World Food Programme and Millennium Villages launch a partnership

I feel somewhat obliged to blog on this being that I was behind the scenes working with Professor Sachs and our WFP colleagues to make this happen. Let’s hope the partnership is a success. Here’s to ending hunger!

UN News release:

PRESS CONFERENCE ON WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME, MILLENNIUM VILLAGES PROJECT PARTNERSHIP

The World Food Programme (WFP) and the Millennium Villages Project announced the launch of a new partnership aimed at dramatically reducing hunger and malnutrition across Africa, at a Headquarters press conference today.

“This is a wonderful day, for me personally and for the Millennium Villages Project, in partnering with the World Food Programme,” said Jeffrey Sachs of the Millennium Villages, a project involving eight villages and more half a million people in sub-Saharan African communities working to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

With 1 billion people — one out of every six people -– waking up and going to bed hungry, the World Food Programme needed to “leverage the full range of our tools”, its Executive Director, Josette Sheeran, with Mr. Sachs at the press conference, told correspondents.  “Hunger is on the march.  “Hunger is on the rise.  And it is right now the most threatened Millennium Development Goal,” she warned.

Mr. Sachs said that over the past couple of years working at numerous sites, the “dynamic, remarkable, on the ground, real time, flexible” WFP had engaged a range of powerful programmes that fought acute and chronic hunger, such as school meal programmes, food-for-work and nutritional fortification and supplementation, to name just a few.

His recent visit to a Millennium Village in Ethiopia had illustrated to him and his colleagues the profound transformation of WFP environmental rehabilitation on food security, he continued.  Through a food-for-work programme, a large number of percolation ponds and check-dams had been built to capture rainfall in a dry area.  “It was marvellous.  I have never seen anything like the extent of the transformation of the landscape taking place in that community in a way that was providing life-saving water management and food security.  Many people don’t know about that aspect of the World Food Programme’s activities.”

The goal of the partnership, he explained, was to utilize the powerful tools of WFP in Millennium Villages, and through their joint forces, resources and tools, eliminate the villages’ defining characteristic of chronic malnutrition and create “undernourishment-free zones” that had sufficient and nutritious food.

The Millennium Villages Project, itself a partnership programme of non-governmental organizations, corporations, scientists, civil society, United Nations departments and agencies, and the Earth Institute at Columbia University, was created to bring science, partnership and the United Nations together.  The new endeavour with WFP would strengthen the goals and objects.

He noted that the Millennium Development Goals summit in 2010 would be the last time the world as a whole got together to review and further the course towards the 2015 deadline.  “We have the tools for success on all counts — the tools for success to fight acute hunger, the tools for success to accelerate progress to the MDGs and the tools for success to achieve them by the year 2015. I am going to do everything with my breath to help make that a reality,” he pledged.

Ms. Sheeran further explained that WFP’s partnership with the Millennium Villages Project would deploy the full range of the Programme’s tools and help utilize the Millennium Villages as a platform for best practices.  Engaging in such a holistic approach would bring together some of the best minds of the world with the local wisdom, dreams and hopes of the villagers themselves, and would enable the villagers to solve their problems and give them the tools to do so.  “This is not your grandmother’s food aid.”

Holding up a red food cup from the school feeding programme in Rwanda, she illustrated that filling it with food was just the beginning.  Feeding a child a cup of food every day was life-saving, but adding a de-worming pill meant the child was being fed and not the worm, and adding vitamin A could end night blindness.  The focus now was not just on filling the cup, but also on addressing what was in the cup.

Even more importantly, she stressed, 80 per cent of the cash received by WFP purchased food from the developing world’s farmers themselves, the majority of whom were women.  “When you fill this cup with food from farmers that are often completely cut off from markets and don’t have a chance to sell what they produce, it is a powerful, powerful solution to breaking the cycle of hunger.”

She added that WFP had successfully implemented that practice in war zones and in other difficult environments, and participating farmers were now able to expand into greater markets.  WFP and the Millennium Villages Project had already commenced that system in Millennium Villages in Kenya, Uganda, Malawi and the United Republic of Tanzania, and were currently reaching more than 80,000 children.

The partnership would also be addressing the impact of malnutrition on children under the age of 2, she said.  Recent science was now showing that children deprived of appropriate food never recovered from the loss to their brains and bodies.  Through establishing “undernourishment-free zones”, the partnership would hopefully demonstrate to other countries that standing up to the challenges of hunger and malnutrition was possible.

