SDG2: Zero Hunger

In the second episode of our series on SDGs, Simon, Andre and Erin invited Prabhakar SVRK, who knows a lot about climate adaptation, food and agriculture. Focusing on SDG2 on Zero Hunger, we talked about the challenges to achieve a world free from hunger while trying to reduce fossil fuel use to limit climate change, given the significant fossil fuel-based inputs in our current food system. It seems the world is producing enough food or has potential to do so, but that distribution, access and sustainability of production remain a problem. 

In this episode, we covered the world’s progress on SDG2; why we can’t solve this fundamental problem; the issue of production vs. access to food; extensive vs. intensive agriculture; globalized food supply chains; the role of innovation; food loss and food waste, and more.

Related links

• SDG2 Progress, Targets, and Indicators
• Prabhakar’s slides on SDG2 

About our guest:

Sivapuram Ventaka Rama Krishna Prabhakar (referred to as “Prabhakar” in the episode) is a Principal Policy Researcher in the Adaptation and Water unit at IGES. He specialises in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, as well as agriculture, food and energy-related issues.

"About Sustainability..." is a podcast brought to you by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), an environmental policy think-tank based in Hayama, Japan. IGES experts are concerned with environmental and sustainability challenges. Everything shared on the podcast will be off-the-cuff discussion, and any viewpoints expressed are those held by the speaker at the time of recording. They are not necessarily official IGES positions.

Episode Transcript

Simon (00:11):
Hello and welcome to the IGES podcast,
About Sustainability..
.
In this episode, wehad a very interesting exchange
with Prabhakar, who is one ofour good colleagues on SDG2
on No Hunger.
Prabhakar knows a lotabout adaptation, food and
agriculture and howthey are linked.
During our discussion,we talked about the challenges

(00:33):
to achieve a world free fromhunger while trying to reduce
fossil fuel use tolimit climate change.
It seems the world is producingenough food or has potential to
do so, but that distribution,access and sustainability of
production remain a problem.
We also found that it will bechallenging to produce food for
eight billion people on theplanet without degrading lands

(00:56):
and soils and without foodproduction and transport
contributing to climate change.
Some of the possible solutionsgoing forward,
which we discussed,include organic agriculture,
technology, land and seedownership and genetically
modified organisms (or GMOs).
There is no silver bulletsolution to eradicate

(01:16):
world hunger, but there arevarious promising approaches.
Please join us and listento this episode.
Welcome everybody to the11th episode of
the IGES podcast,About Sustainability...
.
Today with us, we have agood colleague, Prabhakar,
and Prabhakar has been withIGES for several years and he

(01:40):
has a lot of experience onclimate change adaptation and
disaster risk reduction.
But he's also workedon conservation, farming and
done crop simulation modellingand all kinds of things related
to food and food security.
And that's why we have himon today, because today's

(02:01):
episode is going to be about SDG2 on No Hunger, on the
whole food question.
So that's what we'dlike to discuss.
My name is Simon, and withme I have my two co-hosts,
Erin and André.
So welcome, everybody.
Prabhakar, what is,in your view, the current

(02:25):
situation with world hunger?
Can you say a little bit aboutwhether we are on track to meet
the SDG2 by the enddate of 2030 or not?
I mean, where are we?

Prabhakar (02:36):
Yeah.
Yeah.
Thank you very much,Simon and other co-hosts,
for this opportunity.
So basically, if you look atworld hunger, we are nowhere
near to achieving the 2030target of zero hunger.
I think, until 2015, the worldhunger trends looked a

(02:56):
little bit satisfactory.
But then afterwards,the trends are completely
against our favour.
World hunger again startedincreasing substantially,
maybe because of alot of factors.
Some of them are within ourhands - because we were
fighting among each other,other wars, internal conflict

(03:18):
and also related to fuelprices, as well as,
you know, climate changeand natural disasters.
It's not one reason.
Many factors arecontributing to it.
While governments arecontinuing to fight against
hunger - it's not that theystop fighting for it, but -
these other factors, they haveoverpowered our efforts.

(03:40):
So most recently,we have seen COVID-19.
Of course, COVID-19 hasaffected not just the health of
the people, but also agricultureproduction systems, as well
as supply systems,supply chains globally.
And most recently, we have seenthe Ukraine war as well - war
between Russia and Ukraine thatis affecting the global food

(04:03):
security to a large extent.
So going by these trends,we are by far
missing the target.
I haven't seen any projectionsby how many years we have
missed the target.
It's not that even before thesethings happened, we were able
to meet the target.
But then these new developmentshave made it really difficult

(04:27):
for us to meet the target.
Yeah.

Simon (04:30):
Right.
The UN said in 2021 - thatwas before Ukraine, I suppose -
the number of people affectedby hunger globally rose to as
many as 828 million in 2021.
So 828 million - that'salmost 1 billion.
That's an increase of about 46million since the previous year

(04:53):
and an increase of 150 millionsince the outbreak of COVID-19.
So as you said, Prabhakar,so COVID-19 cost a backslide on
food security,on achieving SDG2.
And that has been,you're saying, so it's
the pandemic, but it's alsoconflict that is
disrupting this, isn't it?

Prabhakar (05:15):
Yes, of course.
Undoubtedly, [they] aresystemically disrupting
across the world.
It's not only disrupting theinternational food
supply chains, even the localfood supply chains are affected
because people'sinteraction is affected.
We can't go to marketsto procure food.
Food is not available at thesame cost [as] before the

(05:36):
COVID crisis, COVID-19.
Food priceshave substantially increased,
not only because of thelimited access, but also
because of the increase infood fuel prices.
So the transportation costshave increased substantially
and the poor are the mostaffected because of COVID-19.
So if you look at the responsesof the national governments to

(05:59):
COVID-19, it is not justthe physical isolation.
They are spending millions ofdollars on providing cheap food
and free food tothe most vulnerable sections
of the countries.
For example, if you look at thegovernment of India, it boasts
that it [was] able to feednearly hundreds of millions of

(06:20):
people additional to what thegovernment has already been
providing through its publicdistribution systems
during COVID-19.
And these interventions havebeen widely acclaimed both by
the WEF, our World HealthOrganization and the many other
developed nations as well.
The ability of the governmentto mobilise the resources and

(06:42):
reach out to the mostpoor to meet their, you know,
food requirementsand nutrition requirements.
There are estimates that,you know, in absence of these,
you know, supplies are,you know, by the government,
food security would have beenreduced by a minimum 15 to 20%.

(07:05):
The population will becomemore food-insecure.

Simon (07:09):
Okay.
So do you mean that the supportprovided by the governments
- your example, the Indiangovernment - that support
provided has really taken thebrunt of this food insecurity-

Prabhakar (07:19):
Yes.

Simon (07:20):
-disaster.
And it has helpedwhere crucial help was needed.

Prabhakar (07:24):
Yes.

Simon (07:25):
It is not like hunger and food insecurity was not a
problem before the pandemic orbefore the Ukraine war.
It has been a problem.
And I'm wondering, you know,"no hunger" or working towards
reducing food insecurity - thatwas a goal under the Millennium

(07:47):
Development Goals, and it isSDG2 to under the
Sustainable Development Goals.
So it seems thathunger has been this persistent
development challenge fora long time.
The pandemic has made it worseand the war is making it worse.
And other factors we might getinto is making it worse.
But it's not likeit wasn't a problem before.
Why is it that we can't justtackle this very fundamental

(08:08):
problem?

Prabhakar (08:09):
Yes, that's a very good question.
This is the same question youcan [ask] for poverty as well.
You know, poverty has beenthere for ages.
And why we have notbeen able to tackle poverty?
Because of ourgovernance systems,
the resources that areavailable for the countries...
There are a lot of factorsthat are intermingled.

