Sustainable Development : a Necessity to Feed the World?

• by Bertrand Hervieu
  INRA
  147 rue de l'Université, 75338 Paris cedex 07 (France)
  bertrand.hervieu@paris.inra.fr

1. An International Panorama of the Food Issue
2. A Solution to be excluded: entrusting a handful of Farmers with the Responsibility of feeding the World
3. Three Ways of taking up the World Food Challenge : Controlling Globalisation, promoting Agriculture
and revitalising the North-South Partnership
Conclusion

Paper read at the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences on Monday 13 May 2002.

Over 800 million people suffer from chronic malnutrition and, although more than a third of humankind never go hungry, this third is constantly confronted with food scares: these figures are brutal and clearly show the paradox and extent of the food issue in the 3rd millenary.
One more figure: according to the United Nations, soil deterioration now affects roughly two thirds of the world's agricultural area (1). This information shows the extent to which the agricultural issue is linked to the problem of the conservation of natural resources and thus to the issue of sustainable development.
The gist of this article is on the agricultural and rural, but does not especially focus on nutritional and health dimensions, nor on the problem of fishing, although the latter plays a major role in the world food system. It is more specifically a political, economic and sociological analysis of the relationship that intrinsically links food to agriculture and rurality (2).

[R] 1. An International Panorama of the Food Issue

1.1. Despite Constant Progress, many People still go Hungry
· The Figures of Malnutrition in the World
The FAO (Food and Agricultural Organisation) estimates that 815 million people were suffering from chronic malnutrition at the end of the XXth century and that, each year, 12 million children died of malnutrition related diseases (3). Famines are still wreaking havoc in Black Africa, Southern Asia and the Middle East.
This situation is unacceptable and thankfully seems to be improving. In fifty years, the quantity of food per inhabitant has, on average, increased from 2,320 to 2,800 kilocalories per day (4). This improvement is all the more remarkable as, in parallel, the world population has more than doubled: 2,5 billion inhabitants in 1950 for over 6 billion at the present date. In 1999, 17% of the world population were under-nourished, as compared to 37% in 1969.
· A Contrasted Evolution from one Region to another
Overall, the situation has therefore improved. Unfortunately we are only talking about averages. Quite apart from the developed countries that have lived in abundance for the last fifty years, there is unfortunately an increasing gap between the developing countries that are progressively wining the fight against chronic food shortages, and those that are still fighting against hunger or are constantly regressing.
Thus, Latin America, Eastern and South-Eastern Asia and even the Indian sub-continent have made remarkable progress over the last 30 years, especially owing to modernisation of farming techniques impulsed by the "Green Revolution", which took place in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1961, only five developing countries (100 million habitants) could provide a diet of 2,500 kcal per inhabitant. In 1999, there were 43 (including China), i.e. a total of 2,54 billion inhabitants.
On the contrary, the situation of the most underprivileged countries is inexorably worsening. The number of under-nourished people in the least developed countries (LDCs) has doubled over the past thirty years (from 116 to 235 million) (5).

· A mainly Political and Economic Problem
These disparities illustrate one of the main features of the evolution of the hunger problem in the world. Malnutrition used to be the direct consequence of a lack of production potential; it now seems to be the result of the inadequate organisation of the economic and political system on which the production and distribution of food commodities are based at the local level, and of trade regulation at the international level.
Wars and political instability are above all responsible for today's famines and shortages, rather than climatic and agronomic constraints. It must be added that a fair share of agricultural production in under-developed countries is lost, as it is not correctly stored, conditioned and dispatched.
Finally, the following paradox should be recalled to mind once again: three quarters of these under-nourished people are precisely those who should normally be in charge of their own food and that of their fellow citizens. These 600 million poor farmers are victim of price-cuts induced by the liberalisation of trade and draw from their own reserves to renew their production potential - and often fail in the process.

· Dark Days to come, especially for Africa
The world food situation is undoubtedly worrying. And it is all the more so, in the light of the demographic perspectives. Although world population growth has now slowed down, the world population is still constantly increasing. There may be 9,3 billion inhabitants in 2050 and these figures could reach 10,5 to 11 billion by the end of the century (6). The population will essentially grow in the developing countries, i.e. in those countries that are presently subject to malnutrition (over 95% of the population suffer from malnutrition (7)). Africa is particularly exposed: its population will more than double during the first 25 years of the XXI^st century. Yet, according to FAO, one third of the African population already suffers from malnutrition. In Hervé Le Bras' words, "Africa is a failing continent as regards demography and food production" (8).

