The main problem of 2023 and ahead will be food security in our own survival

GLOBALLY PEOPLE ARE WORRIED ABOUT ADEQUATE FOOD FOR ALL IN THE COMING YEAR 2023 AND AHEAD

 INTRODUCTION

 We have made so many technological inventions, evolvements, and development during the last five years. Now the Internet is no less important than electricity. There are thousands of satellites from various countries providing information on a real-time basis of climate, apparent natural calamities, and various other inputs for scientists worldwide to become though at the time limited accurate foresight to avoid some negative impacts on humanity. Now some genius scientists are talking about space tourism.   People like Elon Musk have invested billions. After observing the classical computer and software, it is widely observed that we could not expect any more advancement through the classical computer as it is almost reached saturation. The number of billions of transistors in a small chip will no longer follow the Moore law. Therefore, quantum mechanics. But based on the three characteristics of photon phenomena, it would still take time to actual success in Quantum Computers and Computing. Quantum has the minutest particle behavior like Superimposition, Entanglement, and interference still not a hundred percent certainty. Earlier science was applied taking into view certainty but quantum mechanics is based on uncertainty.  Even Google and one other big company claimed that they have succeeded to make quantum computers after spending billions of dollars but commercial production has not yet started.

 FOOD SECURITY

People are elated to find new technology potential, but how to tackle food security, and climate change are top of mind. Yet rising inflation, global supply chain challenges, food loss, and climate change have had a tremendous impact on the path of food from farm to table. Problems like these have left more than 3 billion people unable to adequately address their food needs. Addressing the food crisis will involve reimagining world food systems: taking a closer look at how and where food is grown, whether it is available and affordable, and how it can reach those who need it most  on the challenges of food distribution and potential solutions, including diversifying agriculture systems to increase healthy food options for distribution, using analytics to match food distribution and supply with food-insecure populations, exploring plant-based “meat” and “poultry” as healthier, sustainable food options, mitigating food loss from farm to table, and expanding food-delivery systems and optimizing food transport to poor areas

REDUCING FOOD LOSS: WHAT GROCERY RETAILERS AND MANUFACTURERS CAN DO

A projected $600 billion worth of food is lost during or just after harvest. If manufacturers and grocers have been empowered by the progress of science and technology to succeed to control food wastage it is going to help businesses, people, and the planet. It’s a dire statistic: 33 to 40 percent of the world’s food is lost or wasted every year. A devastating fact in less desperate times, it takes on even greater expedient today, in view of an impending global food crisis resulting from the knock-on effects of the war in Ukraine, COVID-19, and climate change. As identified, one in nine people in the world can’t get enough to eat—that’s more than 800 million suffering from hunger. The consequences of food loss and waste will only get worse. “Food loss” happens at harvest or soon after, while “food waste” happens after the food reaches the retailer or consumer.

 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FOOD LOSS  AND THE  FOOD WASTE

 The loss of the food itself is bad enough, but the secondary effects are distressing as well: the water consumption linked to food loss and waste amounts to almost one-fourth of the world’s freshwater supply. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from food loss and waste constitute 8 percent of the global total, or at least four times those of the aviation industry. To date, most very wide-scale endeavors to realize and solve the issue have engrossed on food waste, largely because it’s more visible: people see food being wasted in stores, restaurants, and households. But up to half of the food that doesn’t get eaten by humans valued in terms of money an estimated $600 billion—is lost at or near the farm, during or just after harvest. Bringing down food loss should therefore be treated as a societal and environmental priority. It should become a business priority as well. By in-depth examination of the farm-to-retailer food supply chain highlights that food loss is a result of ineptitudes, and its hidden costs are often equal to or greater than retailers’ net profit, even sometimes the best-performing ones.

 The silver lining is that reducing food loss is immensely realizable. The research shows that food manufacturers and retailers because they are at the center of the food value chain, are uniquely positioned to lead global efforts to reduce food loss. Collaboration and cooperation working with each other and with all participants in the value chain, we believe likely they could prune food loss by 50 to 70 percent. Two-thirds of the food that would otherwise be lost could be redirected to human consumption; the remaining one-third would go to alternative uses, such as bio-based materials or animal feed. And the business rewards would be significant: companies would reap economic and cash flow benefits while concurrently enhancing their scope 3 emission footprint. The research shows that retailers could reduce their cost of goods sold (COGS) by 3 to 6 percent, and manufacturers by 5 to 10 percent. Grocers and manufacturers could capture $80 billion in new market potential by developing new businesses from food that would otherwise be lost. And they could diminish CO2 emissions and the associated costs by 4 to 9 percent. Because food loss is an expansive problem that spans multiple players and processes, siloed approaches will have a limited impact. To effect major change, all stakeholders will need to work together. The effort and investment will be well worth it, on multiple levels.

THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF FOOD LOSS, LIKE, WHERE, HOW, EC.

It is estimated that more than two billion tons of food are lost or wasted every year. About half of this happens upstream: during the harvest, postharvest handling and storage, and processing stages. Although meat and dairy have a high environmental impact per unit produced, it takes more than 1,000 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef, for example, meat accounts for only about 3 percent of food loss; dairy another 5 percent. Three other food categories, fruits and vegetables, cereals, and roots and tubers, determination of constitution of the food loss and the associated CO2 emissions and water use. Those categories should therefore be the focus of loss reduction efforts.

 Exactly where in the supply chain does food get lost, and its reasons attributed to this? In collaboration with the Consumer Goods Forum and its members, and working closely with leading European grocers and distributors, after systematically examining the farm-to-retailer journey, using tomatoes as our test case. We chose tomatoes because 50 million to 75 million tons of them are lost upstream every year—a greater amount than any other fruit or vegetable. Besides, lessons learned from the tomato’s journey can be extrapolated to other fresh-produce categories. Tomatoes are grown and eaten all over the world, are available year-round, can be eaten fresh or go through further processing, must conform to certain cosmetic standards (color, shape, and so forth), and resemble several other product categories in the context of perishability. The examination of tomato journeys in both developed and developing markets—tomatoes sold fresh and those sent into the processed supply chain, and tomatoes are grown in fields as well as in developed-market greenhouses. This illustrates what happens to tomatoes grown in fields in developed markets and sent to retailers to be sold fresh in their stores. It exhibits, in developed countries, out of every 100 tomatoes only 59 to 72 make it to a store shelf. In the developing world, the numbers are harsher: only 35 to 58 make it to the store.

At harvest, we estimate that one-third of the loss is linked to production surplus meaning the farm produced more food than it could sell, another third consists of food that is edible but doesn’t meet customer specifications, and the remaining third is because of damage that renders the food inedible. In short, two-thirds of the loss is edible and could be safely redirected to human consumption. After its research revealed that some food loss results from exogenous factors, such as weather events, or suboptimal practices within a specific stage of the supply chain, such as poor equipment maintenance—but some loss is linked to the interdependencies and interactions among the players in the value chain. Growers may overproduce because they are uncertain about market demand, while manufacturers and retailers often don’t have much transparency into supply. Stringent customer specifications can lead to excessive postharvest outtrading’s procurement contracts that don’t create incentives for reducing food loss. An outtrade is a trade that cannot be placed because it was received by an exchange containing conflicting information. The associated clearinghouse cannot settle the trade because the data submitted by parties on both sides of the transaction is inconsistent or contradictory.

Solving the food loss problem will therefore require fundamental changes in the ways that stakeholders work together. For tomatoes alone, the potential impact is more than 40 million tons saved every year. Globally, CO2 emissions linked to tomato loss would fall by 60 to 80 percent. And if this can be done with tomatoes, it can be done with other food categories as well.

HOW FOOD LOSS CAN BE CONVERTED TO REAP GREAT BENEFITS

Since food loss occurs primarily at the farm, what can food manufacturers and grocers do about it? Quite a lot, it turns out. An effective action plan would entail, first, establishing a baseline and setting targets; then systematically developing and implementing initiatives; and, finally, putting in place the enablers for lasting change. Ultimately, addressing food loss will require mindset shifts by all stakeholders. Food manufacturers and retailers will need to see food loss as a result of inefficiencies and missed opportunities across production, procurement, R&D, the supply chain, and sales—not as an inevitable cost of doing business or a niche topic that concerns only the sustainability department. They should see reducing food loss as a potential value pool: an opportunity to improve both the top and bottom lines.