(08:31):
And where do we start?
It's like a chicken-and-egg dilemma.
For me at least.
It's such a complex problem.
But why food security and thehunger has been such a problem?
Let us delve into that.
First of all, food hunger isnot just an end user problem,
you know.
If it's just that food isavailable in the market and if

(08:53):
it's not accessible, then youknow that, you know, okay,
you just give money to thepeople [so that] they can buy
and you know - or maybe you canprovide the food cheaply
to the poor.
But the problem ismuch more complex than that.
You have areas where you can'taccess physical food at all.
Food is not available.
For a major part ofthe human history,
food availability hasbeen a problem.

(09:14):
Okay, before theGreen Revolution, for example,
we used to have major famines.
We don't have any famines todaybecause we have come across- we
have overcome the problem offood- the "quantity
of food" problem.

Erin (09:28):
Sorry, just before- what is the Green Revolution?
Can you brieflydescribe what that is?
Yeah.

Prabhakar (09:35):
Okay.
So before the 1950s and 60s,food production used to rely
upon low-input agriculture andalso rely upon crop varieties
that don't respond to externalinputs like fertilisers and
pesticides and irrigation.
So because theseare not improved varieties,
the productivity of these cropswere very low.

(09:56):
For example, rice used toproduce maximum 300 kg,
500 kg per hectare.
You know, that same amount ofthe yield that we
are talking [about],pre-Green Revolution era.
And what happened was thatduring the 1960s and
late 1950s, there was a influxof four new varieties -

(10:17):
high-yielding varieties,which are dwarf in nature,
and they are also highlyresponsive to external
inputs like, you know,irrigation...
Basically, importantly,the fertilisers.
And they can be grownvery near to each other.
So the spacing between theplants can be very close
compared tothe traditional varieties,
which grow very large.

(10:38):
So they need larger spacing,so you can't grow too much crop
in the per unit area.
So the unit-areaintensification has increased.
So with that, we wereable to produce much more.
Now if you lookat rice yields, on average,
we are producing 2.6,2.7 tonnes.
But if we look at themaximum yields, you can see

(10:58):
areas where even farmers areproducing ten tonnes,
eight tonnes per hectare.
So that is a several multiplefolds in productivity per unit
area with the Green Revolution.
So with the Green Revolution,we have overcome the production
problem and quantity problem.
You know, we don't have[anymore] a quantity problem.

(11:18):
Now what we have isan inequality problem.
We have "haves" and "have-nots"and poverty is highly linked
with the food securityas well (hunger).
And because of this, youknow - probably we'll come to
the discussion later,the linkages
between different, you know,SDGs - the way the poverty is

(11:38):
defined earlier, even today inmost parts of the world, is the
amount of food expenditure thatyou spend to- for
your basic needs.
And the important the basicneed is food.
And even today, many countriesdon't consider many
other requirements, like yourenergy requirement,
your residential requirement,your transportation, you know,

(11:58):
whatnot, your education andthings like that.
So the food is-food is considered as the
most important element.
Probably 60%, 70% of theexpenditure is considered
to be food.
So because of that, there arehigh linkages with poverty.
And our inability to bring outthe people from poverty has

(12:19):
led to inequality, and as wellas limited access to the food
that is available in the market.

Simon (12:27):
Right.
Yeah.
So maybe I can- we can say alittle bit about different
forms of agriculturalproduction or different
approaches to agriculture.
There a coupleof approaches, right?
This intensive agricultureand extensive agriculture.
And you talked about before theGreen Revolution, it was,

(12:50):
I suppose,non-intensive agriculture.
So these are differentapproaches to food production.
But in different areas ofthe world, there are different
approaches to foodproduction and agriculture.
But despite that, we have notyet been able to to eliminate
the the hunger problem, right?

Prabhakar (13:10):
Yeah.
So going back to the same pointthat I made earlier, we are no
more talking about the quantityproblem in most parts
of the world.
You know, only in parts ofAfrica and in some parts
of Asia, probably, the quantityof food is a problem.
And if you look at theglobal scale, we have enough
food to feed millions.
It's only a geographicaldistribution problem.

(13:34):
It's a supply problem.
It's a marketimperfection problem, as well
as an access problem,the economic- in terms of the
ability to purchase the foodin the market.
Okay, just keep that point-that for sure is there.
The second point is whether wewant extensive farming or
intensive farming and which isgood for hunger - you know,

(13:55):
to mitigate the hunger.
I would say that, you know,of course, I have not come up
with the- we cando a lot of back-of-the-
envelope calculations [like],if extensive farming can
produce this much ofagriculture and in this much
of food, how manypeople can it feed?
We can do that calculation andmaybe we can say, with the

(14:18):
current global, you know,resource boundaries that we
are talking about,probably extensive agriculture
is not the solution.
Because once we talk aboutextensive agriculture,
even there is a lot ofcompetitive use of the land for,
you know, urbanisation,expansion of the population,
industrialisation...

(14:39):
And also we have very limitedland to expand because a lot of
land is already degraded andthe pristine lands are no more
available unless / otherwiseyou want to cut down the
pristine forests and convertthem into agriculture.
And that isa sustainability problem.

André (14:54):
Can you just define extensive agriculture and
intensive agriculture?
Because not that obvious.

Prabhakar (14:59):
Extensive agriculture these we are not
for...So take your example of,you want to produce ten tonnes
per hectare, okay.
Ten tonnes of food.
Okay.
And right now we are producingone tonne from your whatever
the geographical area youhave in question.
And in order toproduce 10 tonnes, you are
simply expanding thearea for agriculture.

(15:22):
So thatis extensive agriculture.
So, I mean, if you are talkingat the household level, I can't
expand the land because you sayhow to expand the land, then I
need to buy the land, then Ineed to have the resources to
buy the land.
And there should be somebodywho is willing to sell
the land, you know?
So those complications comein to-

André (15:40):
So it's simply food production per unit area.
Is it as simple as thator is it- is that a
oversimplification of thedefinition?

Prabhakar (15:48):
I think..
.
Yeah.
So basically when we want toexpand our production, we are
simply looking at the solutionof expanding the
area for agriculture.
Okay?
But on the intensiveagriculture side, we are not
looking at as much of expansionof the land itself, but more
about intensification withinthe land that we already

(16:09):
have at hand.
So that means that, you know,for example, as I said in the
Green Revolution, what we didwas basically intensification.
We brought more number ofplants that can be planted
within the unit area, and weincreased those plants' ability
to uptake nutrients at higherrate so that those are
highly fertiliser-responsive,input-responsive varieties so

(16:32):
they can harvest much moresolar radiation because it's
all about- agriculture is aboutharvesting solar radiation.
So either you expand your landso that you harvest more solar
radiation in that way or youexpand the intensity of the
crop within the unit area,and so that you increase the
surface area of the crop,so that you can increase the

(16:52):
solar radiation capture.
And ultimately yourproductivity goes up in
the unit area.
But that's not the problem.
You know, intensification andextensification are not the
problem by concepts themselves.
The problem is what are thepathways that we have taken for
intensification and what arethe pathways that we have taken

(17:14):
for extensification?
Of course, the landis always coming from forests.
You know, there is no-I mean, the original land
is always forests.
If you lookat even before humans-

André (17:24):
Or natural vegetation of some kind, right?

Prabhakar (17:26):
Natural vegetation.
Forests and all that.
So the way we expand it is,of course - I don't know where
at any point of our horizontalexpansion of agriculture we
ever thought about whatwe are doing wrong by
cutting down forests.
It's only much later in,you know, Johannesburg Plan of
[Implementation] and otherenvironmental revolution

(17:47):
globally that happened thatwe started-

Simon (17:49):
So in the last couple of decades.

