Over the last six months, we have been watching global food prices climb — raising concerns of another food crisis that would again push millions in to poverty. In late November 2010, food prices were just 10 percent lower than at the height of the global food crisis in mid-2008. Experts at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) held a meeting to assess the situation.

Their conclusion? Nope, not another food crisis, just high prices. Now prices have actually surpassed even the highest levels reached in 2008. The FAO food price index that measures baskets of major grains, meats, dairy, oils and sugar reached 215 points this week — the highest ever since they began monitoring food prices in 1990. Yet, the FAO still says it’s not a crisis. How can this be? What’s different this time around? And is a full-blown crisis just around the corner?

So, take a step back for a second. If you think about all the factors that caused the 2008 food crisis, you’ll realize that not much has changed:

1. Bad weather and low yields, or less food on the market: According to the law of supply and demand, the less there is of an item, the more it costs.

2. Wealthier consumers in developing countries like China and India buying more meat and dairy products: In case you didn’t know, most cows and chicken eat grains, not grass, so the more meat the world eats, the more grains and water we need to grow food for animals.

3. Rising oil prices:: Not only do higher prices at the gas pump mean higher transportation costs to ship food, but most farmers use fertilizers that are produced with natural gas or coal — and prices of these base products are affected by the price of oil, making it more expensive for farmers to grow food.

4. Using food crops for fuel: Many countries –- especially the US and those in the EU -– require certain amounts of energy sources to come from biofuels. The bigger these mandates get, the more food we use in our fuel tanks instead of our bellies.

5. Excessive speculation: There are few regulations on the behaviors of investors in food markets, and the more they bet in the market on food, the higher they can drive prices.

6. Low levels of investment in agriculture: Investment in agriculture, including donor aid, while recently on the rise in response to the 2008 food crisis, is still insufficient to help poor countries grow more food and respond to market and weather shocks.

Weather disasters -– like flooding in Australia and warmer temperatures and fewer rains in South America caused by La Nina –- are reducing crop yields and could get worse according to some meteorologists. Consumers in developing countries are still demanding higher value foods. Oil prices have reached about $95 a barrel, not nearly as high as they were during the height of the crises pushing $150/barrel, but they could get higher –- some say maybe even more than double over the next few decades.

Rich countries are still blending millions of tons of food crops like corn and oilseeds into their fuel supplies to reduce dependence on oil imports. International regulations on investor behavior in food markets are still very limited. Global aid to agriculture remains only about a quarter of its peak in the mid 1980s.

Yet, we haven’t witnessed riots breaking out across the developing world. In 2008, riots erupted in 33 countries and hundreds died. Governments for the most part haven’t reacted by imposing restrictions on exports (which further limit supplies on the market and drive up prices). Local and regional prices seem to be more insulated from global prices due to better harvests in poorer countries. Some increases in price could improve incomes for farmers in a position to take advantage of price movements. Further, the biggest price hikes are happening in certain commodities –- such as corn, meat, oils and sugar -– but not in others like rice and wheat, two of the most critical crops for food security in poor countries. Whereas in 2008, prices for all major crops skyrocketed. For instance, rice is trading at about $535 per ton today, versus more than $1,000 in mid 2008.

So, does this mean the coast is clear? Can we just wash our hands of this and assume that people have just learned to cope with higher food prices? Probably not.

Global food supplies are tight. More major disruptions could push prices up even higher. OPEC has said they are comfortable with oil priced at $100 per barrel. And if we listen to some of our development partners such as ActionAid – they’re hearing a slightly different story from the ground. Prices are getting higher for people. Maybe local prices aren’t high enough to push millions into poverty and bring them to the streets, but this is definitely cause for serious concern.

As we keep a vigilant eye on the issue here at ONE, we will continue to advocate for policies that will help keep global prices at affordable levels for consumers and producers –- especially in view of the French G20, where President Sarkozy vows to curb food price volatility. We will also continue to hold donors accountable to their commitments made at the 2009 G8 L’Aquila Summit to increase spending on aid to agriculture and improve the way it’s delivered to help countries recover from and build resilience to future shocks and spur economic growth.