CREATE TRANSPARENCY AND SET TARGETS

Quantifying food loss and creating accountability for it isn’t an exact science; the measurement techniques and metrics are still being defined and debated. But that’s no excuse for companies to do nothing. If you are a grocer or a food manufacturer, aim to gather directionally accurate information through a range of sources and techniques, such as interviewing internal teams, examining data from suppliers, and reviewing third-party research. Work with our suppliers to understand and monitor food loss, perhaps using the on-farm food loss measurement protocols readily available online. Set targets for both our own company and suppliers, and integrate food loss visibility and reduction into incentive structures. Stay aware of—or, even better, participate in—industry efforts to harmonize reporting and certification standards. Forward-thinking companies are actively engaging with suppliers to map food loss “hot spots” in the supply chain and to understand their causes. Some companies are developing (and providing public access to) an integrated database of suppliers’ performance across locations. Others are conducting an annual external audit or requiring third-party assessment of suppliers’ performance on this issue. A few best-practice companies are using digital technologies, like blockchain, to make products traceable at every stage along the journey from farm to store. Don’t wait for perfect data; just gather enough information to sense the scope of the problem. Generating awareness of how much loss happens—and where—is an important first step in creating urgency for change.

DECIDE WHAT TO DO AND DO IT

The above research exposed four levers that retailers and food manufacturers can pull to make a meaningful impact: minimizing loss during production and processing, minimizing loss during transit, selling more of what is produced, and structurally preventing loss.  Each lever comprises a set of potential actions. Some will require significant investment and new ways of working. All will pay off, resulting in not just a reduction in food loss but also a more efficient value chain, EBITDA improvements, and lower CO2 emissions. No single grouping of levers will be right for every company; each stakeholder will need to select the mix that best fits its particular context. We may create certain actions and strategies for food loss programs that a food manufacturer or a retailer could enforce.

Irrespective of the execution of a course of action, each company must fundamentally change how it interacts with other stakeholders in the food ecosystem. The following are specific ways in which manufacturers and retailers can go against business-as-usual approaches and make big steps toward addressing food loss: Work with suppliers to better match supply and demand. This will require much more communication and transparency among the players in the value chain. Retailers will need to give farmers more information about expected demand; farmers will need to give retailers more visibility into their production plans. Some companies are starting to engage in long-term planning with their suppliers, working together to align on the volume and mix of crops—not just for the upcoming planting season but also for the next one and the one after that thereby reducing uncertainty for the parties involved.

Overhaul procurement practices. How you buy must change dramatically. Shift away from a commoditized view of food and focus on managing short-term costs; instead, consider launching structured supplier collaboration efforts or entering into innovation-focused partnerships. Don’t choose suppliers based on price alone. Take food loss reduction efforts into account when drawing up contracts, creating incentive structures, and establishing performance metrics. In addition, regularly review specifications and look for opportunities to make them less stringent, without compromising food safety or sell-through. For example, through consumer surveys, grocers might find that consumers have a higher tolerance for color variations than in the past, or that shoppers don’t pay much attention to the size of a particular fruit variety. For manufacturers, reviewing specifications(an act of describing or identifying something precisely or of stating a precise requirement)  to optimize for loss reduction both at the farm and at the factory could lead to lower volume requirements.

Find creative ways to turn food loss into value. There is immense potential to sell more of the food that farmers produce. Food that would otherwise be lost can be turned into new products and thriving businesses. Consider dedicating R&D resources to developing new revenue streams from nonmarketable food. AB InBev, for instance, invested $200 million in processing plants to turn its barley byproducts into a protein and fiber ingredient. It developed two new businesses as a result: a dairy-free protein drink sold under the Canvas brand and a protein ingredient that AB InBev now sells to other food manufacturers.