Prabhakar (17:51):
Yeah, in the last couple of decades that we had
started thinking about- "oh,forests are important and we
shouldn't be cutting theforests because they have a lot
of other, you know,services and products that they
can offer to the world,beyond just being..
Just sitting plants,trees there.
That is one problem.
The secondproblem is intensification.

(18:11):
How are we intensifying?
We are intensifying bydepending on fossil fuels,
because you need to produce alot of little fertilisers and
[a lot] ofthis fertiliser production is
highly energy-intensive.
Okay?

Simon (18:25):
Yeah.

Prabhakar (18:26):
So this is leading to GHG [greenhouse gas]
emissions - that is one thing.
The second aspect is we arebringing a lot of fertilisers
into the land without thinkingabout the balance
of nutrient application.
And by that, weare spoiling the soil
and chemical composition,its physical properties.

(18:47):
So slowly, the soilshave started degrading,
you know, [with greater]salinisation and the
acidification and whatnot,and also in many places...
Of course, because we have highyielding varieties, but we are
not applyingbalanced fertilisation.
So we are also over-depletingthe soils as well in other

(19:07):
parts of the world.
Yeah.

Simon (19:09):
So Prabhakar.
So...
Okay.
So you're saying by explainingthe different approaches to
food production,intensive and extensive...
I mean, when yousay "extensive", I get to think
about those huge pastures offields in the United States
where the farmer needs to getinto his or her helicopter to
check the boundariesof the field.
That's the types of areas weare thinking about when we talk

(19:33):
about extensive agriculture.
But where I'm from in Europe,there are no such big fields.
And when we get closer to Asiaand Japan, the fields become
even smaller because the amountof land is constrained.
So we need different approaches.
But no matter what,you're saying that there are
limitations to those approachesto agriculture,
as you're saying.
We destroy the forest,we remove carbon sinks,

(19:55):
we deplete the soil...
So that means if we should meetSDG2 - that means, if we should
eliminate hunger by the currentapproaches to agriculture - we
would cause setbacksin other important
sustainability areas, you know,such as climate
change or, you know, SDG 12 onsustainable consumption [and

(20:17):
production] and whatnot.
So then if those approachesdon't work, so what...
What do we do?

Prabhakar (20:22):
Okay, so now we have come to the question of whether
or not can we feedthe world without having to do
extensificationor intensification.
Of course we can do that.
And there is a lot of researchthat says that we can do it in
a sustainable manner.
Recently, I have seena paper draft authored by

(20:42):
Professor [Cynthia] Rosensweig,and they, the authors,
have listed the several waysthat we can do.
Let me go beyond the authors-what authors have said.
Just looking at the- what youcall the "basket" of solutions
that we have in front of us...
Right away, we can look at thegeographical regions of the

(21:03):
world where we have alreadydrastically affected
agriculture productivity,where the total factor
productivity is coming down.
Okay?
So we can look at these areasand we can try to improve the
sustainability in these areasand try to introduce
environmentally best practices,you know,
including organic agricultureor balanced nutrification or

(21:25):
using organic fertilisersand pesticides, even if you
don't want to call [thoseproducts] organic agriculture.
And we can make these soilssustainable over the period.
Well, that kind ofapproach we can take in
this particular area.
In other areas, we haven't evenreached the, you know,

(21:46):
tipping point that otherareas have reached.
For example, many partsof Africa, the input in
agriculture is very, very farbelow the global average.
So we have higher potential toincrease food productivity
there while still beingwithin the, you know,
environmental boundaries thatthe environment can allow us,
that nature can allow us.

(22:06):
So this is the kindof a multipronged and also very
location-specific approach wecan take within the available
agriculture land that we have.
Beyond that, I think, you know,there are several approaches.
For example, weare talking about climate-
smart agriculture, where we cantake the opportunities that
climate change is providing-because of [global] warming,
new and new areas arecoming into, you know,

(22:28):
agriculture production that wecan think of, vertically as
well as horizontally.
And secondly, also, we can alsothink about mitigating the
impacts of climate change,including disasters,
because every year,natural disasters like floods,
typhoons and droughts- they affect agriculture
production substantially.

(22:48):
You know, I keep on taking theexample of India, wherein in
the 2004 and 2005 drought -that has affected the rice
production so much that thecountry took nearly six years
to revive to thelevel of the pre- drought
agriculture production.

(23:09):
So even though the monsoon hasrevived immediately, we have
seen that the farmers are somuch affected with one drought
because they don't have seeds.
They don't have fertilisers.
They don't have access tothese market inputs.
They don't have money to investbecause they have already lost
the money in the investmentsthat they have made in the 2004
and 2005 crops.

(23:30):
So the debt that the farmershave and even the governments
to respond to the crisis - ittook a lot of time.
So if you could address thesekind of shocks, the annual
shocks that we face every time,I think we can save
a lot of food thatis lost even before it is
reaching the markets.

(23:51):
And if you talk about theentire lifecycle of the food
from the farm to the plate,you can think about a lot of
food losses in, I think, in thefood processing facilities,
for example, in storage aswell as in home consumption.
So if you can add this to allthese losses, including one of

(24:13):
the solutions that Rosenzweigand her colleagues
have suggested, there is a lotof opportunity for us to meet
the food, you know,sustainability as well as
food security goals,even without
harming the environment.
And we don't need tonecessarily talk about
converting the entire world'sagriculture into organic

(24:33):
agriculture at all.

Simon (24:34):
Hmm.

Prabhakar (24:35):
Yeah.

Simon (24:36):
But some areas would be good.

Prabhakar (24:38):
Yeah.
You need to choose, pick andchoose areas where which are
necessary candidatefor organic agriculture.
Well, the recent example thathas become a candidate for a
negative example for organicagriculture is Sri Lanka.
You know, unfortunately,there's a sudden- it's a

(24:59):
conglomeration of many factors.
Of course, we can't justattribute to organic
agriculture itself, but,you know, we need to look into
a prudent way ofemploying organic agriculture.

Simon (25:10):
Right.
Yeah.
So what you're talking about isalso a sort of the whole energy
calculation - input, output.
You have implied that before,a few minutes ago, that we need
to reduce the energy input tothe calorie input to the
calorie output that weget from foods.
Otherwise, those calories alljust comes through fossil fuels.

(25:32):
And if we have to, you know- ifwe have to limit global warming
or climate change, we need toreduce the use of
those fossil fuels.
So that necessarily requires,I think, a creative
approach to agriculture.
If I look at the SDG2targets - for example, Target 2.

(25:52):
3 - It talks about doubling theagricultural productivity to
improve the incomes of farmersand small scale food producers
and so on.
The challenge is going to be,so how do you double the
agricultural productivitywithout using more fossil fuel-
fossil-fuel based fertiliser,right?

Prabhakar (26:11):
Yeah.
Wonderful.
So let us lookat the energy consumption in
agriculture right now.
So if you look at fertilisers,the nitrogen fertilisers,
usually, for example,nitrogen fertilisers globally -
they produce nearly about,I think, in the range of 190 to
200 million tonnes ofammonia every year.

(26:31):
And the major part [of this] isproduced by China, India and
other countries-

André (26:36):
And Russia.

Prabhakar (26:37):
Yes, they take nearly 30 to 35 gigajoules of
energy per tonne of ammoniathat is produced.
Okay.
And forthe phosphorus fertilisers,
we are talking about in therange of five gigajoules
of energy production.
So the aggregateof fertiliser production

(26:59):
is highly energy-intensive.
However, we cannotblame fertilisers alone.
You know, fertilisers are onlyone of the inputs
for agriculture production.
And I was lookingat various other energy
inputs in agriculture.
For example, you take theexample of the cotton.

