CHALLENGES FACING CPTM (AND THE WORLD COMMUNITY

CHALLENGES FACING CPTM (AND THE WORLD COMMUNITY): A Report to CPTM
from Thomas R. DeGregori, Fellow

In describing what I consider to be the most important challenges
facing CPTM, let me first give the good news of the transformations
that have brought us to the present as a prelude to the bad news.

The real price of raw materials and other commodities has been on an
overall downward trend for roughly 250 years and the real price of
food has experienced the same general downward trend for the last 150
years. The Green Revolution accelerated these trends over the last
half century so that by early this century, the real price of rice
was about 40% of its 1960 price and the real price of wheat was
roughly 50% of its mid-century price. Every major study of the Green
Revolution has shown that the beneficiaries have been first the urban
poor followed by the small subsistence farmers. The larger farmers
who depend on the sale of their crops have had the much larger yields
partially offset by the decline in price.

From 1960 to 2000, world population doubled while grain production
increased 270% providing a 30 to 35% increase in per capita food
production. Instead of widely predicted famine, the daily caloric
consumption in the developing countries increased substantially.
These increases were achieved with only a 4% increase in land under
cultivation for grains and an overall 7% increase in land under cultivation.

In 1960, roughly 50% of the world's population or circa 1.5 billion
people were in poverty and hunger. Today, using the same criteria,
roughly 860 million of the Earth's 6.4 billion people are in poverty
and hunger or about 12 to 13%. In other words both the absolute and
relative numbers in poverty have fallen.

In addition there was a horticultural revolution so that the
percentage of land under cultivation to fruits and vegetables tripled
over the last 40 years. Since 1980, in developing countries, fruit
production has been increasing at 3.6% a year while vegetable
production has been increasing at 5.5% a year. In fact, contrary to
popular mythology, the Green Revolution has not been based on
monoculture as increases in grain yields has allowed land to be taken
out of cultivation for grains and put into horticultural production.
In most all Asian countries, percentage of land under cultivation for
the primary grains has been falling and not rising. This is also true
of the wheat growing countries of Latin America and elsewhere which
have benefited from the Green Revolution.

There has even been more spectacular growth in the production of
chickens (close to a 5 fold increase in the last half century), egg
production, beef and milk production and pork production. Aquaculture
has been increasing at better than 10% a year since the mid 1980s.

The increase in horticulture and aquaculture in developing countries
has had a two fold effect. First in most Asian countries, it has led
to a substantial increase in local consumption and a more balanced
diet. It has also provided badly needed exports for developing
countries, a much higher return on land under cultivation and higher
wage income for off farm labor in poor countries. The evidence for
the improved nutrition is obvious. Along with interventions such as
oral rehydration, vitamin A fortification, immunization and
antibiotics, improved nutrition has contributed to longer life
expectancies and declining infant and child death. Life expectancy in
developing countries has doubled over the last century while infant
and child mortality has fallen by two thirds over the last half
century. There have been major increases in many parts of the
developing world, particularly Asia, in average height from
generation to generation which is considered a major indicator of
improvements in health and nutrition.

For the first time since these statistics have been kept, child
deaths in 2006 were less than 10 million (9.7 million to be exact)
having fallen from roughly 20 million in 1960 when the world
population was less than half of what it is today. This is also
reflected in population growth. The doubling of population occurred
when decade to decade global birth rates were falling at rates
previously unattained in human history. Globally, population grew
because people were living longer and though they were having fewer
children, more of them were surviving.

One can see why I have been an optimist as I have observed the world
and the conditions of its people getting better!

Now for the bad news:

In spite of global transformations beyond the wildest imagination,
per capita food production and consumption in many parts of Africa
has actually declined. Unless there is a massive infusion of aid
(Gates Foundation and others) for seeds, fertilizer and
infrastructure, the situation could get worse as in many regions of
Africa, farmers are taking more nutrient out of the soil than they
are returning. They are mining the soil and destroying its structure.

However, much better conditions are today, 9.7 million children dying
each year; most of them from preventable diseases is unacceptable.
And 860 million people in poverty and hunger is equally unacceptable.
To meet the needs of both reducing or eliminating hunger, the desire
of many more people for more diverse diets meat, milk, eggs, fruit,
vegetables etc. and to accommodate an expected population of around 9
billion in 2040 (after which population should level off if not
decline), it will be necessary to about double the 2000 level of food
production somewhere along the lines of the 1960 to 2000 growth in
food production. Once again, increases in yields will have to be the
driving force of this growth in the quality and quantity of food
production. This is going to be difficult for the following reasons:

1) I think most of us would not wish to further reduce
rainforests or take any other actions in bringing land under
cultivation that would reduce biodiversity significantly. Essentially
that leaves areas like the Campos Cerrado in Brazil and similar lands
that can and are being brought under cultivation with crops developed
by Brazil that can survive in the soils with a very low ph and other
deficiencies. Increasing food production has had its environmental
costs which were being addressed but current conditions are making
that more difficult.
2) Global warming will seriously complicate efforts to improve
food production and may worsen growing conditions in most parts of
the world except already colder climates. Whatever else, weather
patterns appear to becoming more erratic with much of the unexpected
climatic conditions being adverse to agriculture.
3) There has been a slowing of yield increase over the last few
years as much of the potential of conventional breeding has been
achieved. There are still possibilities for increased yields with
some being spectacular. We can hope that they are realized but we can
not depend upon them.
4) The greatest promise for improved food and agriculture
production can be found in transgenic technology using rDNA.
Unfortunately a systematic global anti-science, anti-technology
campaign of misinformation by groups such as Greenpeace and Friends
of the Earth has successfully frighten European and other consumers
and thereby has greatly complicated the potential advances using rDNA
transgenics (GMOs) and delayed the introduction of Vitamin A enhanced
rice. In peer reviewed articles in leading publications in India and
elsewhere, it is estimated that if every other rice meal children in
India had was Vitamin A enhanced, it would save 40,000 of the 70,000
children's lives lost each year in India because of Vitamin A
deficiency. The NGO led regulatory delays in India of about 6 years
will result in 240,000 children losing their lives because of them.
The Luddites have made the introduction of transgenic food crops more
difficult yet they than use the lack of more production of transgenic
food crops as an argument against them. Thus far, we have not held
them accountable for the huge cost in human life that is the result
of their anti-science, anti-technology campaigns. Let me state
categorically that there is no controversy in science over the
legitimacy of biotechnology just as there is no controversy in
science over whether evolution is a fact of life on earth. The
evidence for this is massive and I can provide it or you can find it
on my webpage.
5) The idiotic antics of the anti GMO NGOs were turning me less
optimistic but I had been convinced by the steady growth in
transgenic agriculture in maize, soybeans and cotton in both
developed and developing countries that we would eventually win on
this issue even with the needless delay resulting in a significant
cost in human life. I have been further heartened by the outstanding
work being done in China, India and elsewhere on a variety of other
transgenic crops. But the current mania for turning food crops into
fuel crops (other than for fuel for the human body) has finally
turned me pessimistic for the first time in my adult life. In
principle, I am not against forms of alternative energy including
biofuels. Instead of subsidizing ethanol and other biofuels from food
crops, governments ought to be funding research into producing fuel
from algae, switch grass or other grasses or plants like jatroba
which offer the "possibility" of producing fuel economically and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions without adversely affecting food
production. The need for rapid advances in controlling greenhouse gas
emissions requires a vastly better understanding of both the costs
and benefits of alternative biofuel sources. The anti transgenic
actions made me concerned as to whether we could continue the
progress of the last decades but the food to fuel mania has me now
worried that we may in fact even reverse these trends. Previously, we
could discuss the future of food production in terms of what was done
in the past seeking to continue and improve upon what was done right,
correct what was done wrong and find new ways of making things even
better. Now we have to be concerned about keeping things from getting worse.
6) Need I enumerate in what is an already prolix statement the
daily news stories (particularly the BBC World News and the Financial
Times of London) about rising food prices, rationing in some
countries, restricting food exports in others, and talk of rationing
food aid. Global food reserves are at a 60+ year low and a serious
weather problem in some of the major food producing areas could
further compound already worsening conditions. Every major forecast
expects the food condition to worsen significantly this year and of
course in the coming years. The likely macro economic recessionary
conditions that are emerging further complicate our efforts.
7) Food production has always been a concern to many CPTM
countries. Even issues such as AIDS have a food component with part
of the problem being inadequate nutrition. I could go on in much more
detail but simply stated the global food situation is bad and getting
worse. I strongly believe that this is not just another topic that we
can discuss at our dialogs but in fact, it is so central to all other
issues that we would be negligent and in denial if it was not a
central theme and topic for discussion. In many CPTM countries, the
adverse effect of increased food prices is being offset or partially
offset by the rising price of raw commodities that they export. The
surge in demand for raw commodities by the BRIC countries (Brazil,
Russia, India and China - two of which also benefit greatly from the
increase in the price of their commodity exports) has been driving
the upward movement in commodity prices. Some commodities such as
coffee and cocoa have not participated in this upward surge. Coffee
is great (I love to drink it) as is the various forms of cocoa but
coffee is not a source for nutrient and cocoa is rich in nutrients
but not a large enough component of most people's diets to make a
difference or to make-up for the expected food shortages. The
inability of producers to respond to the increase in demand has been
partly a function of the dearth of investment in mineral commodity
production resulting from the extremely low mineral prices in the
1990s. Over the long term it is highly likely that there will be
increased investment for expanding commodity production in minerals.
Then would then be a concomitant reduction in price. Coversely, the
prospects for significantly increasing agriculture production and
decreasing the real price of food are not even remotely is as
favorable. In other words, CPTM countries currently benefiting from
high commodity prices (primarily in minerals) have to be prepared for
the real possibility that the historic downward trend in the price of
minerals may resume or at very least, the current upward trend will
not be sustained. We may or may not have reached the "peak oil" but
for mineral resources there is no shortage of known workable sources
where continued technologically change has been reducing the cost of
extracting and processing them. Ironically, one raw commodity
experiencing a significant downward price pressure has been cotton
(the price of which was artificially low because of US subsidies)
because of the major increases in production in India, China and
elsewhere as a result of the introduction of transgenic
cotton. There is a message here but unfortunately, the NGO
propaganda machine has so distorted it that it has not made it to the
general public and to policy makers in developed countries.

Thomas R. DeGregori, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Houston
Department of Economics
204 McElhinney Hall
Houston, Texas 77204-5019
Ph. 001 - 1 - 713 743-3838
Fax 001 - 1 - 713 743-3798
Email trdegreg@uh.edu
Web homepage http://www.uh.edu/~trdegreg