• woodrow wilson center
  • ecsp

New Security Beat

Subscribe:
  • mail-to
  • Who We Are
  • Topics
    • Population
    • Environment
    • Security
    • Health
    • Development
  • Columns
    • China Environment Forum
    • Choke Point
    • Dot-Mom
    • Navigating the Poles
    • New Security Broadcast
    • Reading Radar
  • Multimedia
    • Water Stories (Podcast Series)
    • Backdraft (Podcast Series)
    • Tracking the Energy Titans (Interactive)
  • Films
    • Water, Conflict, and Peacebuilding (Animated Short)
    • Paving the Way (Ethiopia)
    • Broken Landscape (India)
    • Scaling the Mountain (Nepal)
    • Healthy People, Healthy Environment (Tanzania)
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Contact Us

NewSecurityBeat

The blog of the Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program
  • Russell Sticklor, World Politics Review

    The Hungry Planet: Global Food Scarcity in the 21st Century

    August 16, 2011 By Wilson Center Staff
    The original version of this article, by Russell Sticklor, appeared on World Politics Review.

    At the dawn of the 20th century, the world population was inching toward a modest two billion. In the 111 years since, notwithstanding the impact of war, genocide, disease, and famine, the global population has soared, reaching three billion around 1960 and now quickly approaching the neighborhood of seven billion. By 2050, the planet will likely be home to two billion more.

    We may not be witnessing the detonation of the “population bomb” that Paul Ehrlich warned of in his seminal 1968 book, but such rapid demographic change is clearly pushing the international community into uncharted territory. With a limited amount of arable land and a finite supply of fresh water for irrigation, figuring out how to feed a planet adding upward of 70 million people each year looms as one of the 21st century’s most pressing challenges.

    The push to ensure global food security transcends the desire to avoid repeating the famines that devastated the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Ethiopia, and so many other corners of the world during the past century. Instead, aid and development organizations today rightly view food insecurity problems as deeply intertwined with issues of economic development, public health, and political stability, particularly in the developing world. To maintain order in the international community and prevent the emergence of new failed states in the decades ahead, it will be critical to find innovative means of feeding the rapidly growing populations of sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and South and East Asia.

    Continue reading on World Politics Review.

    Note: World Politics Review has graciously white-listed all entrances from NSB for this article, so as long as you use the above link, you should be able to read the full article for free.

    Russell Sticklor is a consultant for the Environmental Change and Security Program.

    Photo Credit: “Crowded market street,” courtesy of flickr user – yt –.
    Topics: Africa, Asia, development, economics, food security, global health, Middle East, natural resources, population, South Asia, urbanization, water
    • TD

      What a pain! To read the rest, you have to subscribe or get a free trial. This goes against NSB traditions!  If I have to subscribe to a free trial, I'm not reading it.

    • http://twitter.com/geoffdabelko Geoff Dabelko

      Tom, my understanding was that we had an arrangement that coming from the NSB only one could get access to the whole article without a fee given Russell's close connection with ECSP. We will double check the links are working as intended. 

    • https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/ Schuyler Null

      As long as you're coming straight from NSB (clicking the link at the end of the article), you should have full access without paying.

    • TD

      Thanks, that link is working now. You guys are on the ball as usual.

      The conclusions in this standard overview make good sense. I might add a small point that focusing on support for small-scale rural farmers is good for food security and general environmental security, particularly in areas of the world with growing populations.  As the article makes clear, future food security challenges are provoking many big players to buy land in Africa and South America and we've seen proposals for a second green revolution to focus on Africa.  In the past, these approaches have supported large scale, technology intensive solutions, sometimes at the expense of small rural farmers in many areas.  Any development plan has winners and losers, but if we're interested in social stability as well, then we have to be careful about buffeting potential losers in the agricultural development process.  The capacity of small holders to produce food, be good stewards of their local environments, and provide ready employment for many people is undeniable.  The expansion of unglamorous rural extension support services for small-holders should be a key part of any strategy to deal with food security concerns in the future, particularly in areas where high population growth rates will ensure ample labour supply for years to come.  Enhancing the livelihoods of rural small-holders as we deal with food security challenges is smart social policy.