(27:20):
Cotton as an input - there arecalculations which says that
the total inputis 29 gigajoules.
Okay?
You can include fertilisers,fuel that you consume on the
farm because you want to pumpthe water, you want to spray
some fertilisers, you know,things like that.
You want to till the land,you know, you want to

(27:42):
use a tractor.
For all that you need directgasoline consumption
on the farm.
If you convert the cottonoutput that is
producing 56 granules.
Okay?
So the ratio is, for everygigajoules of inputs, you are
producing 1.93 gigajoules ofthe output in the
case of cotton.

(28:02):
So that is pretty much-

Simon (28:03):
So that's energy-positive.

Prabhakar (28:04):
That is very much positive so I think, when I
looked at your question,I thought probably
you are implying, are weon the negative side of the
energy consumption?

Simon (28:14):
Yes.

Prabhakar (28:15):
And of course, I thought, okay, cotton is on
the other extreme.
And let me look at sugarcane.
Sugarcane is also oneof the highly resource-
intensive crops, but it's notthe same in the case
of sugarcane.
In sugarcane, we are looking at148 gigajoules per hectare of
energy input, whereas theenergy output is

(28:36):
only 112 gigajoules.
So that means I mean,because it's a ratio, we don't
see it's negative, but it'sless than one.
But if you compare betweencotton and sugarcane,
in cotton, it is mostly thefertilisers that is leading
to your, you know,energy consumption,

(28:56):
whereas in sugarcane,it is irrigation water.
And you can say the samein the case of rice - it
is the fertilisers.
But we can't really generalisethese things because it depends
on under what productionsystems you are estimating
these inputs and outputs.
Okay?

(29:16):
So if youlook at organic agriculture,
organic agriculture does notdefine non-use of fossil fuels.
Please mind.
So an organic farmercan still use a tractor.
He can still use gasoline-usedblowers for spraying,
you know, biopesticides,you know, bio fertilisers and

(29:36):
things like that.
So he's still dependent uponthe fossil fuels for
his organic agriculture.
In that case, you can say thatit is much more- the ratio is
much more towards- on thehigher side above one.
But in many other crops itcould be much below.

(29:56):
Now, so having understood thatparticular question now- let us
come to the question of how canwe produce the same amount of
food while not investing thesame amount of energy?
Okay, so why arewe investing so much energy?
We are investing so much energybecause we want to make sure-

(30:17):
we want to capture as muchsolar radiation as possible and
the limitations of biologicalto begin with.
So for example, in agriculture,we talk about C3 crops
and C4 crops.
So C3 crops are, in general,they are efficient in
conversion of solar radiationcompared to C4 crops.
So the relativedifferences are there.

(30:40):
So we don't havemany C4 crops, we have
many C3 crops.
Basically, we are dependent onC4 crops and how do we,
you know, increase theefficiency of the C4 crops to
capture more solar radiation inan efficient manner.
And we are talking about,you know, in this case probably
the carbon dioxidefertilisation and things

(31:00):
like that, which isnot yet [applicable].
I mean, it's not still widely-You can do that in a
greenhouse context, but probablynot in an open
environment like [how] weproduce rice and
wheat and maize,in the open fields.
Okay, keep that aside.
So the second way of increasingthe efficiency of energy
conversion is relying uponnon-fossil fuel sources.

(31:25):
For example, governments arealready providing solar PV
panels to pump the irrigationwater for use in a lot of
on-farm activities.
I haven't seen many tractorsthat can run on solar PV - they
still run on fossil fuels.
And so I think tillageis one of the energy-intensive

(31:48):
processes as well as harvestingas well because we are no more
dependent on human labour,because human labour is hard
to come by,even in developing world.
So as long as we can't producethose harvesting machines as
well as sowing machines thatcan use solar radiation or
other non-fossil fuel energy,then we will be continuing to

(32:12):
at least depend on fossilfuels for now.
So-

Simon (32:15):
So Prabhakar, so you so so you're explaining that,
that some of the inputs to theenergy spreadsheet or the
energy calculation in terms ofhow much energy it requires to
grow a crop, some of those wecan reduce by, say, relying on
solar power instead of fossilfuels or others.

(32:37):
But there may be- there may beother areas that where we
haven't found an alternativeyet to increase the efficiency
of the conversion- that means, either by
reducing the energy input or insome other way increasing the
efficiency of solar energyconversion of the crop.
Is that correct?

Prabhakar (32:58):
Yes.
Yeah.
Yeah.

Simon (33:00):
So how about how about the supply chain then?

Prabhakar (33:03):
Okay.
So coming to the supply chain,of course, supply chain is a
completely energy-intensiveprocess depending on from what
distance you are talking about.
Many urban areas evenin developing world...
If I go to India, I seeany supermarket, I see a lot of
imported food comingfrom faraway countries.
This, I have not seen tenyears ago, 15 years ago.

(33:26):
This is the thing thatwe have been seeing in Japan.
Japan imports nearly60% probably, if I am
not wrong, average caloricconsumption coming from
outside its boundaries.
So import dependency on food isa very, very important issue.
And unfortunately, these global-I may be

(33:46):
diverting little bit, but - theway the food security is
estimated compared to betweencountries, if you
look at Japan, it is estimatedto have higher food security
compared to countries thatare self-sufficient, food
self-sufficient because....
Yes.

Simon (34:03):
That's interesting.

Prabhakar (34:04):
To say that, because Japan has
purchasing power,it's food secure.
Of course, theoretically, it is,right?
But then if you talk aboutsupply chains and energy
consumption and all that,it's not the case.
Energy, I mean, in in truesense that Japan is
not food secure.
And so that's whereit is, basically, in terms of
how we are employingthese different concepts.

Simon (34:27):
I see.
To what extent do you thinkthat technology can answer the
question or technologyis the answer?
You know, can we innovateourselves out of the constraint
of producing food in a way thathas less impact and that is
more efficient so that wecan feed everybody.
Can be relianton technology for that?

(34:49):
What do we need?

Erin (34:51):
Oh, just to add on to that, I mean, you didn't
mention GMOs [geneticallymodified organisms] at all,
but that's kind of a big,you know, trend as well.

André (35:00):
The elephant in the room.

Erin (35:01):
Right.
Yes.
So I was wondering as well,like, you know, what role GMOs
have to play.

Prabhakar (35:08):
Yeah.
So let me answer the GMOs[question] first and then let's
go to the broader questionof the technologies.
Of course, similarto organic agriculture, I would
say that the jury's still outin terms of the GMOs.
Earlier, I tried to do a lot ofliterature review on what is

(35:28):
really the crux ofthe GMO problem.
Is it really, you know,the health issues, the long-
term health issues that isbeing feared widely, or are the
fears kind of unfounded?
I think it's a mixtureof the problem.
First of all, we don't have theevidence that, you know,
to what extent these GMOs canhave a negative impact on our

(35:51):
health on the longer term.
Probably we are still not verymuch far into GMO food.
We don't have muchexperience so far.
And also there are not manylongitudinal studies that
can systematically isolate.
Because we are studying- we arenot just living by
eating GMO food.
We are interacting with thewider environment, facing a lot
of other chemicals.