Rising costs of bread in Mozambique last week spurred riots on the streets of Maputo, causing seven deaths. Massive floods in Pakistan affected 2.5 million people, says the BBC, leaving thousands food-insecure and homeless.

Russia has experienced severe droughts and has banned all exports of wheat, barley, maize and flour through the end of 2011. Global wheat prices have been on the rise since late June, notwithstanding that prices are much higher than historical averages, and over the long-term, predicted to keep going up.

According to the FAO food price index — at a score of 176 — wheat prices have reached their highest since September 2008. Does this raise cause for concern? It should.

According to Reuters, global leaders are called upon to heed this “wake up call.” Olivier de Shutter, the U.N. special rapporteur, says that “donors are not living up to their commitments” when it comes to a person’s right to food. In fact, the 2008 global food crisis is what promoted the G8 and others to reinvigorate investments in agricultural development.

We are now two years out from the height of the crisis and it’s not evident that a whole lot has been accomplished. Sure, there have been strong milestones, such as the U.S. Feed the Future Initiative and the creation of the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program, but what has been delivered so far? And better yet, has it been enough? Will it be enough?

The G8 Muskoka Accountability Report –- released by the G8 at the most recent summit in Muskoka Canada in June 2010 –- reveals that as of April 2010, L’Aquila Initiative donors have disbursed $6.5 billion and remain committed to disburse the full amount of the commitments by 2012.

Who has actually disbursed these funds and for what purposes remain a mystery. Even though the full $22 billion was not explicitly linked to the first Millennium Development Goal (MDG) to halve hunger and poverty by 2015, it certainly will not be enough to reach MDG1. And the global response looks unlikely to prevent another major global food crisis without a better plan and more resources.

Without more attention to sustainable and effective investments in agricultural development, the smallholder and women farmers — which the G8 and other donors promised to target their funds to — will be no more affluent to afford higher food costs, no more resilient to the deteriorating effects of food that stays out of reach and no more capable to take advantage of market opportunities.

Worse yet, the donor community is largely ignoring a massive and recurring food crisis in the Sahel. Arguably if it’s recurring, we can be smart enough to recognize the underlying causes and start to correct course. “Securing the Gains,” a new Oxfam report shows the damage that drought, flooding and climate change continually cause across the Sahel region. It calls on donors to “learn from their mistakes” and “provide greater financial and technical support to strengthen existing government agricultural policies and contingency plans” to begin building resilience to weather and economic shocks.

This seems like a sensible alternative to responding to the same humanitarian emergencies time and time again, especially when the emergencies go underfunded. Currently, the World Food Programme is experiencing a funding shortage of $80 million, limiting its food distribution to just 40 percent to those in need.

Surely as a global community we can do better. By investing in agricultural development, with a particular focus on women and smallholders, we can prevent another food crisis and should be at the top of global leaders’ priorities at the upcoming MDG summit in New York next week. If we can’t manage to meet MDG 1, how ever will we accomplish the other seven?

Here are more details from the official announcement:

Partners in the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), a new fund to tackle global hunger and poverty, this week announced that five developing countries will receive the fund’s first grants totaling $224 million. The grants – approved for Bangladesh, Haiti, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Togo – will help each country increase food security, raise rural incomes and reduce poverty. These investments will help transform the lives of more than two million people in rural areas.

Launched in April 2010 with $880 million in commitments from the United States, Canada, South Korea, Spain, and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GAFSP represents a global effort to aid vulnerable populations afflicted by hunger and poverty and is a key element of the Obama Administration’s initiative to enhance food security in poor countries. In the run up to the G-8 and G-20 Leaders Summit, today’s announcement demonstrates the commitment of the international community to forge a strong, swift and coordinated response against global food insecurity.

