World Food Summit, 1996

MAC/WFY

Page-348

0230_553559_39_cha35

348

The 1990s and Beyond: International Conferences

sense of a deepening food crisis that necessitated a major initiative on economic,
humanitarian or political grounds.

FAO's own assessment of the world food security situation concluded that it

showed only `a modest deterioration in 1993/94 compared to the previous year'
(FAO, 1994b). A tighter world cereals market situation and accompanying price
hike in 1995 temporarily raised concern about problems of unstable supply and the
possible effects of the GATT Uruguay Round, but these pressures eased during 1996.

The timing of the WFS was also far from ideal. Coming at the end of a series

of international conference held during the first half of the 1990s, there was a
distinct feeling of conference fatigue. There was also a widespread perception in
official circles that there were too many institutional arrangements, too many
bodies with overlapping mandates and duplication of responsibilities, not just in
the areas of food security but in the whole international system for supporting
human security and development. The effect of contracting aid funds resulted
in resources being spread even more thinly, raising problems of aid effectiveness
and efficiency. Holding the summit in November 1996 conflicted with other
competing attractions. The newly established WTO was to hold its first meeting
within weeks. Most significantly, the attention of the major force in world food
supplies, trade and aid, the United States, was focused on its presidential election.
Within the United Nation, the impending election of a new secretary-general was
a further distraction. And the outbreak of a large-scale human-made disaster in
central Africa also drew attention away from the summit.

Concern was also expressed as to what was the real purpose of the summit.

Were there any hidden agendas? In its position paper prepared for the summit,
the United States considered that the `primary focus [of the WFS] is the unfinished
job of enhancing food security for that 700800 million people who are still food-
insecure. In this sense, the crisis is perceived to be geographically concentrated
not the global crisis of the early 1970s' (US, 1996). It acknowledged, however,
that there were global concerns about the longer term capacity of the world to
meet ever-increasing food needs without destroying the environment and natural
resource base, particularly as economic pressures and policy changes had reduced
global public investment in agricultural research and financial support for agri-
cultural development. Nevertheless, the United States pointedly recalled that FAO
member states had agreed that the WFS was not a conference about pledging new
resources, was not aimed at creating new financial mechanisms, institutions or
bureaucracies, and would not reopen agreements reached in other forums. Rather,
the WFS was `designed to examine realistic approaches to food security'. In so
doing, `it was essential that current market conditions and strong grain prices not
divert the Summit from its primary purpose of addressing the long-term challenge
of global food security'. The United States was concerned that failure to keep the
current situation in proper perspective could lead to calls for inappropriate market-
distorting actions and policy changes, and that whatever short-term benefits such
changes might provide would make the road to long-term global food security
even harder.

Significantly, a major shift had taken place in the concept of food security

since the 1994 World Food Conference. Then world food security was erroneously

Home

eBook	World Food Security: A History since 1945


Useful links	World Food Summit, 1996 MAC/WFY Page-348 0230_553559_39_cha35 348 The 1990s and Beyond: International Conferences sense of a deepening food crisis that necessitated a major initiative on economic, humanitarian or political grounds. FAO's own assessment of the world food security situation concluded that it showed only `a modest deterioration in 1993/94 compared to the previous year' (FAO, 1994b). A tighter world cereals market situation and accompanying price hike in 1995 temporarily raised concern about problems of unstable supply and the possible effects of the GATT Uruguay Round, but these pressures eased during 1996. The timing of the WFS was also far from ideal. Coming at the end of a series of international conference held during the first half of the 1990s, there was a distinct feeling of conference fatigue. There was also a widespread perception in official circles that there were too many institutional arrangements, too many bodies with overlapping mandates and duplication of responsibilities, not just in the areas of food security but in the whole international system for supporting human security and development. The effect of contracting aid funds resulted in resources being spread even more thinly, raising problems of aid effectiveness and efficiency. Holding the summit in November 1996 conflicted with other competing attractions. The newly established WTO was to hold its first meeting within weeks. Most significantly, the attention of the major force in world food supplies, trade and aid, the United States, was focused on its presidential election. Within the United Nation, the impending election of a new secretary-general was a further distraction. And the outbreak of a large-scale human-made disaster in central Africa also drew attention away from the summit. Concern was also expressed as to what was the real purpose of the summit. Were there any hidden agendas? In its position paper prepared for the summit, the United States considered that the `primary focus [of the WFS] is the unfinished job of enhancing food security for that 700800 million people who are still food- insecure. In this sense, the crisis is perceived to be geographically concentrated not the global crisis of the early 1970s' (US, 1996). It acknowledged, however, that there were global concerns about the longer term capacity of the world to meet ever-increasing food needs without destroying the environment and natural resource base, particularly as economic pressures and policy changes had reduced global public investment in agricultural research and financial support for agri- cultural development. Nevertheless, the United States pointedly recalled that FAO member states had agreed that the WFS was not a conference about pledging new resources, was not aimed at creating new financial mechanisms, institutions or bureaucracies, and would not reopen agreements reached in other forums. Rather, the WFS was `designed to examine realistic approaches to food security'. In so doing, `it was essential that current market conditions and strong grain prices not divert the Summit from its primary purpose of addressing the long-term challenge of global food security'. The United States was concerned that failure to keep the current situation in proper perspective could lead to calls for inappropriate market- distorting actions and policy changes, and that whatever short-term benefits such changes might provide would make the road to long-term global food security even harder. Significantly, a major shift had taken place in the concept of food security since the 1994 World Food Conference. Then world food security was erroneously back to top Next page
© 2009