(36:12):
So it is very difficult toconduct a systematic study that
can isolate the subjects fromother chemical influences of
the life thatthey are experiencing.
So having said that, I thinkthere are areas that we can,
you know,systematically rely upon,
for example,nutrient fortification,

(36:32):
biofortification we are talkingabout now, which is a very good
area for me because a lot ofnutrients which we consume
basically are carbide cropsthat are carbohydrate rich.
And because of that, we aredeprived of basically some of
the essential vitamins,for example, vitamin E and iron

(36:54):
is one of the focus areas ofthe biofortification.
And

André (36:58):
so how would you fortify it and what would be the
process- do you mean of postproduction fortification of...?

Prabhakar (37:03):
It is...
It is...
Of course.
What I meanis by genetically modification,
you can enhance the vitamincontent in the crops,
but also of course,after production also,
you can enhance.
For example, in indeveloped world,I can
think that, you know,vitamin D is, for example,
is mixed with your milk.

(37:24):
Vitamin D-fortified milk hasbeen sold in the market, but it
is an entirelypost-production process, as far
as my understanding goes.

André (37:32):
But you were referring to the GMOs as a way
of fortifying, which has beendone with vitamin D as well.

Prabhakar (37:38):
Yes.
So those we can do at least fora targeted population, which is
highly deprived of thesenutrient deficiencies- are
deprived of these nutrients inparts of Asia and
parts of Africa.
That could still be apart of your solution arsenal,
I would say.
But still, you know, we stilldon't know what is going to be

(38:00):
the long-term impactof these, you know, genetically
modified organisms.
So having said that about thewider technology, I think the
technology cannot be or neednot be necessarily
the panacea, because a lot ofthe problem is not
related to production.

(38:21):
As I said, you know,your production problem is
largely solved in many partsof the world.
You can balancethe production geographically.
But I would say that, while weare balancing geographically,
that means that we are heavilyreliant upon the world
food supply chains.
So you are- so both ofthe models interdependent.

(38:44):
Either you are dependent onyour local agriculture and the
local food productionand think about intensification
in other ways.
Or you think about thegeographical "balancification"
between areas wherethere is a high
intensification happening.
You try to reduce the intensitythere and try to increase the
intensification in areas whichhasn't [been intensified],

(39:05):
and try to link these areas interms of the supply chain.
So that is one strategy.
The second strategy is,of course, obviously you
promote your local farmers andthat obviously has a lot of
productivity implications andalso resource implications.
For example, we are talkingabout urban agriculture today.
Now urban areas are alreadyhighly energy-starved.

(39:28):
You know, even in manymetropolitan cities, we see
blackouts in Asia,in parts of Asia.
And water shortage isvery much rampant.
And if you are bringingagriculture or food production
into urban areas, we areactually putting additional
pressure onthe urban environment,
on food and energy, aswell as the water resources.

(39:49):
So there is another aspect tobe considered, you know,
when you want to reducedependency on the, you know,
externally produced food,I think we need to be more
pragmatic and we have to be,you know, open in our approach.
And we can- I think I prefermore towards "balancification"

(40:10):
of our intensive areas beingtargeted to become more
agricultural sustainableagriculture pathways and target
other less intensified areas tocatch up with other agriculture
production.
Yeah.
So because the supplychains are there, now if you
agree that, you know, [say that]you and me are the

(40:31):
decision makers for theworld today, then if
you agree that,"okay, let's- Prabhakar, let us
the balance the geographicalareas," then you will say-
maybe somebody else will say,"oh, what about supply chains?
Because we have already seensupply chain disruptions,
you know, during COVID.
And can you guarantee that thesupply chain disruptions
doesn't happen because of thepandemics and wars?" Of course,

(40:53):
we cannot guarantee.
And also, if you lookat the debates widely, we are
seeing that, you know,the countries, some of the
you know, voices - they aresaying that essential goods and
services have to be exemptfrom any disruptions.
You know, you can choose,for example, energy, food...
They can be exemptfrom transborder, you know,

(41:16):
limitations, especially duringthe crisis such as war.
For example, doctors withoutboundaries or beyond boundaries-

Erin (41:24):
Without Borders, yeah.
[Referring to Medecins SansFrontieres or Doctors
Without Borders]

Prabhakar (41:26):
They can go in war areas without being shot.
Isn't it [true]?
So if you can put the life ofthe person a priority in
war situations, you can alsoprioritise the life of the
person who is theliving far away, but is
dependent upon the resourcescoming from the conflict zone.
Okay?
Can we think about, you know,World Trade Organization,
you know, negotiating betweencountries to do something like

(41:49):
that?
Probably it is possible, if youthink the human wellbeing
in front, I thinkit is possible.
So that is one approach toavoid the supply chain
disruptions fromhuman conflicts.
But in terms ofother conflicts, probably we
need to look into moreresilient supply chains.

(42:09):
I was looking into the India-the food imported by India and
you would be surprised thatIndia is importing almost- I
think my number, if you allowme to refer to my slide - in
the case of India, you know,India imports a lot of
food as well.
And if you look atIndia's case, when we analysed
during 2011 to 2020, 42% of thetotal food imports came from

(42:34):
climatically vulnerablecountries and 29% came from
politically unstable countries.
So you can- you can think of,you know, hunger and food
security of countries is nomore dependent upon the food
production inthe country itself.
Because when we are talkingabout the balancing -
geographical balancing - youare to depend upon the food

(42:57):
that is produced outside andthe situation of the countries
outside your country isbeyond your control.
So what we have to do is- andthe one of the problems with
supply chains is theyare not organic in nature.
They are not as quick in natureas we want them to be,
because it takes the years ofestablishing linkages with the

(43:19):
new supply chains.
And those supply chains cannotbe modified in a short notice,
like, like those that happen ina disaster or at
a pandemic situation.
You see?
Now, if you remember, even themilk that is produced within a
country had to be thrown outbecause many milk producers are

(43:40):
producing for the restaurantsand restaurants are closed.
And because they can't pack themilk for consumers, because the
consumers - theyonly buy one-litre, two-litre
milk packs.
But restaurants, they buy intens of litres packs,
probably, the quantities.
So you don't have the packaging.
Even you can't thinkabout the repacking of existing

(44:02):
goods for, you know,quickly targeting the consumer
base within the country.
So you can't reallytalk about, you know,
establishing a new supply chainin the event of, you know,
food loss somewhere else,because of the disaster,
because of war.
So we need to think aboutmapping alternate supply chains
as a strategy by the individualcountries and try to see have

(44:26):
forward[-looking] agreementswith those countries.
Okay.
We are already dependent onthese sources traditionally,
but this can also say that,"you know, we can no more [be]
dependent uponthese traditional sources.
And we want to have anagreement with you for,
you know, food supply or anyother kind of supply chain

(44:47):
realignment in the inthe wake of a disruption".
Probably this is notthe exact way you do.
But I'm just saying incolloquial terms and you need
to have that kind of agreementwith the multiple countries and
a multiple supplychain providers,
service providers in between.
Yeah.

Simon (45:04):
So I like what you're saying, Prabhakar.
You're laying it out basicallyas sort of,
there are different options.
There are no-there is no panacea,
there's no silver bullet.
But one of them in the future,as you're saying, will be to
try to get to remove the tradeor the supply chains of food,

(45:24):
commodities of food, to reducethe risk related to conflict
and political instability,basically saying that these
items or sectors should besomehow protected or there
should be an internationalagreement that whenever,
if, unfortunately, thereis a political conflict,
those necessities should bebeyond the conflict-

Prabhakar (45:47):
So, yeah, because the problem is
not the quantity.
The problem is aboutthe access to the quantity.
And the access is onlyby paying money.
So the volatility of the foodprices is a major issue.
Food prices are affectedby many things.
If you look at the 2008 globalfood price crisis, you would be

(46:07):
surprised to know that,you know, there are things
happening across the worldwhich seem to be not linked
with each other at all.
But at the end of the day,we have seen that the rice
prices have increased so much,the wheat prices have increased
so much because the drought inAustralia and somewhere the
land is converted away from,you know, agriculture,
food and somewhere,the people are, you know,

(46:29):
investing in food marketsbecause the financial
markets were down.
So the investors saw theagriculture and food markets as
a lucrative area to invest.
So because of all theseseemingly unrelated factors,
we have seen that the foodsecurity of the millions of
people in the developing worldwere severely affected.