When asked what concrete steps the new United States Administration was taking to further implementation of the Millennium Development Goals and honour its official development assistance (ODA) commitment, Mr. Sachs drew attention to the approval of large funding for global health since United States President Barack Obama had assumed office, as well as the Administration’s commitment to small-holder agriculture and the fight against hunger.  At the recent Group of Eight (G‑8) summit, the United States had announced a $20 billion, three-year effort for small-holder farmers, which could enable Africa to achieve food self-sufficiency.

Ms. Sheeran, when asked about the situation in Somalia and the possible diversion of food to Kenya, recalled that the danger to humanitarian workers was great, but that the commitment to reach the most vulnerable remained steadfast and strong.  An internal investigation into the possible diversion was being conducted and would be reported to correspondents once the results were complete.  Meanwhile, there was strengthened security at the warehouses and pathways.  “It is probably our most challenging environment to operate in the world, but we’re committed to stay and reach people, despite the loss of life to WFP staff and others.”

She was then asked about the life-long impact of malnutrition in the first two years of life and the resulting costs that WFP and other agencies had to bear later, and the commitment of the Millennium Villages Project and WFP to investing in those problems before they became emergencies.

She drew attention to a book by WFP about the cost of malnutrition in Latin America.  It showed that there had been losses of up to 11 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) in some countries — such as Guatemala — owing to a loss of brain power.  That was a high cost to society.  When WFP had tracked a group of children from under age 2 to adulthood, it had found that the group that had been properly nourished earned up to 50 per cent more income approximately 30 years later than the control group.  That was powerful evidence that investment in nutrition could have a huge impact on a nation’s resources, talent and economy.

Mr. Sachs responded to an inquiry about the contribution from agriculture to the greenhouse effect and its possible impact on WFP’s new food initiatives.  Acknowledging the complexity of the relationship between greenhouse gases, agriculture and food initiatives, he noted that the new food initiative would not materially change those greenhouse gas numbers, but stressed that “you do not solve the problem of greenhouse gases on the backs of starving people”.

Livestock production, greenhouse gases and food miles

The agriculture sector, especially livestock production, accounts for one-fifth of total greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions globally (McMichael et al, 2007).  Livestock production, including transport and feed, accounts for nearly 80% of the sector’s emissions (McMichael et al, 2007). Although CO2 is the most anthropogenic greenhouse-gas (GHG) emitter, with fossil fuel as the main source, methane, halocarbons and nitrous oxide are also huge contributors (Carlsson-Kanyama and Gonzalez, 2009). Methane itself is 270x more effective as an absorber of infrared radiation than CO2 (Houghton et al 1996). Animal production (mainly cattle and pig) is the largest emitter of methane from enteric fermentation and manure lagoons. However, as meat production, particularly in the form of Concentrated Animal Feed Operations (CAFOs), increases with world market demands, it also requires more agrochemicals, fossil fuel and electricity, resulting to the contributor of CO2 emissions.  Weber and Matthews found that the production of food contributes 83% of the average US households CO2 footprint each year whereas transport and delivery or “food miles” contributes only 11% and 4% respectively. In measuring the impact of food miles, and the climate footprint, it is important to examine individual food groups. Red meat contributes 150% more GHGs than fish and chicken (Weber and Matthews) with meats and fruits transported by air having the highest total GHG emissions (Carlsson-Kanyama and Gonzalez, 2009).

Herder in Timbuktu

Livestock production, at its current level, has intensified with one-third of the world’s entire land surface (FAO) going towards production, and of land dedicated to food crop production, 1/3 of global harvest of crops are eaten annual by animals (enough to feed more than 3 billion people) (Smil, 2002). It is estimated that to produce 1 kg of red meat, 13 kg of grain is needed, whereas with chicken the ratio is 1: 1.8 (USDA). Most of the energy (88-97%) and protein (80-96%) content contained within cereal and leguminous grains fed to animals is not converted to edible protein and fat (Smil, 2002). Yet, despite these statistics, global demand and consumption for meat is increasing, particularly in developing countries. But they have not yet caught up to the American diet. The average American consumes approximately 124 kg of meat each year, compared to the average worldwide consumption of 31 kg per year (FAO, 2006). If current consumption patterns remain, meat consumed in 2030 will be 72% higher than the amount consumed in 2000. Production of this amount of meat will require CAFO systems that will potentially generate an estimated 1.9 billion tons of GHG (Fiala, 2008).

In order to reduce agriculture-related GHG emissions, McMichael et al recommended, in the short term, a reduction of the current global average meat consumption of 100 g per person per day by 10% as a working global target with not more than 50 g per day coming from red meat of ruminants, particularly in high-income countries. Some have argued that this recommendation is conservative, and does not address long term issues of the animal production process itself. Whether conventional and organic systems of livestock productivity differ, in terms of GHG emissions, remains inconclusive and contentious when taking into account methodology, type of high quality grain, grain fed versus pasture fed and post production food miles (McMichael et al., 2007; FAO, 2006b). This dietary recommendation, beyond short-term solutions to climate change mitigation, may impact global health including a reduced risk of colorectal cancer (Norat et al., 2002) and coronary disease (Hu and Willet, 1998).