1.2. One third of Mankind is not Subject to Malnutrition but increasingly suffers from Food Scares

· An Event in the History of Mankind: all Risk of Famine has disappeared on several Continents
A major part of humanity suffers from hunger, but the other part lives as if they will never lack food. This is absolutely new, at least on such a scale.
Europe is now the second international exporter of agricultural commodities but France long suffered from food shortages: eleven in the XVII^th century, sixteen in the XVIII^th century and another ten in the XIX^th century. These fears now seem to belong to the past on continents such as North America, Europe, Japan, but also Oceania and a major part of Asia. Roughly one third of the world population consider the question of supplies, bridging the food gap and restrictions as completely outdated.
This fundamental cultural and social "revolution" is mainly due to the modernisation of agriculture, which began over two hundred years ago and gained ground during the second part of the XX^th century, thus carrying us from the agricultural era into the agro-industrial era, as Louis Malassis wrote (9). Modern agriculture is now mechanised, motorized and benefits from the contributions of science, while relying on a powerful industrial and market sector; one farmer can now feed over fifty people, whereas half a century ago he found it difficult to feed just two and a half.
Of course, there are still localised areas of malnutrition in the developed countries. In the United States and Europe, around 10% of the population suffers more or less severe nutritional deficiencies. This phenomenon is obviously not due to a drop in agricultural production but to the social disqualification of certain categories of people, as a result of unemployment and lack of local and family solidarity. The fact that the great agricultural and agri-food powers are also faced with malnutrition shows that the issue of food is not only a matter of producing food but also of access to food.
People are no longer deprived of food or restricted and this has had an effect on mentalities and on our social structures. Together with medical and sanitary progress, the agro-industrial and food revolution has led to a spectacular increase in life expectancy on several continents. In developed countries, life expectancy is now of more of less 70 years of age. In Japan, Sweden, Island and France, the life expectancy of women is of over 80 years. To situate the scale of this transformation, we must recall that in England, France, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, life expectancy was of 35 years in 1800, 45 in 1880 and 50 in 1900 (10).

· The Ransom of Success: Increasing Food Scares
Although the spectre of famine has long disappeared from many regions of the world, new concerns are arising. In the 1990s, in many developed countries, and especially France, a succession of health crises gave rise to increasing food scares (BSE, listeriosis, dioxin, foot-and-mouth disease, etc.). In spite of the limited number of victims, these crises caused major economic damage (several billion francs for the second BSE crisis that began in October 2000). On the social scale too, this spate of "food scandals" has confirmed the idea that food safety can no longer be guaranteed. Thus, today's society no longer trusts its food production system.
This unforeseen phenomenon is surprisingly brutal and widespread. Of course, these crises are not unfounded. The BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) epidemic definitely affected a considerable part of the French cattle and abnormal rates of listeria are indeed discovered, from time to time, in different batches of pork meats. However, most of these problems existed before the the 1990s. Certain food risks are now less frequent thanks to sanitary advances. As a result, cases of listeriosis in France have decreased by a factor of three between 1987 and 1997.
These facts all converge towards seeking a socio-cultural explanation to the rise in food fears. As the quantitative issue of food is no longer problematic, it seems that our fears have moved to other areas and especially those of food quality and safety. As we know we will not lack food, we are now interested in the way it is produced. In so doing, we find out that the production-processing-marketing system, the agri-food sector, has become extraordinarily complex and obscure and that it no longer has anything to do with former short and transparent food circuits. The origin of our fears resides above all in this new distance between producers and consumers, this disconnection between production and consumption.
This therefore leads to a paradox: since the "agro-industrial revolution", we no longer have to worry about food shortages, and our health and life expectancy have made great progress. Yet, because of these very evolutions, we are now subject to food scares and more and more of our fellow citizens are ill at ease when it comes to food.