ENABLE TRUE AND LASTING CHANGE

For each company, food loss reduction won’t be treated as a strategic priority unless it has the sponsorship of the C-suite. Indeed, in an informal poll of a dozen industry leaders, two-thirds pointed to weak governance as the biggest roadblock to the implementation of food loss programs in their companies. One of the most important enablers for significant and sustained change, therefore, is a strong governance model—with cross-functional accountability encompassing procurement, R&D, the supply chain, manufacturing, marketing, and finance; clear responsibilities and objectives; and KPIs at the individual, functional, and enterprise level. Designating an owner for each food loss initiative and aligning on measures of success will help ensure progress. New performance metrics might include, for instance, the volume of food lost, the profit from upcycling, or the revenue gained from saving food that would otherwise be lost. Stakeholder management, too, is a critical enabler. Suppliers, consumers, and other participants in the value chain can be persuaded to become allies and supporters of loss-reduction efforts rather than inhibitors. Manufacturers and grocers can create and raise awareness of the problem—and its extent—among farmers and suppliers, to help them see food loss as an inefficiency instead of an inevitability. On the consumer side, targeted marketing programs and educational campaigns can help consumers understand how to reduce food loss, which could in turn enable the implementation of upstream measures, such as less-exacting cosmetic specifications for fresh produce. At most companies today, the unfortunate reality is that food loss is no one’s problem. No individual or team owns and champions the issue. In a sense, companies have had the luxury of not having to pay too much attention to food loss. That could soon change: as the world moves toward a potential food emergency and as public awareness of the issue grows, external stakeholders will become savvier about food loss and, as a result, more demanding. They will compel retailers and manufacturers to act. Simply put, addressing food loss now isn’t just a good thing to do; it’s also good business—and soon it won’t be optional. Satisfying the toughest customers first: A conversation with Next Gen Foods’ Andre Menezes. The co-founder of a Singapore food tech start-up explains how it won over consumers and investors by designing its plant-based chicken to appeal to chefs. Andre Menezes, co-founder, and CEO of Singapore-based food tech start-up Next Gen Foods. The start-up’s first product, a plant-based chicken called TiNDLE, is already impacting chefs and diners across Amsterdam, Hong Kong, and Singapore, and its recent debut in the United States helped the company secure $100 million in funding. Menezes described next Gen designed TiNDLE with three core elements in mind, its decision to prioritize restaurants before supermarkets, and why sustainability should be integral to a product and not its main selling point.

SATISFYING THE TOUGHEST CUSTOMERS FIRST: A CONVERSATION WITH NEXT GEN FOODS’ ANDRE MENEZES

 Singapore seems to be investing a lot in the infrastructure around R&D when it comes to food tech or agritech. The topic is significant for the macro sector and the venture-building part of it. It’s not about starting with a product or a technology that we already have and finding a way to bring it to the market or trying to develop a business around the product. If it’s the exact opposite. It’s starting from two basic elements: one macro and one micro. The macro trends we are seeing are around sustainability, resource scarcity, increased protein consumption, and increased awareness of animal welfare. On the micro side, it’s about our company developing a product that fills a customer's need.

 At the end of the day, the macro layer driving this sector globally is related to sustainability. Food production is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases after energy; that’s how big of a problem it is. For those who haven’t read Bill Gates’s book How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, which is highly recommended for taking into this perspective. The macro trend is what’s driving industry, governments, policies, attention, and investment in technology. And all this is culminating in increased education, which drives consumer interest and awareness. Because of our learning journey, we gave ourselves the freedom not to start with a product or technology. As a secondary step, we started understanding what consumers were looking for. We didn’t start by looking at plant-based foods. We started by looking at meat, what meat really represents, and what food really represents. And we found some very important discoveries on that journey.

The first one is realizing that food is not just something we eat at home based on several aspects. Because that’s what food really represents.  Some companies talk about the ingredients they’re using and how they’re more sustainable. However, what consumers really look for is that great food experience. Meat is right at the center. Meat is never a side dish. That’s how deep to understand, historically and psychologically, how this whole journey has evolved. From there, started to design products using the knowledge and toolbox of technologies. Because it seems like we are taking a slightly different lens on it. People are trying to appeal not just to taste but also to the social aspect and experience of eating.

These were nothing like what we’ve done at Next Gen Foods, but we had a fundamental understanding that was extremely valuable for us to build upon. The basic assumption is that meat is the kind of food that can change the world for us and really drive trends and adoption at a very large scale. And as a country becomes more affluent, there’s almost a direct relationship between that and the consumption of meat. So, as we thought about how to lift plant-based food to the same level as meat. Tindle, at the end of the day, is basically chicken. It will evolve into being offered through different channels, like shops, supermarkets, and convenience stores, but all that is in the future. To unlock the key attributes that define chicken. Three attributes, the first one was the texture, the fibers, and the physical aspect of chicken. Number two was the flavor component and the smell we crave with fried and roasted chicken, and that comes from chicken fat. And number three, which is key for both chefs and consumers, is that chicken is expected to be versatile. If you look at beef, you know that a steak is supposed to be just a steak with a bit of salt and pepper and the right doneness. It can be spicy, crispy, fried, cereal-coated, in curry, or skewered. Chicken is innovative, chicken is versatile, and chicken is global. There was one specific moment when we really confirmed our hypothesis.  This is the concept. It means having exactly the same fundamentals, vision, and ambitions done at scale. We will be launching and growing in the US and then the UK, followed by Germany since they are the top three global markets for plant-based foods. Everything we’ve done is ultimately about exciting consumers. The chef is a conduit to consumers—getting chefs excited is necessary for us to get and excite consumers. We want our product to be on the same aspirational level as meat. We’re building up a category, and there’s no one in the plant-based chicken space doing that right now. We have a job to do in that category, and then we will certainly go into other channels.