“Today we are making real progress toward our promise to fight global hunger and poverty,” said Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. “These investments will help transform rural communities by empowering them to grow more and earn more. At a time of limited resources and with more than one billion people undernourished, this fund leverages our contributions to tackle one of the most pressing challenges of our time.”

This hearing served to highlight not only the importance of global food security, which has been a topic of conversation and action some time, but to hear in greater detail how the Administration’s Global Food Security Initiative aligns with the principles of the Global Food Security Act.

Senator Kerry opened the event by reminding us that the International Affairs Budget is being challenged, and that short-changing programs like the Global Food Security Initiative will provide some budget relief, but at great cost to global efforts. Senator Lugar also noted the seriousness of food insecurity, and emphasized that with rising energy costs, climate change, and water scarcity, feeding a growing global population will be increasingly difficult without dramatic action.

We gained some additional insight into the Administration’s Global Food Security Initiative—which has been dubbed the Feed the Future initiative. Per Deputy Secretary Lew and Administrator Shaw’s testimonies, the Administration’s initiative will be centered on four principles: science and technology, the essential role of women in food security, the U.S. comparative advantage, and working in partnership with developing countries. Administrator Shaw emphasized that the initiative would coordinate with countries’ agricultural plans, focus on sustainable, location-specific innovation, and work to establish access to credit and markets.

Several important themes emerged from the hearing, including:

• The importance of coordination, both on the ground in-country, and within the U.S. government, to ensure that the U.S. Global Food Security Initiative can have the fullest impact possible
• The crucial role that women play in making this initiative successful. Projects within the initiative will be designed specifically to engage women, and gender disaggregated data will be collected to monitor the success of the initiative at making the most of the lynchpin role women play in producing food as well as feeding and investing in their families.
• The need to continue to increase capacity at USAID to implement this food security strategy. Lower funding rates for agriculture in the last two decades have meant less staff capacity for agricultural projects at USAID. The agency has already begun scaling up their agricultural expertise, and will continue to do so in order to implement this initiative.
• The links between food insecurity and instability. Increases in food prices in 2008 sparked riots across the globe. This is just one example of the possibility that increased food insecurity can lead to increased economic instability which, in turn, can spur political instability.

While we have yet to see an implementation plan for this initiative, this hearing gave us a taste of the actions the administration intends to take. It was also promising to hear the common themes drawn from the hearing and to see the commitment to food security demonstrated both by the Senators and members of the Administration.

Intrigued? Want to know more. Watch the hearing or check out the statements from Senator Kerry, Senator Lugar, Deputy Secretary Lew, Administrator Shah, and Dan Glickman and Catherine Bertini.

The report notes that hunger is on the rise in both the U.S. and abroad—1.02 billion people are suffering from food insecurity around the world, up 100 million from last year. The report also argues that green jobs are the best investment that the U.S. can make. Green jobs will not only help reduce both unemployment numbers and carbon emissions, but they could also help address hunger and poverty throughout the developing world.

Yesterday’s launch panel included a host of engaging speakers. Robert Greenstein, the Executive Director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, described how the U.S. could address the financial crisis, including by financing an expanded food stamps program. Reverend Lennox Yearwood, Jr., President and CEO of the Hip Hop Caucus, discussed how green jobs could provide opportunity for the poor and unemployed, emphasizing that Congress’ climate legislation must have a strong greens jobs component. Gawain Kripke, Director of Policy and Research at Oxfam America, cautioned that climate change is the next big crisis, noting that climate solutions must have pro-poor impacts, especially for developing countries.

If you’re interested in checking out the full report, it’s available here, along with some cool interactive tools.

Here’s video of the launch panel:

The Summit attendees released a declaration that reinforces their commitment to fully realizing the first Millennium Development Goal of halving hunger and poverty by 2015. The declaration also commits to promoting better coordination of food security efforts at local, regional, and national levels, as well as reversing the decline in funding for food security, and addressing the challenges of climate change as they impact food security, including adaptation of and mitigation in the agriculture sector. The declaration did not adopt the FAO’s ask of $44 billion annually for food security initiatives, or the goal of eradicating global hunger by 2025.