· The Painstaking Questioning of the Agricultural Model at the Origin of this Success
The agro-industrial era has not only had positive or negative consequences on the food behaviour of today's society. It has also deeply changed the environment, the territorial balances and our relationship with animals. From the point of view of agriculture, these upheavals have had an influence on the relationship we have with our food.
The deterioration of natural environments due to certain agricultural practices is now an established fact. The state of water resources is particularly alarming: in 1999, nearly a quarter of all waterways were claimed to be of poor or very poor quality as regards nitrates (11). Of course, agriculture is not the only one to blame. However, it has been estimated that three quarter of all nitrogen inputs come from agriculture, due either to animal excrements or to fertilisers.
At the territorial level, the advent of the agro-industrial era has also induced profound changes. Although these changes have had less media coverage, they are non the less significant. As a result of a dual movement of concentration/specialisation, the French agricultural landscape had radically changed. French farming used to be characterised by its terroir products: "a bit of everything, everywhere", but it is now characterised by production basins: cereal, suckling, pig, dairy basins… The other aspect of this redeployment, essentially dictated by optimisation of the agro-industrial circuit, is the emancipation of all links to the land and soil. Off-soil production of pigs and poultry thus illustrates, in a caricatured way, the current split between agriculture and the territory, a split which affects landscapes and threatens the fragile balances that our agrarian society has patiently built over the past centuries.
As for animals, the strive for profitability has led us to transform domestic animals into "income" animals whose role is to convert plant proteins into animal proteins. The first lived relatively near to human beings, whereas the second are consigned to sheds or stables. They are no longer killed according to specific rituals but are given a mechanical death, and the living organisms that once linked agriculture and thus our society to nature are no longer taken into consideration. This is probably one of the factors of the increase in food scares and one of the reasons why consumers are turning away from meat products.
The food issue will have to be solved in the years to come, and in so doing the three following points must be respected: it is first essential to eradicate hunger within a world population that will practically double between now and the end of the century; then to reconcile today's society with their food, that is to say with their agriculture; and last, all that is to occur in a context of sustainable development.
The imperative of sustainable development was not mentioned in the Agenda adopted at Rio in 1992 and is far from being a fashionable issue. It is simply a natural choice, as the food issue cannot be dissociated from that of agriculture which is involved in the three stages of sustainable development: the economic stage, as for many countries, development and especially the fight against poverty imply agricultural development; the social stage, as around half of the world population directly or indirectly live from an agricultural activity; and the environmental stage, as agriculture, more than any other activity, consumes and modifies natural resources.

[R] 2. A Solution to be excluded: entrusting a handful of Farmers with the Responsibility of feeding the World

There are different ways of taking up the above challenges, and above all the eradication of hunger (a priority amongst priorities). Some are however unsuitable as they are non-sustainable. We could not, for example, entrust a handful of farmers from the same background with the responsibility of feeding the world.

2.1. A Dream and a Temptation

· The Temptation, for the Developed Countries, is to feed the World while intensifying Production
This idea is both a temptation and a dream. It is a temptation for some developed countries that are now self-sufficient thanks to the modernisation of agriculture and are able to provide for the needs of a large part of the world population, starting with that of developing countries. This solution is not totally irrational and is even quite generous: faced with the difficulties encountered by peasantries in Southern countries, it would be both simple and more sure to resort to the production capacities of Northern countries. However, this plan is also underpinned by economic considerations: exporting agricultural and food commodities - since that is the point - means contributing to the equilibrium of the trade balance and therefore to the national wealth of a country. Finally, the agricultural populations of developed countries consider the perspective of "feeding the world" as a natural continuation of the objective of national self-sufficiency. Therefore, they do not call the current model into question or demand that it be changed, as this is difficult to assume and to implement.
· A "Positivist" and Ethnocentric Dream: transposing the Western Model to the South
To "feed the world", we can also consider working with a minority of ultra-productive farmers spread across the planet, including in developing countries, rather than resorting to a handful of Northern farmers. To do so, we could simply apply the productivist model to southern agricultures, a model on which is based the agricultural success of many developed countries. In a certain way, this is a "positivist" dream and it is a dream resting on the fact (sensible, at first sight) that what succeeded in the North should be applicable to the South.
· A Technically Conceivable Solution
This dream and temptation are all the more conceivable since, from a technical point of view, nothing prevents their implementation. As Paul Bairoch remarked, over the last four decades, French agricultural productivity has been multiplied by roughly 7.5, "that is 1.5 times more than during the 15 decades that preceded the Second World War, thus at least as much as during the 8-9 millenaries separating the invention of agriculture from the Second World War." (12) Given the progress of science and techniques, how can we doubt that these will not be able to take up the oncoming food challenge?

2.2. An unsustainable solution, in all respects

Although technically conceivable, entrusting a handful of farmers with the responsibility of feeding the world would raise considerable environmental, economic and social problems. It is contrary to the principles of sustainable development itself and therefore unsustainable.
· Unsustainable from an Environmental and Territorial Standpoint
This plan is above all unsustainable for the natural environments of developed countries that already show worrying signs of deterioration. In spite of ever more environment-friendly agricultural techniques and practices, asking our farmers to feed the world would mean condemning our water resources, soil and wildlife. Moreover, such an option is not only contrary to the principles of sustainable development but is also rejected by a growing part fraction of the population.
Transposing the productivist model to developing countries raises the same problems. The Green Revolution is based on yield increases resulting from agricultural intensification and on improvement of cultivated varieties and has certainly enabled us to achieve spectacular results in terms of agricultural development, especially in Asia. These results have however been followed by soil erosion, fast deforestation and depletion of water resources in many regions. Continuation of this trend along the same logic therefore seems somewhat compromised. Extension of this "revolution" to other continents, especially Africa, is even more uncertain. Its success in Asia can indeed be attributed to two favourable factors: the persistence of elaborate agricultural know-how and availability of water resources. These two elements cannot be found, or at least not to the same degree, in Asia, Latin America or Africa where local savoir-faire has long been destroyed.
On the territorial level, an excessive or forceful agricultural intensification is just as unsustainable in the North as in the South. In developed countries, concentration and specialisation processes have already led to major transformations in the agricultural landscape. As is the case for the environment, our fellow citizens are less and less willing to sacrifice their landscapes and territorial balances for an extra bit of productivity. In developing countries, the fast modernisation of agriculture had already led to problematic population migrations. The urbanisation and "littoralisation" of populations and agricultural production are questions that Southern countries must now seriously take into consideration, as these phenomena will eventually bring about severe economic and social disorders. In China, some 70 to 80 million "floating peasants" have fled the countryside and, despite strict control by the authorities, contribute to the deterioration of rural areas to the advantage of urban coastal areas.