Our goal is to get people excited and to understand that plant-based food does not mean compromising taste and texture. That’s our objective, and that’s what we’ve been doing. A bit of everything is the immediate answer. But when we cut the value chain into only a few elements, we chose three things to focus on. Number one is the product and R&D. Obviously there’s a lot of investment in people, but it’s the only place where we make capital expenditures. Number two is the brand and communications and getting consumers comfortable with our product, which is super important for the category, let alone for us as a brand and a company. And then number three is the operational backbone. The global protein market is a $2 trillion opportunity.

  HOW TO ADDRESS GLOBAL FOOD INSECURITY AND PREVENT FUTURE FOOD CRISES IN 2023 AND AHEAD

The world leaders have shifted their attention to the global hunger crisis in two pivotal events organized by the US: a ministerial-level meeting on May 18, 2022, and a Security Council open debate on May 19. The predominant aim of these events is to catalyze action on global food security and resilience, focusing on the critical links between conflict and hunger, including the impacts of the war in Ukraine. As humanitarian and development organizations working around the world to prevent and respond to unprecedented levels of food insecurity and the imminent threat of famine we face today, we commend the United States for bringing this urgent crisis to the top of the agenda during its presidency of the UN Security Council. We urge governments to seize this opportunity to make concrete and substantial commitments to address the needs identified by affected states, civil society, and people experiencing hunger. 

Global food security has steadily worsened over the past several years. According to the 2022 Global Report on Food Crises, nearly 193 million people experienced crisis level or worse food insecurity in 2021, an increase of almost 40 million over the previous record in 2020. The negative food security outlook is projected to continue or worsen this year, and the global food systems impact of the crisis in Ukraine will only contribute to further decline. The global hunger crisis is felt most by vulnerable and marginalized people with limited capacity to absorb additional shocks. This includes women and girls who, despite the key role they play in producing and preparing food, often eat last and least during times of acute food insecurity, are at higher risk of experiencing gender-based violence and various forms of exploitation and abuse, and are frequently excluded from conversations about how to address food insecurity. Food insecurity and malnutrition also have a devastating impact on children, exposing them to immediate and life-long cognitive and developmental impacts, weakening their immune system, and leading to negative household copings strategies like child labor, withdrawal of children from school, and gender-based violence, including child marriage and other forms of violence against children. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the resulting disruption to food, fuel, and fertilizer markets have exacerbated an existing food crisis driven by conflict, climatic shocks, COVID-19, and economic pressures, particularly in contexts already experiencing humanitarian crises. In order to pull people back from the brink of starvation, create sustainable food systems, and prevent future food crises, we need comprehensive solutions that address the myriad drivers and impacts of food insecurity.

 Global humanitarian funding to prevent and respond to food insecurity is critical, and the international community must see this moment as a tipping point to avert catastrophe. However, emergency aid alone is not enough to end this crisis. Donors must get better at leveraging longer-term funding mechanisms to get ahead of rising global hunger levels and promote resilience. States must also engage in concerted diplomacy and cooperation to put forward rights-based trade, economic, climate, food systems, and social protection policies, and avoid restrictive trade measures that threaten to plunge millions more people into acute food insecurity. In support of this, state, donor, multilateral, and other stakeholders seeking to address global food security, including conflict-induced hunger, should take the following concrete steps:

First, prioritize inclusive diplomacy to address the root causes of food insecurity and support policy measures that protect poor and vulnerable people’s ability to access food and livelihoods. 

 This includes keeping ports and trade flows open, mitigating balance of payment pressures, investing in social protection and safety nets, and supporting domestic food production and equitable distribution of land which empowers small-scale producers, including women. It also requires upholding the protection of civilians and civilian objects during conflict and addressing the effects of climate change on food security by delivering on commitments to finance climate action from the Paris Agreement and operationalizing the Santiago Network.

 Second, protect and increase funding to respond to the short, medium, and long-term impacts of the food security crisis.

