COMMENTS ON HLPE REPORT
Overall. Report is too long and confusing. Earlier HLPE reports were about 100 pages of text.
Trying to take on too many issues, be it WTO or GMOs, and some issues are neither dealt with comprehensively nor in a balanced way.
Chapter 1 and 2.
Not having a section on inequality by caste is a major omission. Race, ethnicity, religious minority and disabled have separate sections but not caste.
Why is this important? By any of the indicators of food insecurity used, the largest absolute number of food insecure persons are in India, and caste discrimination remains an impediment to progress in India.
Minor point: avoid the term “low” caste.
Chapter 3
pp 48.
There are multiple references in this study to Huambachano (2020) on the indigenous world view. This study is based on data from New Zealand and Peru, hardly representative of the tribal and indigenous people of the world.
More importantly, is this Report pushing for “indigenous world view” and attacking GM crops or gene-edited crops even such as the nutritive golden rice? As the report notes, “use of GM…is dangerous to their self-determination”. Is the use of GM crops worse for indigenous people than logging or fracking?
Either the Report has a full discussion on pros and cons of GM (probably not the purpose of this report) or this section is dropped as it comes out as an anti-science report.
Pp 58.
Geographical inequalities seems too weak a term for North-South inequalities. All the major agricultural companies are in the North.
Pp 61.
Wrong fact. WTO did not make substantial progress in bringing down subsidies in HIC. The form and name of subsidies changed, but subsidies have risen (at least in the US).
Chapter 4, pp 89
Once again, increase in yield of food grain, new seeds, etc. are being attacked. See the meaningless sentence “biology of traditional seeds was altered.” Even nature did that over time as did traditional breeding.
Why do we not have enough consumption of millets and pulses? One reason is low production on account of low yields.
The Report is very one-sided on this issue.
There would be many more hungry people in this world were it not for the Green Revolution. Of course, new crops, new technologies, solutions to new problems like climate change have to be addressed now, but not acknowledging the contribution of the past doesn’t help.
Chapter 5
Box 5.2. Does this apply to global policy making also or is it for local (context-specific) policy.
Table 51. Why not say land reform or asset reform instead of “equalize access to food production resources."
Chapter 6, pp 125
Agree that climate equity is a very important issue, but in the section on structural reform there is no word on the role of the developed countries in mitigation to keep within a goal of 1.5 or 2 degree rise. This is the core of climate equity.
All other things are actions by developing countries. If this report is taking a global view, the call to action has to be for the North also, not just for local policy in food insecure countries.
Conclusion. The inequalities in food security cannot all be resolved by developing countries themselves, but require action in the North (be it aid or transfer of technology or change in subsidies). This doesn’t come out in the present format.
Prof. MADHURA SWAMINATHAN