· Unsustainable from an Economic, Social and Political Point of View
There is no denying that entrusting a minority of farmers with the responsibility of feeding the world raises environmental and territorial problems. But the most serious difficulties are economic and social, as the agricultural and farming world has a major place in today's demography. Of course, the active farming population is now extremely low in industrialised countries (1.6% in the United States, 4% in France). But in China, it is still of 67.5%, roughly 65% in Southern Asia and over 80% in Burundi, Nigeria and Burkina Faso. Despite ever-growing urbanisation, agriculture takes up roughly half of the planet.
If Europe and North America were the main suppliers of raw material to all other continents, half of the world population would be condemned to inactivity. This would also be taking the risk of durably destabilising those societies which are organised and structured around their peasantry. The risks of social deconstruction are just as important, as regards the "dream" of directly transposing the productivist model to Southern holdings. In Brazil, the brutal modernisation and industrialisation of agriculture have led to a drastic increase in the number of boias frias (literally "cold meals"), salaried employees living in appalling conditions. Their employer's truck takes them constantly changing work sites that vary from day to day, week to week and following the seasons. The increasing lack of job security drives these people towards the dreaded outskirts of cities or into the cities themselves (13).
Our societies have withstood the "end of peasantry" thanks to industrial development, the Welfare State and the advent of consumer society, although not without tragedies that cannot be overlooked. The redeployment of agricultural societies is now completely different, as in most developing countries this mutation can neither be supported by employment, or the State nor by consumption.
From an economic standpoint, the agricultural and agri-business sectors play a major role in comprehensive economic development. Except for several areas ideally situated from a commercial standpoint (Singapore, for example), few countries have succeeded their economic takeoff without reinforcing their agricultural production and processing capacities. Without attempting to transpose the European or American model, it can be said that no country can be developed or reconstructed without a minimum of agricultural economy and without being somewhat self-sufficient as regards food. In some ways, this is the translation in terms of sustainable development, of Raymond Lacombe's famous slogan "No country without farmers", or of Charles de Gaulle's well-known statement: "A country that cannot feed its own is not a great country".
Finally, we must add and underline the fact that the temptation to feed the world represents a danger from a political point of view. The food weapon is a true factor of power. If it were in the hands of a handful of countries, it would be as great a threat to world geopolitical balances as would be the concentration of war weapons. World peace and balance can simply not be achieved on a planet where a small minority claim the right to feed a major part of humanity, thus condemning the latter to permanent assistance, and even worse, to meaninglessness.