  Donors should increase assistance toward global humanitarian appeals, maintain Official Development Assistance (ODA) commitments, and refrain from diverting aid from pre-existing crises to respond to new emergencies, including the Ukraine crisis and domestic refugee responses. Efforts should be made to direct aid to local organizations, including women-led organizations, that are already responding to hunger in their communities. Additionally, donors should scale up predictable, multi-year funding for humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding programs to strengthen resilience, ensuring that funding and programs are cohesive, coordinated, and gender transformative.

 Third, tailor food assistance modalities – including cash, vouchers, in-kind food assistance, and livelihoods and agricultural support – to each context. 

 While the overall goal of assistance is to immediately save lives, careful consideration of aid modalities can help to increase resilience to global market disruptions. Donors should recognize that cash and vouchers can reach hungry people in crisis more quickly than commodity support in the short term. Increasing support to small-scale farmers and sustainable agriculture practices, such as agroecology and renewable energy for agricultural production, is critical to increasing livelihoods and helping farmers cope with rising fuel prices and reduced access to fertilizers and other inputs.

 Finally, the Security Council must address conflict-induced hunger by fully implementing UNSC Resolutions 2417 (2018) and 2573 (2021). 

 Monitoring and reporting on the risk of famine and food insecurity in countries with armed conflict should be more systematic, and swift follow-up action must be taken to hold perpetrators of violations of international humanitarian law accountable. Denial of access to deliver humanitarian assistance, the use of hunger as a weapon of war, and acts of violence that threaten or harm civilians or destroy critical civilian infrastructure, whether intentional or not, cannot be tolerated. Member States, particularly donors, must strengthen their humanitarian diplomacy to prevent these violations of international humanitarian law and respond to such incidents when they occur. We hope these critical meetings serve as a first step in a sustained global effort to address the drivers and humanitarian impact of the global hunger crisis. It is essential that the goodwill and commitments put forward this week are translated into immediate and sustained action.

We urge the U.S. government and other Member State participants to keep their attention on this crisis and promote accountability by identifying opportunities for continued high-level engagement and progress tracking. The G7 Leaders’ Summit in June and the UN General Assembly in September are high-visibility moments to galvanize this momentum into tangible outcomes. The world cannot wait for a declaration of famine to act. By then, it will be too late. We urge the international community to put the full force of resources, diplomacy, and policy action behind preventing large-scale loss of life due to hunger and promoting lasting food security for millions of people around the globe.

Endorsing Organizations: Action Against Hunger, ADRA, Bread for the World, CAFOD, CARE International, Child Fund Alliance, Christian Aid, Concern Worldwide, Dignidad y Justicia en el Camino A.C., Dochas, Danish Refugee Council (DRC), Ethiopian Community Development Council, Foundation for Rural Development Pakistan, Global Communities, Global Refugee Youth Network (GRYN), Helping Hand for Relief & Development, Humanity & Inclusion, IMPACT Initiatives, InterAction, International Medical Corps, International Rescue Committee, INTERSOS, Islamic Relief USA, Mercy Corps, Norwegian Church Aid (NCA), Norwegian People’s Aid (NPA), Norwegian Refugee Council, Oxfam International, People in Need, Plan International, Polish Humanitarian Action (PAH), Refugees International, Save the Children, Solidarités International, The Hunger Project, Water for South Sudan, Inc., Welthungerhilfe, Women for Women International, Women’s Refugee Commission, and World Vision. CARE works around the globe to save lives, defeat poverty and achieve social justice. We seek a world of hope, inclusion, and social justice, where poverty has been overcome and all people live with dignity and security. 90% of all our expenses go to program services. CARE is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. Our EIN number is 13-1685039. © 2023 CARE.

 5 Ways to Avert the Global Food Security Crisis

Egyptian men work in a bakery at a market in Cairo, on March 17, 2022.  Soaring bread prices sparked by Russia's invasion of Ukraine have bitten into the purchasing power of consumers in Egypt, a leading importer of wheat from the former Soviet states. 