The group did use the communiqué to outline the Five Rome Principles for Sustainable Global Food Security which form a basis for this work. The principles reflect the five principles proposed by the U.S. at the L’Aquila G8 Summit, which were reiterated by the leaders of the G20 at their meeting in Pittsburgh in September. If implemented, the principles—investing in country-owned, country-led plans; coordinating at national, regional, and global levels; investing in short-, medium-, and long-term initiatives to address hunger and food insecurity; providing a role for the multilateral system; and ensuring sustained and substantial commitments—will go a long way to ensuring that development assistance for agriculture and food security is effective.

Two countries did take forward steps at the Summit as well: Canada reiterated their commitments to the L’Aquila Food Security Initiative and their country plan which will coordinate Canada’s food security strategy. If you missed our post about Canada’s announcement, you can read it here. Germany also publicly announced their share of L’Aquila commitment: they will provide €700 million or about $1 billion over three years for food security initiatives. $300 million will be new money that is not already in the pipeline, and this pledge does not include emergency assistance. These clarifications are important next steps in constructing a global system that works for food security. We are eager to see further clarification of funding from these and other countries.

World leaders’ low turnout hits UN food summit (Reuters Africa)
The absence of world leaders at this week’s World Food Summit presented a challenge from the start. The Summit’s final declaration did not result in additional financial commitments; some have attributed this lack of progress to the lackluster attendance by heads of state. Less than a third of the 192 heads of states and governments invited by the FAO attended the Summit. Many sent their agriculture ministers instead.

What is the point of the world food summit on food security? (The Guardian Blog)
Despite criticism that the World Food Summit did not result in substantial increases in aid for agriculture, the president of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Kanayo Nwanze, expressed that the point of the Summit was not to gather pledges, but to encourage the leaders of developing countries to commit themselves to making agriculture and food security top priorities.

Food security – collective race against crises (This Day; allAfrica.com)
At the three-day summit in Rome, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon declared that food and nutritional security are the foundations for a healthy life for all people. He called for immediate action against food insecurity and hunger and laid out a comprehensive list of measures to combat food insecurity, which, he said, will be exacerbated by population growth and climate change.

Declaring a vision for world hunger (Oxfam International Blog)
Yesterday, the summit released a declaration outlining its vision on international food security and how it can be achieved. The declaration focuses on the poorest farmers but critics are saying that it does not go far enough to address issues affecting food security, including the global economic crisis and the onset of climate change.

Food security is a personal issue for you, isn’t it?

I lived hunger. I suffered it. I lost two siblings to malnutrition. I saw them die—skinny and bony. Every single day I fought for a bowl of food. There was nothing called breakfast or lunch. We were just lucky to get one bowl of food a day.

The only reason I survived was because I went to school. Catholic Relief Services built a school in my village, but I hated it. No one in my family had ever been to school. I didn’t know the benefits. So I went there merely to search for food. I thought the food was free—but it wasn’t. If you wanted snack, you were sentenced to one class and if you wanted lunch, you were taken hostage in another class. As CRS kept fixing lunch, I kept going to school, and today I hold a master’s degree in public administration. That’s the power of a little snack.

Today, I put three meals on the table for my children—and they stay in school because I understand that education is liberation from hunger. Education is the way to break the chains of poverty and hunger. I lived it. I survived to tell the story.

So is food security an issue you still deal with on a daily basis?

Every day: Now we’re working with local farmers—training them, giving them better seeds, helping to teach them how to produce more in their villages. Before, people were mostly just producing food for subsistence. But now we’re trying to encourage farmers: if you grow peanuts, how can we help you? What seeds, training and equipment do you need? How do you find the best markets? Farmers often sell their items at the wrong time, when the price is cheaper. But we help them find a market where they can sell their goods at a good price and make as much profit as possible.

How has climate change impacted farmers in Ghana?