2.3. The logic of the liberalisation of agricultural exchanges nevertheless leads up to this solution

· Agriculture is caught up in Globalisation since the Marrakech Agreements
Whether entrusting farmers from developed countries with the responsibility of feeding the world or transposing the productivist model to the peasantries of developing countries, both strategies stem from the same logic: that of economic rationality and that of replacing the less performing agricultures by the most productive. Yet, this agenda is at the heart of the process of globalisation and deregulation of agricultural and food trade, which has gained momentum over the past 10 years.
For farmers world-wide, the outstanding international agreement of the 90s is not that of Rio on sustainable development, but that signed in Marrakech in 1993, in the framework of the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). This text symbolises the end of the agricultural exception and implies a progressive alignment of the sector on the general rules of international trade: suppression of customs barriers, abolition of national support to exports and of price support policies.
Along with the structural adjustment policies imposed by the World Bank and the IMF (International Monetary Fund), this agreement strongly contributes to accelerating trade liberalisation with all the perverse effects they entail, especially for peasantries in developing countries.
· The Failed Promises of the Liberalisation of Agricultural Exchanges
Its partisans consider that the liberalisation of agricultural exchanges should stimulate economic growth through increasing valorisation of comparative advantages, favour abatement of poverty and thus the solvent demand for agricultural commodities. This would therefore contribute to the development of agriculture in Southern countries. Unfortunately, reality is quite different.
The free trade discourse imposed by the great powers, and especially the USA, has become a dogma. These States are able to protect their own commodities, via elaborate sanitary regulations or laws. They are the only countries that have a real influence on the course of international negotiations and the resulting agreements. Faced with these practices, what can impoverished countries do? Nothing… as their customs systems are insufficient and they have hardly any international lawyers.
This politico-economic inequality goes along with a profound unbalance between the productivity levels of competing agricultures. In developed countries, agriculture is mechanised and is part of a powerful agro-industrial complex, whereas in developing countries, animal traction is often the main technology of subsistence agriculture. Differences in productivity may be as wide as 1 to 100.
In these conditions, two thirds of the world trade in agricultural and food products are controlled by the developed countries. Europe alone controls over 50%, as compared to 0.7% for the least developed countries. The liberalisation of trade is of no advantage to the poorest countries that nevertheless count on their exports to ensure their currency and solvency. Therefore, although export volumes in Africa increase by 4% each year, the income derived from these sales decreases by 6% per year: such is the reality of globalisation in Southern countries.
This competition is not only unequal; it also destroys the peasantries in Southern countries. As most borders are now open, developed countries (first the USA, then Europe) export their products and deeply penetrate the markets of developing countries, thus slashing prices and causing the ruin of local producers. Due to the so-called liberalisation of trade, the developed countries allocate considerable budgets to supporting their own agricultures. This policy is at the source of an imbalance that has a negative effect on existing local production capacities in developing countries and accelerates the social and territorial deconstruction processes that threaten these countries.
Therefore, as opposed to the promises made by the advocates of trade liberalisation, agricultural production in the least developed countries has decreased during the 1990s and 600 of the 815 million people suffering from hunger are farmers. FAO itself has admitted that the aim, established at the 1996 World Food Summit, of reducing the number of under-nourished people by half by 2015 would not be reached. At the end of the 90s, the number of under-nourished people decreased by an average of 6 million/year. To reach the target set in 1996, the average should be of 22 million/year…
Finally, it must be added that in the developed countries, and especially in Europe, the acceleration of trade globalisation has also had destabilising effects on both farmers and consumers. Obviously, the damage is not to the same extent. Yet, the successive market crises, acceleration of agricultural decline and the increase in territorial imbalances were mostly due to the process of liberalisation-deregulation undermining the foundations of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and especially, its market regulation mechanisms. In the same way, the irruption of foreign processed or unprocessed agricultural products and the increasing industrialisation of the agri-food sector (two direct results of trade globalisation) have both contributed to the increase in food scares in Europe, and more particularly in France. Globalisation has become the symbol of food standardisation, and even of danger due to the lack of boarder controls and lack of seriousness in the production-processing process in the name of a logic of profitability and competitiveness.

· These Imbalances are accentuated by inappropriate use of food support and inadequate orientation of support to development
These imbalances could be compensated by ambitious support to development, encouraging developing countries to face competition.
The amount of public aid for development has stagnated over the last ten years, and has even decreased for a certain number of donating countries: 58.3 billion dollars in 1992 down to 53.1 billion in 2000 (14). Only five countries, all of them European, have reached the objective set by the United Nations (0.7% of the GNP): Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands. In spite of their declarations of intention, we cannot buy acknowledge that public aid for development is no longer a priority for rich countries.
Most agriculture cooperation programmes have noted that public aid for development is not only insufficient, but is also mistargeted and mismanaged. These programmes waver between two positions. One follows the cooperation rhetoric, but does not respect its spirit: what counts is doing business, and cooperation networks are an easy way to get into the target country. At the opposite end of this cynical stance, there is a genuine desire to cooperate. It stems from the "missionary" concept claiming that it is necessary to help countries that are clearly unable to help themselves. The projects stemming from this concept (that directly transposes Western production models) generally fail as they do not take into account local social, natural and economic constraints.
Finally, the perverse effects that food support can have when badly targeted should be recalled and underlined. Food support is of course indispensable in situations of major food shortages, but it can also contribute to destroying local markets and discouraging local producers. "Food support has a pernicious effect on agricultural development", FAO's general director, Edouard Saouma, declared in 1994.