The potentially disastrous implications of the war in Ukraine for global food security are clear. The equally bleak implications of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report for the resilience of the food system are even starker. Billions of people are on a trajectory towards hunger, poverty, and instability, driven by conflict, COVID-19, climate change, and rising food costs. The world does not need more dire warnings. The burning question is: what are we going to do? In addition to providing urgent humanitarian support to those in need, the international community can take five concrete steps to alleviate the food crisis in the short term and build a more sustainable and resilient global food system for the years ahead. First, we must work to maintain the open flows of trade on which every nation depends for their food supplies. Trade barriers and export restrictions are damaging to all sides, and particularly in times of crisis—as the world learned in early 2020 when nations reacted to the arrival of COVID-19 by hoarding vital medical supplies, undermining global solidarity. The specter of protectionism is once again on the rise, with states including Hungary, Serbia, Indonesia, and Turkey already restricting exports, including flour and cooking oil, as war drives up the price of grains and other staples. Egypt’s temporary ban on wheat exports could be devastating for Yemen. A strong show of unity from leading states can mitigate short-sighted tendencies. The G7’s call on all nations to “keep their food and agricultural markets open” sets the right direction and must be held firm; the G20 must follow suit. Second, even if Ukraine’s farmers are able to sow this season’s crop in the coming weeks, which is uncertain, it is highly likely that the world will still face shortages. We need to increase production appropriately in other regions of the world, sustainably and without delay. In the E.U. and the U.S., there is an opportunity to reallocate land currently used to grow crops for biofuels (for energy) to the production of crops for food. Currently, one-third of U.S.-grown corn and 3-4 million tons of E.U.-grown wheat go into producing ethanol for fuel, while a large proportion of American soybeans and European rapeseed are used for biodiesel. An urgent shift from biofuels to food production—linked to a broader strategic effort to increase renewable energy and reduce dependence on oil and gas—would be a win for both food security and the climate.

In Africa, it is urgent smallholder farmers can access the fertilizer and infrastructure they need, as well as financial support to withstand turmoil in the market. And across the world, including in China, broader increases in productivity and yields could be achieved by investing in soil health, agricultural innovation, and restoring degraded land. All this should be done in ways that protect critical ecosystems, such as forests, wetlands, and peatlands. It would be a further tragedy arising from the conflict if the world rowed back from hard-fought environmental protections. There is no need to do so. Third, countries should work together in good faith to share data and explore when and in what circumstances to release food from national stockpiles and granaries. National stockpiles have an often-vital role to play in food and nutrition security; they can also be used judiciously at times such as these to reduce food prices and to alleviate humanitarian crises. Fourth, beyond providing urgent humanitarian funding, we must give the poorest communities around the world the safety nets they need to get through this crisis, including in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. This includes debt relief; cash transfer programs; increased support to smallholder farmers, including through access to credit schemes, markets, and nutritious food; investment in rural infrastructure; and a major package of support to the most vulnerable nations to assist them with adaptation and resilience to climate change. The Spring Meetings of the IMF and World Bank are an opportunity for the world to unite on this agenda.

Last, the current crisis must catalyze an urgent transition to a stronger, more sustainable, and equitable global food system for the long term. Such a system would dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss; be much less reliant on fertilizers and pesticides, and render the existing ones much more effective and less environmentally damaging; be more circular and regenerative in approach; waste far less; and be structured around delivering the healthy diets that the world needs. This would include major reductions in meat consumption in affluent nations, and a redirection of food and agricultural subsidies to support the transition. The conflict caught many off-guard; the food crisis need not. In a spirit of solidarity and collaboration, we can strive to ensure nutritious food for all, even in the face of the current crisis and without pricing out the poorest, by empowering the agricultural communities who feed us and by building a system better equipped to withstand future shocks. The perils of the hour require moral leadership and foresight of the highest order from heads of state, business leaders, and society at large.