    • Russell Sticklor

      Tom, I agree with your point on the need to increase support for small-scale farmers. Food security is intimately tied up with social and political stability, but the development community needs to be sure that in seeking to increase food production, it doesn't inadvertently marginalize rural farmers in the process. That's a recipe for local unrest, and could also drive new waves of unemployed migrants to cities, which are already struggling to cope with rapid population growth, especially in places like Bangladesh and much of sub-Saharan Africa.

      The threat of rural farmers getting cast aside in the push to increase food production is also one of the reasons a number of countries have been lukewarm about the introduction of GM crops in their territory. They worry that the presence of multinationals in their agricultural sectors is going to push out the little guy and, well, given some of the heavy-handed legal actions by actors like Monsanto as of late, you can't really blame them for being concerned. At the end of the day, protecting rural livelihoods not only makes smart policy sense from the perspective of bolstering food supplies in those areas and ensuring a degree of local economic vitality, but also (as you point out) protecting soil and water resources, since local farmers have a vested interest in ensuring their farming methods are environmentally sustainable.

    • Papi Chulo

      Focusing on small-scale rural farmers would be an ideal move, however, identifying the issue and prime targets is hardly half the battle in a situation like this.  The larger issue is identifying how and by whom aid and development organizations will be provided with the resources necessary for such an effort.  Even in economic crises like the ones we find ourselves in today, several countries overconsume and have a surplus of resources.  Hunger isn't their main issue as it is in areas such as the sub-Saharan Africa.  The focus shouldn't be on how to fight off the predicted "global" food scarcity of the 21st century, it should be on how to convince countries that have an abundance of resources to willingly donate large portions that may leave them feeling slightly uncomfortable because they aren't used to having a little less.  This isn't a global issue, it's an issue that affects the poverty-stricken countries.  An issue that can be resolved with a global effort.

    • Kodiakcabin

      well with the new globally hungry planet who falls at fault for helping to solve world hunger? is it america because of their prosperous state even if they are the deepest in debt…are they responsible for any state falling into a crisis or just states that are in need of repair that could be prosperous to america

    • http://twitter.com/Jegp1027 Jordan

      It is clear that the issue with global food shortages is a complex problem with many political, social, cultural, and agricultural variables.  My question is how much of the problem could be fixed culturally through education?  With many developing worlds now having access to immunizations through aide organizations and the international community, children that once died in developing countries are living thus increasing the population.  By educating the youth of these countries so that they could move from rural communities, where they are basically used as labor in a sustenance farming community, with actual life skills into urban areas it is possible to actually lower the population growth rate of these developing countries which would in turn reduce the strain on the worlds food production.  I feel that the problems with global food security are only being addressed from a food production standpoint when a big part of the problem is the overall population.  We cant just keep coming up with a short term fix to a long term problem which is what I believe the Green Revolution of the 50's and 60's was, a short term fix.  It seems that the world keeps looking for ways to provide more food when what we really need to do is reduce the strain being caused by our global population.

    • Papi Chulo

      Jordan, you bring up a good point.  Education plays a vital role in determining the development of a country and, for many countries, education is one thing many people are being deprived of.  While many developing countries are seeing a boom in their demographics, an increase in food production is required to sustain those growths in population otherwise hunger will insue.  Some countries are able to provide for themselves but the majority need a little foreign assistance from those developed coutnries that have the knowledge, experience, and resources to get them going.  Going back to Kodiakcabin's response, I don't believe that anyone falls at fault for helping to solve world hunger.  Many organizations globally, to include the U.S., have taken it upon themselves to aid countries who cannot help themselves.  It's a fragile situation because many organizations want to throw resources and food at those struggling countries but, as Jordan mentioned, this would just be a "short term fix", so it may be better in the long run to properly educate the citizens of those countries and provide enough resources to them so that they can help themselves.  It's s matter of this:

      "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

    • http://twitter.com/Jegp1027 Jordan

      anybody else wanna add something kind of need some feedback as I am doing this for a class and need some responses

    • Russell Sticklor

      >I feel that the problems with global food security are only being
      addressed from a food >production standpoint when a big part of the
      problem is the overall population….It
      >seems that
      the world keeps looking for ways to provide more food when what we

      >really need to do is reduce the strain being caused by our global
      population. 