[R] 3. Three Ways of taking up the World Food Challenge : Controlling Globalisation, promoting Agriculture
and revitalising the North-South Partnership

3.1. A controlled globalisation would guarantee the right of populations to feed themselves

· Food sovereignty
Half the world population consists of farmers and their families, yet several hundred thousand people suffer from hunger, while a persistent uneasiness as regards food has taken hold of our fellow citizens in developed countries. Therefore, it is difficult to say that agriculture and food should be considered from the commercial angle only. It is no longer possible to pursue the current logic, i.e. the logic that stems from the Marrakech agreements and which includes the objectives attributed to the new cycle of multilateral negotiations initiated at Doha, in November 2001. The food challenge and, moreover the world food challenge in the perspective of sustainable development, require a different approach to globalisation, the first objective of which should be the right of a population to feed itself  (15).
This would allow developing countries to develop their agriculture and thus become self-sufficient for food. Sufficiency does not mean autarky: exchanges are necessary and profitable, so long as they are controlled, whether the aim is to ensure trade balance or complement national agricultural production. The development of agricultural production is absolutely essential to solve the problem of poverty: three quarters of the people living under the poverty line live in rural areas and thus directly depend on agricultural activity. We have seen that poverty is often at the origin of malnutrition problems, whether due to failing production or to access to food. Agricultural development is therefore the key to harmonious (not to say sustainable) development. It is also the only means of ensuring the stability of the world food system.
For developed countries, France in particular, the aim is not to become self-sufficient (as this is more or less the case), but to implement the adequate agricultural and food model.
The "right of a population to feed itself as it likes" is indeed the only way to reconcile our developed societies with their food, and thus with agriculture.
"The right of a population to feed itself" and "to feed itself as it likes" both stem from the same principle: that of food sovereignty, which implies that each country, or group of countries, is free to determine its modes of food supply. Just like economic, political or cultural sovereignty, the exercise of food sovereignty must be in keeping the international system in which it is included. Globalisation of agricultural and food trade is directly called into question.
· Controlling Globalisation so as to govern the Market
Globalisation is a reality that everyone has to face and that is, in many respects, beneficial. The aim is not to refute, but to control it so that it becomes advantageous for as many people as possible, and especially for the poor.
Controlling globalisation first means ensuring a degree of protection at national boarders for agricultural and agri-food products. That is, protection through price setting that take into consideration the differences in productivity between the different agricultures, but also a non-price protection (mainly sanitary and phytosanitary standards) to protect consumer health and guarantee environmental conservation. This protection is all the more efficient when implemented at a regional level. It was first implemented in Europe in the 1960s and is now being applied in other countries (especially Mercosur countries (16)). The solution consists of creating a multipolar world composed of regional customs unions grouping countries with a comparable level of development, a process designed to ensure the stability of the world food order.
Controlling globalisation also implies regulating the world supply of agricultural commodities so as to stabilise prices. The latter must be sufficiently high to allow developing countries to balance their trade balance, and remain reasonable for countries that must buy supplies to ensure their food balance. The responsibility of this regulation effort mainly lies with the great agricultural powers, whose exports weigh heavily in the destabilisation of world markets.
It is absolutely essential to regulate the offer and protect boarders so as to face up to the issue of food. These ideas go against the liberal principles on which the globalisation process is founded, whether in the field of agriculture or in other economic sectors. Because agriculture is inherently a different sector, its stakes are particular (land use, half of the world workforce, access to food) and it is subject to specific constraints (natural hazards, rigidity of demand); thus agriculture can request a specific treatment. The discourse advocating control of globalisation and the right of populations to feed themselves must be based both on these fundamental reasons and on the denunciation of the damage caused by the liberalisation/deregulation process.