• Carlsson-Kanyama, A and Gonzalez, AD (2009) Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate change. Am J. Clin. Nutr 89(suppl): 1704S-9S.
• FAO (2006). World Agriculture towards 2015/30, an FAO Study. Rome.
• FAO (2006b). Livestock’s long shadow. Environmental issues and options. Rome: FAO.
• Fiala N (2008) Meeting the demand: An estimation of potential greenhouse gas emissions from meat production. Ecological Economics 67: 412-419.
• Houghton et al. editors. (1996) Climate change 1995. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Hu, FB and Willett WC (1998) The relationship between consumption of animal products (beef, pork, poultry, eggs, fish and dairy products) and risk of chronic disease: a critical review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard School of Public Health.
• McMichael, AJ, Powles, JW, Butler, CJ and Uauy, R (2007) Food, livestock production, energy, climate change and health. Lancet 370: 1253-63.
• Norat T, Lukanova, A, Ferrari, P et al. (2002) Meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: dose response meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Int. J. Cancer 98: 241-56.
• USDA
• Weber, CL and Matthews, HS (2008) Food Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States. Environ. Sci, Technol. 42: 3508-3513.

Eating “good” is not easy

New York magazine published an interesting article on the 17 most politically problematic foods but that is not what interested me as much as the introduction:

“Eating was once an enjoyable, relatively uncomplicated experience; the biggest dilemma was how much butter to put in the mashed potatoes. No more. In this post-Pollan, Food, Inc., locavore-aware world, your dinner plate, like it or not, is a minefield. Beyond the enduring concerns about calories, artificial ingredients, and, of course, taste, there are now a host of politically minded food anxieties. Is the chicken free-range? Is the salad from a labor-friendly farm? Was the coffee shade-grown? Sometimes it seems the future of the planet is riding on your hamburger. While it’s wise (and often delicious!) to maintain a healthy skepticism about too much food-correctness, it’s not a bad idea to do your part where you can.”

Why does this ring so true and what is a foodie to do? I fare on the healthy skepticism side as the science has not yet caught up with the hype. Read on to see the 17 foods but topping this list are my personal indulgences – shrimp, coffee and wine. ugh…

kristof is plugging Food Inc too…

The new documentary Food Inc is getting lots of press, and Kristof just gave it a plug. Would love to know people’s thoughts on this movie. From the outset, and I dont think the makers would object, the movie is slanted and I will write more this week on why i think so. The movie contains important information for the general consumer, but when it comes time to science, the environment and nutrition, we need to start digging deeper. We are talking about global food systems in all their complexity. Equating things to food miles, organic and grow your own food (!) are simple answers that dont address the need to feed 7 billion people in a sustainable and pro-nutritious manner.

Snacks and Glints

Forging a Hot Link to the Farmer Who Grows the Food – cool article in the Times

Raj Patel wants you to Buy Japanese or at least, live in Japan

Teenagers near fast food = obesity. And Marion Nestle has some ideas on it. And she was in the NY times last week. Go Marion.

The new Food Inc movie. Can’t see it here in Nairobi but see it if it comes to a theater near you…

And another film called “Food Fight”. It is hard to keep up these days…

Best Trattoria in Rome? Let the Debate Begin. God, how I would die to be eating this food every night. Taking slow food to the profound letter. But hell, this the origin of slowness in all its beauty.

the conundrum of meat

As good as meat tastes, it is definitely better to eat less of it. is that stating the obvious? well, it is still being contested and from the recent new york times article, there is growing pressure on how to handle the immense demand for meat around the world, which has risen 200% in the last 30 years. This of course has created havoc for the environment, with meat production contributing 18% of emissions pumped into the atomsphere via our friend CO2 production. Not even sure if that number factors in processing, storing and shipping of the tasty flesh.

What to do? Steak tastes good. Chicken tastes good. Someone once told me that a true foodie is not a vegetarian. hmmm…sad. So, how to change this dilemma or at least tread more lightly on the earth? Some say to eat organic, grass-fed beef for example. I recently saw a news piece on BBC about Argentinean cattle farmers who produce some of the tastiest meat in the world. Why? because their cows dont come from the large cattle lots that we see in the U.S. Instead, they eat grass. But for some odd reason, during the entire news piece, i only saw cows in tight stalls, mooing constantly at the cameras looking much like the ones you see in the US. No grassy knowles, no red barns, now cows eating grass on knowles next to barns…