Simon (46:47):
Right.

Prabhakar (46:47):
So we couldn't forecast that in 2008.
And I am not sure whether wecan forecast the same even
today though, the agencies likeFAO [Food and Agriculture
Organization] and I think evento some extent "IFRP" - they
have tried to comeup with a food price
forecasting facility.
I am not sure to what extentthey were able to succeed in
that and also to what extent itcan really warn you before such

(47:13):
a food price crisis happens.

Simon (47:15):
Prabhakar, what's the "IFRP"?
International Food PolicyResearch Institute (IFPR).
I see.
Okay.
IFPR, my bad.
Okay.
And so...
But another issue is like,sometimes, as you also said,
sometimes the politicalstability or instability or
whatever crisis that mighthappen - if it's a drought or a

(47:36):
fire - that isbeyond the control of an
international agreement,or sometimes there is no
fertile ground foran international agreement.
So in those cases,where possible,
it makes sense, perhaps in thefuture to relocalise some of
the food production in order toreduce to the risk of,
you know, long supplychains being disrupted.

Prabhakar (47:58):
I'm not denying that, you know,
we shouldn't be entirelydependent upon
externally produced food.
I'm saying that in the scenarioof you and me agreeing that the
geographical redistribution isa good strategy for the world,
then we have tomake sure that our supply
chains are sacrosanct.
They are not affected.
They are not touched byany human factors.

(48:20):
And we make sure that there isa sufficient redundancy and
sufficient resiliency builtinto the supply chains so that
they are not affected- they arenot affecting the food security
of the millions of the people.
But I am not sayingthat that's the only approach.
We can also think about foodstorage because a lot of food

(48:40):
loss is also fromthe lack of food storage.
On-farm food storage doesn'texist in many [parts of
the] developing world.
Farmers - they haveto harvest today.
And in many cases theyhave to immediately shift to
the markets overnight.
And because of the lack of amarketing- storage facilities,
sometimes you see"gloom and glut".

(49:03):
I think that "gloom and glut"is a kind of a cycle,
you know, where farmers - allthe farmers come to the harvest
at the same time and you haveto sell it - especially it
happens in the case of thefresh produce, like vegetables
and fruits - and you need tosell them because of the high
supply and low demand.

(49:24):
You are selling it even lowerthan the production costs.
And in many parts of Asia,you will see during the gloom
period- I mean, during theglut period, you will see that
a lot of agriculture produce isthrown [away] in the
agriculture fields itselfbecause it's not profitable for
farmers to take themto [the market].

(49:45):
So we need to promote,cooperate- at least at the
cooperative level - some kindof cold storage facilities so
that farmers can store thefood produce, so that they can
enjoy constant food prices overa period of time.
And also we can avoidfood loss, more importantly,
and also the secondly, the moreimportant distinction between

(50:07):
developed country farmer anddeveloping country farmer is
the ability to process the foodon the farm itself.
If you look at the developedcountry farmers, they are able
to process a lot of foodproduce on the farm itself.
But it's not the case with thedeveloping country farmers,
even at the villageor group- of-villages level.
We don't have local foodprocessing facilities

(50:29):
sufficient enough tomeet the demand.
I think there are estimatesthat says that only 1% of the
total food is processedin the developing world,
which is very, very low.
And there is a lot of potential.
I think this is where theprivate sector can come in.
They can invest indifferent models, you know,
cost-sharing models, you know,things like that.

(50:50):
And this problem can beand can be solved in
a sustainable manner.

Erin (50:56):
By food processing, do you mean like packaging or...
Like what do you mean exactly?

Prabhakar (51:02):
It's not just only the packaging, because once you
harvest the food,food undergoes a lot of
post-harvest operations,including, you know, quality,
you know,maintenance of the quantity.
You want tosegregate the food into
different quality standards.
Also, you want to polish,in the case of rice.

(51:24):
Also you want to, you know,convert into other value
added goods, for example,you know, tomato puree,
you know, or canned tomatoesand things like that.

Erin (51:34):
Right, right.

Simon (51:35):
Right.
So instead of selling- orinstead of selling sugarcane,
you might have a facility thatactually makes the sugar.
And maybe there could be somebyproducts of that production
that that can also goback into the energy cycle.
So-

Prabhakar (51:49):
That's right, that's right.

Simon (51:49):
There are some some good ideas there.
But you mentioned food loss andstorage facilities as also
some things that I feel arepart of the answer for how to
tackle the hunger problem.
But food loss actually,interestingly, global food loss
and waste - I don't have the...
I didn't pull upthe data, but I think
that it's substantive.

(52:09):
There's a lot of food loss,but food loss is tackled under
SDG12 on SustainableConsumption and Production.
There's the-

Prabhakar (52:18):
That's right.

Simon (52:19):
Uh, Target 12.3 to halve per capita global food waste at
the retail and consumer levelsbetween 2015 and 2030.
But I think- I'm not sure wherewe are with this, but I think
with there's still someways to go.

Prabhakar (52:33):
No, of course we are nowhere near limiting
our food loss.
Of course, this point comesback to the inter
linkages between SDGs.
Obviously, hunger is very muchlinked to many other
SDGs - SDG5, SDG1, for example,SDG on climate change (SDG13).
You have Life on Land (SDG15),Life below [Water] (SDG14).

(52:53):
And of course, as you said,sustainable consumption
and production (SDG12).
All these as SDGsare highly linked with hunger.
But coming to yourfood loss [question],
you know, there is a UNEPreport that says that nearly
30% of the total foodglobally is lost.
That's a lot of amount.
And even if I say that, if youcan address that 30% itself,

(53:16):
you can straightaway addressyour food access problem.
You know, that's possible.
You don't have toeven bring additional land into
intensive agriculture itself.
Of course, I am not saying itout of a robust analysis,
but by looking atsheer quantity-

Simon (53:32):
Right,

Prabhakar (53:32):
Of the food.
The 30% amount itself is to meappears to be very sufficient
to feed, you know,additional 500 million people
or 600 million people.

Simon (53:42):
So, yeah, and it seems also just a- I mean, it seems
also a bad business idea tolose 30% of your input.

Prabhakar (53:50):
It is a bad business idea.
Unethical as well.
Yeah, it is a bad business idea.
It is unethical.
Unethical.
And also it is environmentallyunsustainable because the food
already has received alot of environmental resources
into it.
Water has been applied.
Fertilisers have been used.
Farmers have invested theirincome in financial resources.
So you'd say...

(54:11):
you said total loss-

Erin (54:13):
And what happens to the food that is wasted?
Where does it go?

Prabhakar (54:18):
Yeah.
So interestingly,that obviously goes
into the landfills.

Erin (54:23):
Okay.

Prabhakar (54:24):
Or the incinerators, but in Japan and also in many
developing countries, there area lot of initiatives.
But these are verygrassroots level initiatives.
For example, NGOs arecollecting [uneaten] food from
five-star restaurants.
You know, they are beingsupplied to, you know,

(54:44):
poor people.
And also there is aclosed loop system.
Examples in Japan,for example, where NGOs are
promoting a collection of,you know, food waste from
households and it is compostedand given to the farmers and
they are converting this amountinto some kind of unit.