3.2. Promoting forms of sustainable agriculture

· From the right of populations to the duty of States
Control of globalisation is the first precondition for the emergence of an equitable and sustainable world food order. The second condition demands a focus on forms of agriculture reconciling efficiency, environmental conservation and respect of social balances; in brief, forms of sustainable agriculture to be promoted by public bodies through adapted agricultural and territorial policies.
Agriculture is more than a matter of markets, it is a State affair and has long been so for the great industrial and commercial powers. This has been particularly the case in France, where the creation of the Ministry of Agriculture in 1881 and the implementation of a veritable agricultural policy were determining economic, social and commercial leverages and helped to integrate the rural population into society. The same thing occurred all over Europe, where the EEC was essentially founded on the CAP. In the United States, agricultural policies exist since the 1930s.
There is no question of transposing the French, European or American models to developing countries. In return, experience shows that the role of the state is to stimulate and direct the development of national agriculture. The market, NGOs and farming organisations also have an important role to play in this process. Yet none have the capacity or legitimacy required to guarantee a controlled and reasoned modernisation of agriculture.
· Guaranteeing a controlled and integrated intensification of agriculture in Southern countries
All Southern countries can become self-sufficient for food by modernising their agriculture. In doing so, they will also have to face up to the paradoxical but established fact that all self-sufficient societies cease to be agrarian societies. This immediately raises the problem of the future of local peasantries and, indirectly, of rural territories which are managed by these peasantries.
To successfully modernise agriculture in Southern countries without causing irreversible social or environmental damage, we above all need time. And time is obviously lacking when international trade is driven by profitability alone.
It is essential to select adequate production models. Thanks to the Green Revolution a good part of Asia no longer suffers from malnutrition. This success is primarily due to research efforts that have led to the use of new high yield varieties. Moreover, these innovations were implemented without any form of mechanisation or rural exodus. The main benefit of the Green Revolution is that it enabled several countries to become self-sufficient, without causing a dramatic deconstruction of their societies. Of course, this model cannot be transposed to all continents (it cannot be adapted to the African environment, for example). Yet, it shows that it is possible to modernise subsistence agriculture by taking local specificities into consideration and thus allow countries to become self-sufficient without destroying their social fabric.
Finally, self-sufficiency and environmental conservation can be reconciled so long as the modernisation of agriculture is based on existing local ecosystems, rather than on destroying them to transfer the models applied in temperate countries. This is the case of direct sowing techniques, integrated methods to control pests and crops grown under another plant cover, on which agronomists are currently working (17). The same goes for varieties adapted to the local climate and especially to the water constraints. At the planet level, agriculture consumes 70% of all water resources. Water management, along with food safety, is therefore another major challenge.
· Promoting Multifunctional and Quality-oriented Agriculture in Europe
In developed countries, and especially in Europe, the productivist model is running out of steam and new perspectives are opening to farmers.
New environment-friendly practices are being developed, such as integrated or organic agriculture. Quality products linked to a particular terroir or know-how are also developing. The traceability of control procedures is also being reinforced so as to reassure and inform consumers. And finally, diversified services such as rural tourism and non-food supply chains are developing: biofuel, basic synthesised molecules, textile and pharmaceutical industries, etc.
The range of goods and services offered to consumers is indeed widening and creates new opportunities to be seized by farmers with the help of public authorities. However, agriculture is not solely an activity producing raw materials and marketable services. It is also, and more and more so, an industry producing immaterial and non-marketable goods, harmonious landscapes, living territories and quality natural resources. The community naturally pays for these general interest missions.
The new contract between society and agriculture is therefore determined by this new approach to agricultural activity, incarnated in the concept of multifunctionality, environment-friendly agriculture and in consumer demands. Such a contract would appease our fears and contribute to reconciling our society with its food. It would also open up new horizons for farmers, would reincorporate them fully into society and would guarantee the preservation of natural resources, social balances and the development of new opportunities. In brief, this contract would guarantee the development of sustainable agriculture and a sustainable food system.
3.3. Renewing the foundations and revitalising agricultural and scientific cooperation
To take up the food challenge, the international trade system needs to be redirected and agricultural practices changed. We would also need to adopt a completely new vision of cooperating with the Southern countries and increase public aid for development in conformity with the principle (unanimously accepted but rarely applied) of North/South solidarity.
· An Ambitious Aid for Developing the Agricultures of Southern Countries
Modernising agriculture is a costly investment, especially when this objective is added to that of sustainable development. The European Union can certainly confirm this fact as roughly two thirds of its budget have long been absorbed by the CAP. Yet, the public finances of developing countries are in great difficulty. And private, national or foreign investors generally prefer to invest in speculative commodities, which does not help to reinforce the self-sufficiency of Southern countries.
Developing countries thus more than ever depend on public aid for development. In this context, the European Union has just recently claimed that it's objective is to donate 0.39% of its GNP by 2006. The aim is now to keep this promise and even to exceed it… in Europe and all other developed countries. The objective of 0.7 % set in the 1970s is still a major imperative.
Public aid to development is now more important and its implementation modalities must be oriented. The "missionary" vision that inspires most cooperation programmes is outdated. Public aid must be based on the expectancies and particularities of its beneficiaries and not on the ideas and convictions of the donators. It must be based on local savoir-faire, starting with that of the farmers, and take into account the natural constraints of the country concerned. It must also systematically include lifelong training so as to correctly implement new practices.
Food aid is still a necessity but must only be resorted to in critical situations, so as to limit its perverse effects. The situation can also be improved by privileging local or triangular purchases, while targeting the beneficiary populations and respecting their food habits.
· Scientific Cooperation adapted to Local Particularities and Needs
Southern countries lack above all the science and technology enabling them to modernise their agriculture. The example of the Green Revolution shows to what extent targeted scientific cooperation adapted to local needs contributes to the success of a development programme.
As for agricultural development programmes, scientific co-operation must partnership approaches. The best results are obtained when local and Western researchers work side by side: first because this solution makes it possible to adapt Western technologies to local specificities, and moreover because it reinforces the research and expertise capacities of Southern countries for the years to come. Rather than "knowledge transfers", Southern countries need structures to back up their scientific production, structures that encourage the emergence of a local scientific and technical culture, the true key to development and the sine qua non condition for acquiring internationally acknowledged scientific knowledge.
· Ensuring Access to Genetic Resources and Biotechnological Discoveries
Cooperation in the field of genetics play a particularly important role in the agricultural development of Southern countries. By adapting certain animal and plant species to local practices and ecosystems, production can be intensified without damaging the natural balances and production systems underpinning the structure of farming communities.
Developed countries have the most knowledge and skills, both in the field of "conventional" selection and biotechnology. This concentration is threatening as it may become exclusive with the development of life patents. The issue is therefore to give developing countries access to genetic resources while protecting intellectual property rights, a driving force for both research and innovation.
Public research has played a major role in this field. It has invested scientific domains that exclusively concern developing countries and do not interest private research (sorghum, millet and other subsistence crops). On the other hand, it has given Southern countries access to inexpensive varieties, knowledge or processes that are normally inaccessible and has helped them implement them.
Beyond public research, with its unavoidably limited investment capacities, all innovations and knowledge in the field of genetics must be made accessible world-wide. At the international level, this involves regulations and procedures reconciling the rights of breeders and those of farmers, intellectual property rights and development rights. Biodiversity must be taken into account, promoted and safeguarded through inventory, knowledge and management procedures, while guaranteeing the rights of Southern countries on their native genetic resources.