Most people didn’t understand what climate change was. But now you can see so clearly. There was always a rainy season and a dry season. Each lasted six months. Every year it was the same. But now if we get three months of rain, we’re lucky. And the rain that comes is either too late or too early or too much.

Farmers can work as hard as they want, but without rain they are lost. When I visited Wisconsin, I saw them using sprinklers. It seemed so easy. But our government in collaboration with local and international NGOs is trying to support and educate farmers, creating awareness about issues of global warming.

Are they educating just about climate change?

They’re providing education on many issues—like deforestation. Trees here are a source of fuel. You cut down trees to build homes. You need them to survive. But with education, we are trying to teach that if you cut this tree, then plant another in its place. The education is slow, but we’re making progress.

How have the farmers reacted to this help?

They are very excited. Ghana is said to be comparable to Oregon in size. Oregon has 4 million people. Ghana has 21 to 22 million people. The need is great but resources are limited. But I believe there are enough resources in Ghana to feed Ghanaians, just like the United States has enough resources to feed all Americans. We just need to continue to advocate for more just and accountable systems and structures that are beneficial to all without exception.

We’re all working together—government, NGOs, universities and other stakeholders—to try and provide support. But we must remember what President Obama said when he visited Ghana—aid is not an end in itself. The purpose of foreign assistance must be creating the conditions where it is no longer needed. We have to make sure we have the right systems, the right people with the right intentions and many good things can happen. The trick is how to find all three.

At UN Food Summit, Ban Ki-Moon Warns of Rise in Child Hunger Deaths (Christian Science Monitor)
To open the World Food Summit in Rome yesterday, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon underscored the plight of children suffering from starvation, saying that more than 17,000 children die of starvation every day—six million children each year. Many groups expressed outrage that malnutrition exists to such an extent despite surpluses in world food production. Many were discouraged by the lack of specific financial pledges from the Summit and the lackluster attendance by world leaders: Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was the only G8 leader present.

UN: Climate Change Deal Key to Fighting Hunger (Voice of America)
At the opening of the summit yesterday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon announced that a global climate deal is essential to fight global hunger. There can be no food security without climate security, said Mr. Ban, calling the food crisis “a wake-up call.” By 2050, the world may need to grow 70 percent more food to feed an estimated 2 billion additional people, he said, but extreme and unpredictable weather caused by climate change will make it difficult to do so.

World Leaders at UN Summit Vow to Aid Farmers in Bid to Help Starving (The Times Online)
Yesterday, world leaders agreed on a strategy to help the world’s one billion starving people by increasing aid to farmers in developing countries, but failed to pledge the specific funds the UN had hoped for. The FAO had asked for a $44 billion a year commitment for agricultural aid and a 2050 deadline for eradicating world hunger altogether. Instead, summit delegates confirmed the current target of halving the number of chronically hungry people by 2015, a commitment first made nine years ago. The FAO emphasized that the way to help poor farmers is to empower them by supplying agricultural equipment, irrigation technology, fertilizers and better seeds, rather than food aid.

Economic Revival Carries ‘Food Price Surge Risk’ (Financial Times)
Yesterday, Jacques Diouf, director-general of the FAO warned that food prices may surge again as the global economy recovers. Diouf warned that many of the same structural problems that led to last year’s spike in food prices are present again, including lack of investment, high demand in Asia and the conversion of food commodities into biofuels, adding that “we have all the elements of a crisis.” He encouraged countries to consider investing in technology to raise farmer productivity while other global food companies urged policymakers to boost investment in infrastructure spending.

Some Nations Successful in Global Hunger Fight: FAO (AFP)
Today, the FAO announced that some countries have made significant progress in the fight against hunger. According to the FAO, sixteen countries have already reached the goal of reducing hunger levels by 50 percent by 2015, an accomplishment which FAO chief Jacques Diouf lauded as evidence of “an unflagging commitment on the part of governments of developing countries themselves and energetic support by the international community.” Moving forward, the FAO emphasized the importance of a favorable economic environment, targeted investment, and sensible planning to be successful in the fight against hunger.