IN 2023, FAO WILL REQUIRE $1.9 BILLION TO REACH 48 MILLION PEOPLE WITH LIFE-SAVING AND LIVELIHOOD ASSISTANCE

 Acute food insecurity soars driven by conflicts, extreme weather events, and rising food prices, with less than 4 percent of the of $51.5 billion required across all appeals for 2023, FAO can provide time-critical livelihood assistance to almost 50 million most vulnerable people. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) 2023 is seeking $1.9 billion to save the lives and livelihoods of some of the most severe acute food insecure people, as acute food insecurity continues to escalate globally. The announcement was made as part of the United Nations' larger humanitarian appeal launched by the UNO for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) at a special event in Geneva. With less than 4 percent of the $51.5 billion required across all appeals for 2023, FAO can provide time-critical livelihood assistance to ensure 48 million people have a steady supply of nutritious food. Through the cash, crop and vegetable seed packages, livestock feed, animal health campaigns, and improvements to vital infrastructure like irrigation systems and markets, FAO can ensure families and communities in the most remote, conflict-hit areas are able to feed themselves and lay the foundations for resilience to future shocks. In 2022, FAO’s emergency support to drought-hit communities in the Horn of Africa has protected vital livestock assets, ensuring that 4.4 million children can access milk every day, and has led to the production of over 100 000 tonnes of cereals and provided more than 1.5 million people with cash to purchase food, health care, and other essentials. FAO’s interventions are above all geared towards meeting the needs and priorities of affected communities who are overwhelmingly farmers, fishers, herders, and foresters – allowing them to remain in their homes where it is safe to do so, meet their own needs and lead their own future recovery.

 MAJOR DRIVERS OF ACUTE FOOD INSECURITY

Extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods, the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, and the proliferation of other conflicts, followed by the growing uncertainty around global food and agriculture markets drive acute food insecurity to new highs. As 2022 nears an end, almost one million people face the immediate threat of starvation – almost double the numbers of 2021. Across the world, 222 million people are experiencing high acute food insecurity, almost one in five of whom are struggling to access enough food to survive the day. In the Horn of Africa alone, struggling with an unprecedented drought - an event not seen in 40 years - between 23 and 26 million people are projected to be in urgent need of humanitarian assistance, and acute food insecurity is expected to continue intensifying by February 2023 due to an anticipated, unprecedented sixth consecutive season of drought. The cost of food has been steadily rising since the onset of COVID-19, with international food commodity prices already at a ten-year high before the war in Ukraine sent further shockwaves through the system. While prices in international staple foods have recently been decreasing, consumer prices remain high with significant implications for purchasing power and food access among the poorest. Conflicts and political instability continue to ravage lives and livelihoods across the world, forcing people to flee their homes and abandon their farms, boats, and livestock, pushing them into destitution and total reliance on external assistance.

FAO BOOSTS RESPONSE TO CRISES AND EMERGENCIES

FAO has stepped up its efforts to reach those most in need throughout 2022 – assisting 30 million people with time-critical support, focusing on rural populations and those for whom agriculture represents their very survival. In Afghanistan alone, FAO is expecting to reach 9 million people by the end of the year – about half of the rural population experiencing high acute food insecurity. Some 3.6 million people will benefit from the ongoing winter wheat distribution, which will be completed by December. In Somalia, over $24 million in cash, alongside livelihood assistance, has been provided to rural communities that are most exposed to famine, while more than 11 million livestock has received feed, water, and basic health treatment. In Ukraine, alongside providing emergency agricultural support to farmers, such as seed potatoes, vegetable seeds, and cash assistance, FAO is intensifying efforts to safeguard existing and upcoming harvests and food reserves. FAO has provided a massive capacity to store up to 6 million tonnes of grain (about 30 percent of the national need). This assistance is crucial to ensure that grain is properly saved, and farmers are able to sell and export grain when appropriate.

AGRICULTURE IN EMERGENCIES REMAINS MASSIVELY UNDERFUNDED

Agriculture is a frontline humanitarian response and must be considered as such in all humanitarian appeals. Urgent agricultural interventions, especially when combined with cash and food assistance, have enormous impacts on food availability, nutrition, and displacement, significantly cutting other humanitarian costs. For example, at a cost of just $220, the winter wheat packages being distributed in Afghanistan will enable a family to produce enough food to meet their annual cereal needs and leave a surplus for them to sell. In 2022, FAO received only 43 percent of the funds requested under the Humanitarian Response Plans, yet this conceals an enormous imbalance of funds, with appeals for Afghanistan fully funded while those for Nigeria and the Syrian Arab Republic have barely passed 10 percent of requirements. The event in Geneva was one of three sequential launches to present the 2023 Global Humanitarian Overview (GHO) followed by events in Addis Ababa in partnership with the African Union and Riyadh in partnership with the King Salman Humanitarian Aid and Relief Centre - KS Relief.

 CONCLUSION

We have become so much ignorant and selfish that whatever education progress, prosperity, the assemblage of most lethal arms and ammunition, etc., still not aware that we all need food. To date, we have not replenished the food we need. The fight to show supremacy, satisfy the petty ego, and some nefarious need based on our power, resources, and intellect to invent new knowledge and new products. The sooner we understand, the better. Otherwise, we are going toward self-annihilation.