The G8 world leaders are coming to the UK in June this year, as it’s the UK’s turn to chair the event.
To mark this, over 100 UK charities (many from faith groups) have got together for the ‘IF’ campaign.
Nearly one billion people go to bed hungry every night and two million children die from malnutrition every year. We’ve made progress in other areas, but hunger is still the great scandal of our age. All around the world, even in the UK, people are struggling to feed their families.
The campaign is based on four big ‘IF’ statements:
- Enough Food For Everyone IF we give enough aid to stop children dying from hunger and help the poorest families feed themselves.
- Enough Food For Everyone IF governments stop big companies dodging tax in poor countries.
- Enough Food For Everyone IF we stop poor farmers being forced off their land and grow crops to feed people, not fuel cars.
- Enough Food For Everyone IF governments and big companies are honest and open about their actions that stop people getting enough food.
Here’s a video about what the campaign is about:
[tentblogger-youtube Xi38ZtG4NhM]
To find out more, visit the Enough Food IF campaign website (which is very cool in itself using some amazing paralax scrolling!)
[Image via Enough Food IF]
Joanna says
Great video and campaign concept. Good to see a campaign addressing some of the really important structural issues that contribute to hunger. Often these issues are overlooked which leads to ether solutions that are only short term effective or that are based on problematic or incomplete premises about the causes of hunger.
James Cooper says
Agreed 100%!
Peter Saddington says
It’s easy to look at issues from one side…
Ever consider the implications if we actually DID feed everyone forever and nobody ever starved?
Let’s say we could feed every single mouth in the world for 5 years straight… or say 10-20 years straight? How would that effect the overall… growth of populations? How would that effect internal country infrastructure and the obvious needs to support such growth…
It could (playing devils advocate here) actually cause more harm than good…
While I like the premise… I see major issues with execution and the downstream implications.
Mark Robinson says
I can see your thinking Peter, but I think you’re making a massive assumption on the execution.
Some of the charities include: Oxfam, Christian Aid, Tearfund & Unicef. Bearing in mind that this is over 100 Charities who are combining their years and years worth of combined development knowledge, it should go without saying that the models are tried and tested.
Specifically on the idea of overpopulation;
Some of the big players have seen that when people have a better quality of life, population growth slows. Communities have shown to have less children when they realise that they will have a better quality of life. On a larger scale, population growth is strongly linked with economic stability i.e. the more stable the economic situation of a region the slower the population grows. So the fear that feeding everyone will result in over-population is not accurate.
If all we did was feed people then yes, you would be right and we would see massive unsustainable population growth. That’s why this is not just about handouts and feeding people. It’s about fighting poverty on a global scale, attacking the core of corrupt governments, seeking transparency on conglomerate transactions, fair wages for all, seeking justice and realising that this planet we live on has more than enough to sustain an ever growing population IF – we share it’s resources properly.
Mark Robinson says
Forgot to mention – I worked and still freelance with Tearfund.
If you check out UMOJA, which is one of their development models I think you’ll see it’s not just about handouts and there’s much more thinking and research behind it all – http://www.tearfund.org/en/what_we_do_and_where/initiatives/umoja/
James Cooper says
Thanks for all the great points Mark! And as you say, it’s not about ‘giving food’ it’s about making things a fair playing field for *everyone*.
James Cooper says
But, being followers of God, how can we NOT want everyone to be fed?! I agree that there’s some big questions to deal with if everyone is fed, but that’s the whole point of the campaign – it’s not just about food – it’s about a level playing field.
Paul Clifford (@PaulAlanClif) says
I think these are the wrong solutions. I saw this TED talk: http://youtu.be/cWC_zDdF74s which says we already make enough food and just need to stop wasting what’s grown.
A big part is that if we have food that’s thrown away, we can feed animals with it and eat those animals. The feed that we now feed animals like grain and corn, can be shipped to hungry people. Problem solved.
Paul
James Cooper says
I agree that the waste of food is a big problem, and is actually a big one is the developing world, not just in ‘the west’. Much food is wasted in countries where corrupt governments (and companies putting pressure on the governments) stockpile food for the few ‘top people’ and the poor never get anything (North Korea!?!?!).
This campaign IS NOT solely about ‘giving food/aid’. If a government is corrupt from the very top downwards (as is the case in most countries with the biggest needs), sorting out our waste so we’ve got more food to give to people won’t solve anything if it can never get to the people who actually need it!
Mark Robinson says
Ha – you were obviously writing yours while I wrote mine!
James Cooper says
Great minds think alike 😉
Eric Dye says
LOL!
Mark Robinson says
Stuarts argument is valid and true but it’s only part of the problem. I agree completely with his points on food waste and his ideas especially his final point – “We are trashing our land to grow food that no-one eats” – but it is a western world issue that has little affect on those living in poverty.
Food waste is only a small part of the problem. If we want to tackle hunger then we HAVE to deal with poverty and corruption. Part of that corruption is the mismanagement of food production in countries with an abundance but another part of the issue is the fact that large aid stockpiles get shipped to countries that need it and are left to rot by their corrupt governments.
There are several countries that are rich in resources and have more than enough to sustain themselves as a nation. Sierra Leone is a great example as it’s one of the riches countries in the world when it comes to resources but due to corruption it is one of the poorest. (http://www.tearfund.org/en/get_involved/campaign/unearth/why_this_matters/)
If it were as simple as just shipping the excess grain/corn or other excess food stockpiles then this would have been done a long time ago and indeed has been done for many years. Shipping excess food stocks only works in certain circumstances but outside of those it creates other issues:
1) It dis-empowers communities living in poverty by giving them handouts. Helping communities become more self reliant is key to stabilizing their incomes (not only in food production but also things like cotton production). When you help them do that the quality of life (including standard of education) of regions gets better and further down the chain help their country become a more stable and self sufficient nation.
2) The food that is fed to livestock & other animals is excessive but the whole world of livestock production is ridiculous and there’s other issues of over-farming, deforestation and methane output to deal with too. The real problem here is the western world’s demand for beef which needs to be brought back to reality however it would be more difficult to get the western world to curve its attitude to food waste than it its a small village choked by poverty.
3) The shipping costs alone would be better spent in educating local communities to produce what they need for themselves. Never mind the fact that the damage that the shipping industry already does to the environment. Long-term this would not be sustainable.
If all you are interested in is feeding the hungry then Stuarts solutions and many aid agencies with “hit-and-run” models might sort this out in the short-term but this does not tackle the bigger issues of helping those in poverty get out of poverty.