      Jordan, I'm not sure encouraging rural-to-urban migration would
      necessarily have the desired effect of lowering long-term population
      growth on a large enough scale, but I get your point. You did hit the
      nail on the head though, pointing out that population growth, not
      increasing food production, is the real issue here. Bringing demographic
      change under control is a tricky issue in a lot of countries,
      especially because of entrenched religious and social traditions that
      aren't necessarily supportive of improving access to family planning
      tools and services. Uganda has struggled with promoting family planning
      in that regard, and today it has one of the highest total fertility
      rates in East Africa.

      In general though, until global population growth plateaus — and that
      is a matter of when, not if — food insecurity is going to remain a
      major issue. For the most part, I imagine, policy-makers will
      continue to view increasing food production as a more readily attainable (and politically/socially viable) goal than taking steps to limit
      population growth.

    • Papi Chulo

      Russell,

      I am also doing this for a class and would like a response, if you have one, to a question I have.  Some say that educating women and urbanizing households may lead to less children because having more children means having more economic liabilities rather than economic benefits.  It may not be viable in the current time but what methods, if any, do you think may be able to feasibly limit global population growth? 
       

    • Russell Sticklor

      I agree that you can't go wrong with education, in terms of a smart means of raising awareness about problems associated with population growth. Ideally, such outreach programs target not only children in school, but also adults of reproductive age who may still be looking to expand their families. Education can raise awareness about the potential economic downsides to having large families, and can also help encourage more consistent use of contraception.

      In an urban context, you're right, having a large family isn't necessarily an asset, in that it arguably becomes harder to financially support many children in a city. There are space issues, food costs more, education fees, etc. So I think as we see a greater trend toward urbanization in the developing world, cities will increase in size, but the average family size in those cities may not. That's in part because one of the big growth drivers of cities today is rural-to-urban migration, not the people already living in those cities having big families.

      The problem is, urbanization alone isn't enough to drop population growth rates.  Even countries with booming populations that are experiencing rapid urbanization (Bangladesh and India come to mind), the population is still mostly rural. And the incentive to have large families in those areas still exists, because, as it's been for hundreds/thousands of years, bigger families mean more children to work on the farm, to help support parents in old age, etc. — that hasn't changed much.

      Bringing educational outreach (re: family planning) to those types of off-the-beaten path rural areas would be a key next step, and a lot of aid/development agencies are already busy at work on that, and have been for some time. But no matter what foreign development workers or personnel from a local NGO say to a local population about the need for smaller families, entrenched habits/practices (i.e. having lots of kids) can be quite hard to break. It takes time to get the message across, and a lot of persistence.

      The other option to feasibly limit global population growth is through policy — a/k/a China's one-child policy. However, the U.N. doesn't have enough clout/enforcement capacity to make this happen, and most countries throughout the world would be unwilling to implement something along these lines. Even China is loosening its restrictions. I personally think relying on the government to  cap family sizes is near impossible, so it will come down to using educational outreach to get families at the household level to see the economic wisdom in having smaller numbers of kids.

Join the Conversation

  • RSS
  • subscribe
  • facebook
  • G+
  • twitter
  • iTunes
  • podomatic
  • youtube
Tweets by NewSecurityBeat

Trending Stories

  • unfccclogo1
  • Pop at COP: Population and Family Planning at the UN Climate Negotiations

Featured Media

Backdraft Podcast

play Backdraft
Podcasts

More »

What You're Saying

  • shutterstock_1858965709 Break the Bias: Breaking Barriers to Women’s Global Health Leadership
    Sarah Ngela Ngasi: Nous souhaitons que le partenaire nous apporte son soutien technique et financier.
  • shutterstock_1858965709 Break the Bias: Breaking Barriers to Women’s Global Health Leadership
    Sarah Ngela Ngasi: Nous sommes une organisation féminine dénommée: Actions Communautaires pour le Développement de...
  • hongqiao-liu1 As China Adjusts for “True Cost” of Rare Earths, What Does It Mean for Decarbonization?
    Anthony Maw: It is just another one of those "inconvenient truths". Western defense and security analysts often...

Related Stories

No related stories.

  • woodrow
  • ecsp
  • RSS Feed
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Wilson Center
  • Contact Us
  • Print Friendly Page

© Copyright 2007-2023. Environmental Change and Security Program.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. All rights reserved.

Developed by Vico Rock Media

Environmental Change and Security Program

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

  • One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
  • 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
  • Washington, DC 20004-3027

T 202-691-4000