(55:05):
So those units - youcan trade in, in terms
of [Japanese] yen.
So for example, if you bring inone kg of food waste,
probably you can get10 Japanese yen, for example,
you know?
So that's very innovative.
But, you know, there has to besome- So from where do you
generate those resources?
The 10 yen has tocome from somewhere.
So developing a business modelout of such examples is very

(55:31):
important and it canprovide a solution as well.

Simon (55:35):
Yeah, maybe you could...
maybe you could- Sorry.
Maybe you could just reduce thefossil fuel subsidies by 10 yen
and then per unit you havethose 10 yen available to help
create a businessmodel for something that
you just mentioned.

Prabhakar (55:47):
Oh, man, where can you put the fossil fuel
subsidies?
You can put them anywhere else.
I mean, there are so manycompeting uses for fossil
fuel subsidies, but there is nosubstitute for a life
saved from, you know,lack of food.
And that is the single mostreason why the governments

(56:08):
today are going beyond theirlimits to provide as many
subsidies as possible.
And this comes to the thedistorted nature of world trade
in terms of food.
Even the SDGs, which I mean,I think probably I've come to
the point where I can criticisethem- one of the aspects
of the SDG.
It's that it wants to achievethe hunger without subsidies.

(56:34):
It's like, you know, you aretying the legs of people and
asking them to run.

André (56:39):
And do you-

Prabhakar (56:40):
And you are asking them to run by 2030.

Simon (56:43):
And run uphill.

Prabhakar (56:44):
Run uphill.
So how can you do that ?
So probably, I think, though,this is a negotiated goal.
I'm not sure...
probablycountries are optimistic,
I would say.
Otherwise they wouldn't beagreeing to that kind
of target, you know, to phaseaway the trade subsidies,

(57:05):
export subsidies.
But of course, obviously,just talking about export
subsidies - a specificform of subsidy.
But in general, we need indeveloping countries a targeted
subsidy at least so that foodcan be made available at
affordable cost to the poorestof the poor.

André (57:24):
Can I just- going back a little bit,
Prabhakar, since thebeginning, I've kind
of been wondering aboutthis relationship, and we spoke
about it in the previouspodcast discussion on
SDG1 on poverty...
You know, poverty has come intothis discussion quite a bit and
so has inequality.
But what I'm curious about is-one thing is that, on the
SDG2 page, it talks aboutinequality as being a problem,

(57:48):
but it doesn't talk aboutpoverty as being a problem
related to hunger, which Ifind quite strange.
But...
and this kind of gets me backto the whole issue of why if we
are producing enough food,what is the actual mechanism by
which food is not reaching thepeople it needs to reach?
Is it - and I think it's toogeneral to say it's poverty or

(58:10):
it's inequality - but can youtalk- could you have an
understanding of what thatmechanism is and why it's not
getting to the peopleit needs to get to?

Simon (58:17):
It's like a barrier of some sort?

Prabhakar (58:18):
I think it's purely in terms of market prices.
So your market prices arehigher than your affordability
of the food and the poor.
They don't have the sufficientincome to pay for
daily food consumption.
So how to keep the food priceslow is one of the challenges.

(58:40):
And if you look at thediscussion in this particular
area and people say that, okay,don't subsidise the food,
let the market forces play outso that, you know, you reach an
equilibrium price where in yoursupply and demand - they
determine your food prices.

Simon (58:58):
Right.

Prabhakar (58:58):
And then, you know, government can, you know,
chip in and then provide thefood that is necessary for
the poor, which anyway,the government is already doing.
You know, the government isalready providing lots of
subsidised food, or even freefood to the poor through public
distribution systems or fairpriced shops as in the
case of India.
So there are, I think,there are some quantitative

(59:21):
studies to make that point.
I think the governments arenot very, I think, convinced by
that idea because, you know,obviously your desk studies may
not always roll out to be whatthe market forces [do] because
markets are not always- theydon't behave the way that
we expect them.
There are a lot of inequalitiesin the market itself.

(59:43):
So I thinkfor the governments, it's about
the implementability ofpolicies rather than ideal-ness
of the policy.
So in terms of theimplementability, it is easy
for them to target certainpoints of food production
and then, you know,provide subsidies there and
then pick up the food from themarket at a lower price and

(01:00:04):
give it to the,you know, the poor.

André (01:00:07):
Okay.

Prabhakar (01:00:07):
That way they are pleasing a lot
of their electorate.
They are pleasing the farmersbecause they are subsidising
the inputs and they arepleasing the poor because they
are subsidising the sellingprice of the food to them or
even providing free food.

André (01:00:22):
Okay, so that all makes sense.
But I'm still perplexed becausewhat you're saying essentially
is that poverty is the reasonand nothing that you've said
indicates that there's anythingelse other than poverty.
So if everyone had enough moneyto buy food, will that solve
the problem entirely?
Is it purely a poverty issue oris there more than that?

Prabhakar (01:00:40):
I mean, simply- I don't have a very deep
understanding on that, buton a simplistic sense,
on a surface, to me, it appearsthat it is the affordability to
buy your food.
That is food security.
Food security is notjust about the quantity,
but also the access.
And the access isalways about the market access.
It is about your ability andwillingness to pay for the

(01:01:03):
goods and services inthe market, and that is
always by money.
So for example, as Isaid earlier, Japan doesn't
produce all of its food,but still it is being ranked as
one of the food-securecountries [compared to] many
countries which are producingmore food than they need.
So it means that itis the ability of the Japanese

(01:01:24):
consumer to buy thefood that is coming from
thousands of kilometres,far away from its boundaries.
So I would apply the same logiceven within the boundaries.
Of course, I think it's all- inmost of the cases, it's about
the economic access to food.

André (01:01:44):
Mm hmm.
Right, that seems tobe the case.
That's just why I was confusedby why they were emphasizing
inequality and not poverty.
I just thought that perhapsthat's just a misnomer on the
part of the SDG.
And this is just oneSDG website, so it might not
necessarily be in the targets.
I don't know them well enoughto know about that.
I don't know if any of you guyshave studied the terminology

(01:02:07):
that they use in the targets.

Prabhakar (01:02:08):
Yeah.
So because we have thrown thelight on inequality, I would
also say that the SDGon Hunger also talks about
sustainableagriculture production.
It also talks about...
Let me go to....

Simon (01:02:23):
Smallholder farmers, smallholder indigenous people,
so many farmers,pastoralists and fishers
and so on.
So there is a socialaspect to it.
It's not justabout market access.

Prabhakar (01:02:35):
So the smallholder farmers we are talking about,
because in Asia, majority ofthe food is produced by
smallholder farmers and what ishappening is now food is
increasinglygetting industrialised.
A lot of large players arecoming into food production and
the ability to access the foodmarkets is not the same for the

(01:02:59):
big industries [as for]the small farmers.
So because we need to provide alevel playing field and because
of the significance ofsmallholder farmers, we want to
provide a level playing fieldeven for the smallholder
farmers so that they canaccess the markets.
They can- they can sell theirproduce at the same ease as the

(01:03:20):
bigger players [areable] to sell.
So that's the reason I think,you know, and [SDG on] hunger
recognises that fact probably,and that's why they specify
that we need to make sure thatthe smallholder farmers are
recognised and protected.

Simon (01:03:36):
Yeah, you could then also say, I mean, counter to
the smallholder farmers, as youindicate, is that I
think there's also a trend ofconcentration of wealth or
concentration of land byconglomerates or international
farming companies that havetheir roots in areas way
outside of farming.
And those are, of course,due to economies of scale.

