* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Failure to find concrete solutions to global food and climate challenges will unravel G20 efforts to stimulate growth and reduce trade barriers
The G20 and agriculture don’t quite mix. Or at least, not in a way that produces concrete action.
Despite key members such as the United States, China, Brazil and Argentina being agricultural powerhouses - and consequentially major carbon emitters - it is curious why agriculture has not featured more prominently on the G20 political agenda, and quite possibly a real oversight.
This year’s G20 host, Australia, is a major producer of wheat and beef, and a country that is besieged by harsh growing environments, severe drought, water stress and a changing climate. So why is agriculture not more prominent in discussions that are supposed to promote “Growth and Resilience”?
The challenge of feeding 9 billion people by 2050 sustainably – on the same amount of land or less, and with the same amount of inputs or less – is not only a serious global challenge that should be treated accordingly, but a central element for global growth and resilience.
No country, either from within the G20 or outside it, is immune to the pressures on agriculture from growing mouths to feed, or more uncertain climates and severe weather events. We know that agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, yet it could also be a major carbon sink if land and soil was better managed.
But the radical changes that are required to make agriculture more sustainable will not happen if the most economically and politically powerful countries are not talking about it. Failure to find more concrete solutions to global food and climate challenges will almost certainly unravel the G20’s efforts to stimulate growth, harmonise global financial markets and reduce barriers to trade.
According to the FAO, more than 3 billion people – almost half the current global population – live in rural areas, the large majority of whom rely on agriculture for their livelihoods.
Creating income-generating opportunities in agriculture is central to eradicating extreme poverty because it enables people to work their way into sustainable livelihoods. Moreover, catalysing the agriculture sector will fulfil immediate needs for job creation and raising incomes as other sectors may take longer to develop.
Yet since 2008 when food prices skyrocketed to unprecedented levels and continued to remain high and volatile, the global body responsible for responding to global economic challenges hasn’t come up with many concrete solutions or programmes to soften the impacts.
Is it fair to put this responsibility onto the G20? Certainly, they alone cannot singlehandedly increase agricultural productivity, improve trade relations, or mitigate the impacts of climate change on agriculture.
Yet, given the political and economic power wielded by these 20 countries, the potential to have done more in the last seven years beyond creating an agricultural market information system (AMIS) in 2011 certainly exists.
Although improving transparency in agricultural trade is not to be underestimated and will hopefully prevent the panic-stricken reaction of countries hoarding food, as seen in the wake of the 2008 food crisis, it does little to address the current challenges faced by poor agricultural producers and food-insecure countries.
FEW FORUMS FOR AGRICULTURE
Agriculture, apart from during the 2011 French presidency, has by and large been addressed sparingly in the “Development Agenda” of the G20 – a work stream that houses most international development issues. Over the last few years, it has actually been sequestered into a forum for chief scientists. But future G20 summits might want to consider giving agriculture a more prominent place on the agenda.
With other contentious agricultural policy debates also in deadlock (anyone remember the Doha Development Round of trade negotiations meant to remove millions from poverty by reforming agricultural support policies in developed countries?), the climate change negotiations too have managed to largely exclude agriculture.
Debates around biofuel mandates and indirect land-use change that impact both the climate and livelihoods, all seem intractable. In short, there are not many forums that are currently giving agriculture the attention it deserves.
This leaves the G20 in a fairly uncomfortable place if they can’t reform policies that affect agricultural productivity and trade. All they are left with is funding agricultural development and climate change adaptation programs in developing countries.
While the G20 was established expressly to be different from its predecessor the G8 and to reflect new global realities and power dynamics, it also shied away from becoming a mechanism for aid.
The question is then, what is the G20 to do about agriculture? It should stick to the tough questions and continue to slog through the politics, even if this happens at a glacial pace. These problems aren’t going away soon, and ignoring them or pushing them to the sidelines won’t help much either.
With an emerging economy taking the G20 reins in 2015, there is hope that Turkey, a country with deep roots and a clear future in trade and agriculture, will make these issues a priority.
Emily Alpert is the deputy director of Agriculture for Impact, an independent advocacy initiative that aims to enable better European government support for productive, sustainable, equitable and resilient agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa, focusing in particular on the needs of smallholder farmers.
