leg of our three legged sustainability stool – social

responsibility and accountability to complement productive income growth and

environmental responsibility. Agrarian societies, especially in developing countries, are

under-going significant transformations. Today, the bulk of poverty is rural. HIV aids

has taken a huge toll on many rural communities – on a recent visit to East Africa a

farmer I met told me about the importance of young farmers associations yet noted that

the problem now is the lack of young farmers : aids has taken a toll pushing the young

and the old to positions of prominence in agriculture. Women have historically played a

very central role in agriculture but rarely has it been recognized. Also somewhat

unrecognized is the effect that social conflict and civil strife has on the rural and

agricultural sector in many parts of the world. In Africa, for example, 22 of the poorest
40 countries are in or just emerging from conflict. It has been variously estimated that

perhaps a quarter of Africa’s potential agricultural land is currently unusable as a result of

conflict.

Social organization at the community, local and national level will become critical

to the future growth of the agriculture. Evidence of community driven development

(CDD) suggests it holds considerable promise in effective rural management (World

Bank) – this has led incidentally in the World Bank to a large increase in CDD work and

we now are funding to the tune of around $2 billion in CDD projects and programs.

Indeed, new and innovative institutional approaches will be critical. In

agriculture we still seem to suffer from the “missing middle” caused by the dismantling

of the state in intermediation services from supply of inputs to marketing and storage

functions. There was pious hope that the private sector would fill the void although in

many countries this has simply not happened. The scope for new approaches engaging

civil society through farmers organizations and local NGOs in service delivery deserves

more attention in many countries where the state has failed. The implicit cry from

Johannesburg for new institutions is as relevant at the local level as it is at the global

level.

Towards an action agenda

Having made the case for agriculture let me now provide some concluding

remarks on what actions will be needed to place agriculture more firmly on the policy
agenda as well as actions that will increase productivity in an environmental and socially

responsible manner.

I would suggest seven broad actions, delivered to you in no particular order since,

at the end of the day, it is the interaction of actions that will produce results:

(One) Reform agricultural trade and increase market access.

Current subsidies by OECD countries now total around $311 billion (2001),

greater than the regional GDP of sub-saharan Africa and one sixth of total ODA flows.

In addition, many developing countries impose high trade barriers which reduce the

potential for effective trade opportunities between developing countries. The potential

economic benefits of global trade reform for the developing world are estimated at some

$142 billion annually. The impact of lowering OECD trade) Ensure that domestic

policies do not discriminate against agriculture.

Sound agricultural and food policies, a supportive macro-economic framework,

barriers has been estimated at a little more than 50 per cent of ODA given in 2001. It is

essential that the Doha round be given high priority and focus to ensure that it is both a

trade and development round.

(Two) Encourage a sound domestic policy environment

Domestic policies which discriminate against the rural and agricultural sector

need to be addressed in many countries. An enabling policy environment for local trade
and market access need to be complemented with sound regulatory frameworks and

vastly improved operation of land markets and land reform.

(Three) Develop sound and sustainable institutions.

Access to financial services, marketing advice, and technical services have all

fallen behind in many countries. New institutions are needed that are accountable, service

oriented and owned by stakeholders. A greater role for both public private partnerships

and for public NGO/civil society organizations should be explored.

(Four) Link agriculture with broad based rural development

Rural poverty can only be addressed in the context of broad based rural growth

and by improving the social well being of rural dwellers, especially those most vulnerable

and at risk. The provision of health and education services, combating HIV aids, and

enhancing household food and income security in times of stress must complement

agricultural policies.

Rural infrastructure is also a key issue in many countries and especially in Africa.

Lack of investment in rural roads has exacted a high toll : in many parts of Africa,

farmers can hardly get their products to local markets and poor infrastructure results in a

high price to be paid for inputs. In some parts of Africa farmers are paying five times the

landed price of fertilizer, surely dampening household income.

(Five) Foster non-farm employment

No country has succeeded in eradicating rural poverty through agriculture alone,

other sectors of the rural economy. Support to productive non-farm investments is

critical.

(Six) Link agriculture with natural resource management.

Agriculture depends fundamentally on natural resource s and has a central role in

their conservation. Agricultural policies and practices for productivity gain must also be

geared towards reducing land degradation, improving water management (“More crop

per drop”), enhancing sustainable fisheries management, sustaining the production of

forest products while protecting the environment, and incorporating climate change

considerations into rural planning.

(Seven) Invest in science and technology

There is considerable evidence of high rates of return to agricultural R and D

(IFPRI). Over the past thirty years massive shifts have occurred in the balance of public

and private investment in R and D. For poor farmers the case for ensuring public domain

access is paramount and hence the case for global public goods research is clear.

Agricultural research will need to link productivity and environmental management

objectives. It will need to be based on local concerns and information as well as

international research. Increasingly social concerns must also be addressed. Given the

increased private sector role in funding research modalities for appropriate public private

relationships will need to be explored.

 As noted earlier, in the short run there appears to be a case for increasing

productivity in low income countries through the application of existing technologies.

But as we look to the future – a doubling of food demand, new threats and vulnerabilities,

new opportunities of linking agriculture with health care provision (such as in quality

protein maize) – debate and discussion on the application of science and technology will

be essential. A better understanding of the scope for traditional knowledge and expansion

of conventional research; the potential benefits and costs of new technologies; the scope

for improved systems approaches to natural resource management; and the potential that

lies in functional genomic all need healthy and informed debate – the subject of our

meeting today and tomorrow.

Conclusion

Being in Ireland reminds us all of the central importance of science and of public

policy in agriculture. In the fall of 1845 a blight appeared in potatoes through Europe. In

Ireland , unlike the rest of europe, the potato was a staple food. By 1850 over a million

irish people had succumbed to famine and a further million or more had emigrated

producing perhaps the first and certainly largest agrarian led diaspora. The combination

of inadequate science and inept public policy has few parallels and its impact is felt to

this day in Ireland. Policies that could have mitigated the potato blight were cast aside for

unenlightened and crippling government policies, enacted from far away. By 1847

evictions of tenants had reached a staggering 100,000. The so called “quarter acre clause”

of the Poor Law provided no relief for small holders with the result that homelessness

and social dislocation became a major source of distress and death. Unenlightened
official policies towards food aid and relief resulted in gross misallocations and the

construction of unproductive assets including the “hunger roads” in the west of Ireland.

Official policies were countermanded to some extent by the early rise of church groups

and NGOs (such as the Quakers) as well as by philanthropic contributions from around

the world including those from other dispossessed peoples (such as the Choctaw and

Cherokee nations in the US).

Ireland ‘s history should not be forgotten as governments develop new agrarian

policies and move towards more science-based agriculture to help the poor and marginal

farmers of the world.

Thank you.

wb55558

A:\Dublin Speech.doc

October 30, 2002 10:58 PM