(01:03:58):
I think they are able tocompete much, much better
than smallholder farmers.
And in reaction to that,at least some of the people
that I'm working with fromcivil society in the region,
they are advocating what theycall "food sovereignty" - bring
back the sovereignty aroundfood production but also seeds
back to back to the farmers.

(01:04:20):
I think that's a- that's anissue maybe also relevant to
the inequality question.

Prabhakar (01:04:25):
Yeah, I agree with that.
And the land grabbing bycorporations is a major issue
in the developing world becauseto a large extent, land tenure
rights is a major issueas well, as well as the poor
seems to such an extent-You know, farming is no more

(01:04:47):
a profitable, you know,operation, then farmers may
want to move away.
So that's the reason whyyou see that.
You know, there are- this islike a very conflicting issue.
There are farmers who are fedup with agriculture and they
want to move away byselling their land.
But the proportion maybe very [low].

(01:05:07):
But there are farmers who are,you know - for ages, they have
been farming and they don'tknow anything else
other than farming.
They can't part [from] farmingand there can't be any other
livelihood for them.
And for them, protecting theirland and their rights is an
important issue inthe developing world.
So I think this is one of thereasons why, largely because of

(01:05:28):
the misunderstanding of thefarm bill introduced by the
Government of India recently,because the farmers
thought that, you know, it willincrease the corporations' role
in the agricultural sectorand they [were], you know,
agitated against it.
Of course, a lotof their fears were misplaced.
But of course, that's thereason why, you know, even when

(01:05:49):
governments want to bringgood policies, such fears of
corporate domination arestopping farmers from accepting
such good policies.
So there's a lot of need toeducate the farmers on the real
situation and also tosafeguard their rights.
So that's very important.

Simon (01:06:07):
Mm hmm.
Okay.
Um, so I feel that weuntil now, I mean, this has
been such a rich exchange,and I really appreciate that.
But I feel that until now,we have viewed - as it probably
is to a large extent - thechallenge of food security and
eliminating hunger very much asa problem of poverty.

(01:06:30):
That means the people thatare poor, um, they just need
some more development and thenit'll sort itself out, I mean,
to put it very simplistically.
But I just want to provoke alittle bit to say, "but what
about the other side of the coin?" I mean, aren't there issues
related to food security,maybe not so much
food security, but quality ofnutrition also in what we call

(01:06:53):
the developed world and issuesthat should be addressed under
such an SDG aswell, isn't there ?
Aren't there?

Prabhakar (01:07:01):
Of course, before I come to your point of,
you know, full nutrition,nutrition is a very important
part of the food security.
I would like to say a couple ofthings about, you know,
women's role in food and hunger.
If you look atagriculture, nearly, I think,
60% of the human labourin total, both men and women -

(01:07:24):
60% comes from women.
But the majority of agriculturedecisions made by, you know-
are made by menin agriculture decisions.
Of course, this may varysocially in certain pockets
of countries, depending on thelocal social context.
However, largely this is thecase, and hence I think

(01:07:44):
the SDG on hunger alsorecognises the, you know,
women's role andsafeguarding their, you know,
property rights and access tothe land and access to
agricultural inputs andbanks and, you know,
credits and things like that sothat their role can be
increased because there arestudies that says that if you

(01:08:06):
can increase the the role ofwomen decision making in
agriculture - I think I'm notsure if my number is right - I
think it can increase foodaccess by 10-20% or
something like that.
So it can have a very hugeimpact on the food security of
millions of people.
So that's the point about therole of women and

(01:08:27):
recognition of that.
So-

Simon (01:08:29):
That is captured.

André (01:08:29):
That also-

Simon (01:08:30):
Sorry, that is also captured by SDG 2.2 and 2.3,
the role of women.
Just to point that out.

Prabhakar (01:08:36):
Yes.

Simon (01:08:37):
Sorry, André?

André (01:08:37):
Yeah, I was going to say that that covers the inequality
question in an interesting wayas well, because when I was
talking about inequality justnow, I was thinking between
countries rather, but it's alsoshifting genders in countries.
Yeah, yeah.

Prabhakar (01:08:52):
So coming to the [issue of] malnutrition,
I think the major part of theSDG talks about vulnerable
sections of people.
It talks about belowfive years of age children,
lactating women,and also pregnant women.
And there are a lot ofstatistics which are alarming
and says that we havea long way to go in

(01:09:13):
achieving that.
Malnutrition.
But, you know, if yousay that malnutrition is- in
your question, you seem toimply that, you know, you said
developed country problem,because probably you are coming
from the point ofview of obesity in children.
But on the other side of that,you see that know stunted
growth and other, you know,other side of the malnutrition

(01:09:38):
implications in the developingpart of the world as well.
So how to make accessto food to the children?
Nutritious food isa major problem.
And I can talk from the pointof countries like India where
much of my knowledge exists andyou will be surprised.
A major part of the foodsecurity initiatives in India

(01:09:59):
are targeted atschoolchildren, for example,
we have a school mid-day mealsprogram where all the children
are provided nutritious foodat the school every day
throughout the year.
So that actuallyis targeting children.
And also we have what is called"anganwadi workers" and

(01:10:21):
"anganwadi centres" that reachout to rural poor women,
children as well as lactatingand pregnant women and try to
addresstheir nutrition problems.
And the government of India hasalso introduced, for example,
you know, paying certain cashbenefits to the women.
If you are lactatingor carrying, for example,

(01:10:43):
you are eligible to receive,for example, 6000 rupees that
you can use either toincrease your nutrition.
Or if you are working, but youcannot work any more, then you
can also compensate yourincome from that.
So a range of policyinitiatives is possible.
But again, you know,these initiatives are very much
dependent upon the economicstatus of the country.

(01:11:05):
And this is where yourinequality picture comes in.
You know, howdo we address inequality?
You know, the major question ofdevelopmental arena is, how do
we address inequality?
Then you say, "okay, tax therich and pay the poor".
That's the majorapproach until today.
And that is a criticism,as well as there are praises on

(01:11:28):
both sides of the coin.
But if you see on thepositive side, I think the
people like thesevulnerable people,
the vulnerable womenand children, they are directly
getting benefited fromsuch tax collections.

Simon (01:11:41):
The whole picture should be, ought to be
or can be illuminated under thequestion around food security
and eliminating hunger,basically saying that,
you know, comparing schoolmeals in India with school
meals in the UK on the US,you might find that some of the
school meals that you just gavean example of, they might be of
better quality and might bemore nutritious, might be less

(01:12:02):
junk food than we see in otherso-called developed parts
of the world.
So that's just what I wanted tothrow out there, you know.

Prabhakar (01:12:10):
I, I agree.
Yeah.
So I am actually exposed tosome of the information on how
school meals is designed inparts of the developed world
and how unhealthy these [are].
I think thesituation is changing.
I think for example in the USwith the Obama administration,

(01:12:30):
a lot of efforts have gone inon how to increase the nutrient
diversification in school meals.
I think there is a lot ofground to cover, but we are not
making beginnings now.
The beginnings have alreadybeen made, I think, so we only
have more ground to cover.

Simon (01:12:47):
Thank you so much, Prabhakar.
And thank you, everyone.

Bob (01:12:57):
Thank you for listening to About Sustainability..
.
Please subscribe atpodcast.iges.jp or search
for About Sustainability...
wherever you normallyget your podcasts.
If you've got feedback, you canreview us on your podcast
directory of Choice or reachout on Twitter @IGES_EN.

(01:13:20):
About Sustainability...
Is produced by the Institute forGlobal Environmental Strategies.
Any views expressed during thepodcast are those of the
speaker at the time ofrecording and do not
necessarily reflect theviews of IGES.
Thank you for choosing to spendyour time with us.
We don't take that lightly,and we hope you'll join
us next time.