[R] Conclusion

The objectives of working towards sustainable forms of development and feeding the world are therefore not antagonistic. We can even go as far as saying that they are closely linked: humankind cannot solve its food problems, beginning with that of hunger, without conciliating economic development, social balances and conservation of the environment. To reach this objective, both the North and the South must respect their commitments. Three categories of actors have a particularly important role to play. Farmers come first as they have the responsibility of "feeding the world" and, if it comes to that, of feeding themselves since they make up half of the world population. The political bodies come next: they must have the courage of adopting national and international regulations and policies, since in their absence, there will be no sustainable agriculture and even less sustainable development. The last actors are the scientists who have no miracle solutions, but without whom humankind could not solve its food problems. Farmers, political bodies and scientists: none of these actors can take up the challenge of hunger and food fears alone. Yet, together and coordinately, they possess the keys to the world food problem.

Bertrand Hervieu is president of INRA.
This article is taken from a paper read at the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences, by Bertrand Hervieu.

Translated from French by Nicole Scott.

[R]

(1) United Nations: Report by the General Secretary of the United Nations on the implementation of Agenda 21, Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, February 2002.[VU]
(2) United Nations: Report by the General Secretary of the United Nations on the implementation of Agenda 21, Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, February 2002..[VU]
(3) FAO: The state of food insecurity in the world, Rome, 2001..[VU]
(4) FAO set the minimum threshold is set at 2 350 kcal/day..[VU]
(5) HCCI (High Council for International Cooperation): Opinions and report for the Prime Minister "World Food Summit: five years later", Paris, 2001..[VU]
(6) United Nations, op. cit..[VU]
(7) FAO: The state of food insecurity in the world, Rome, 2001..[VU]
(8) Hervé Le Bras: "L'Europe agricole sera-t-elle malthusienne?" Agra-débats, n°1, June 1995..[VU]
(9) Louis Malassis: "Nourrir les hommes", Paris, Flammarion, 1994..[VU]
(10) Daniel Noin: "Géographie de la population", Paris, Masson, 1994..[VU]
(11) IFEN (French Institute for Environment): The key figures of environment, Paris, 2002..[VU]
(12) Paul Bairoch: "Dix huit décennies de développement agricole français dans une perspective internationale (1800-1980)", Économie rurale, n° 184, 185, 186; "Le Tiers Monde dans l'impasse. Le démarrage économique du XVIIIe au XXe siècle", Paris, Gallimard, 1971..[VU]
(13) Jacques Chonchol: "Paysans à venir. Les Sociétés rurales du Tiers Monde", Paris, La Découverte, 1986 ; "Systèmes agraires en Amérique Latine. Des agricultures préhispaniques à la modernisation conservatrice", Paris, IHEAL, 1995..[VU]
(14) Paper released by the OECD Development Assistance Committee, April 2001 23rd..[VU]
(15) Bertrand Hervieu: "Du droit des peuples à se nourrir eux-mêmes", Paris, Flammarion, 1996..[VU]
(16) Created by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay in March 1991 with the signing of the Treaty of Asuncion. It originally was set up with the ambitious goal of creating a common market/customs union between the participating countries on the basis of various forms of economic cooperation that had been taking place between Argentina and Brazil since 1986.[VU]
(17) Marc Latham and Antoine Cornet: "Progrès scientifiques récents et impact de la recherche sur le monde paysan du Sud en vue d'un développement durable". Extracts from the conference on "Food safety and sustainable development" given at the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences and the Academy of Sciences, Paris, Technique & documentation, 2000.[VU]
[R]