Feature

THE POLITICS OF FOOD SECURITY

Published

3 years ago

May 3, 2022

By Matthew Eloyi

It may seem as though the world’s population is higher than its available resources hence it is estimated that between 720 and 811 million people in the world faced hunger in 2020, and around 660 million people may still face hunger in 2030. But in reality, the world produces twice as much food as is needed to feed its population. Global food production has expanded at a higher rate than global population growth for the past two decades. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that the globe produces more than 1 1/2 times enough food to feed everyone on the earth. That’s already enough to feed the world’s anticipated population peak of 10 billion people in 2050. Despite this abundance, hunger persists. How is this possible? The world’s inability to feed the entirety of its population is mostly due to food insecurity.

The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) recognizes availability, access, utilization, and stability as the four pillars of food security. It defines food security as when “all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” In other words, food security refers to the availability of food and people’s ability to access it, while food insecurity is the inability to access a sufficient quantity of affordable, healthy meals on a consistent basis.

Food as a global resource has never really been scarce. Human politics, distribution system, capitalism, speculation/hoarding, power, war, and poor policy, are the factors of food insecurity in the world. The Bengal famine of 1943 is a perfect example of how war and distribution error contribute to food insecurity in the world. According to a study that provides empirical credence for assertions that Winston Churchill-era British policies were a crucial factor leading to the catastrophe, the Bengal famine of 1943 was the first one in modern Indian history that did not develop as a result of severe drought. In the words of the lead researcher, Vimal Mishra, “This was a unique famine, caused by policy failure instead of any monsoon failure.” Even though natural disasters, crop epidemics, and the fall of Burma – now Myanmar, which was a key source of rice imports, all curtailed food supplies to Bengal in the years leading up to 1943, Nobel Laureate economist Amartya Sen argued in 1981 that there should have been enough supplies to feed the region, and that the mass deaths were caused by a combination of wartime inflation, speculative buying, and panic hoarding, all of which combined to push the price of food out of reach of poor Bengalis.

According to recent research, especially one by a renowned Indian-American journalist and writer, Madhushree Mukerjee, Winston Churchill’s wartime cabinet in London aggravated the famine. According to Mukerjee, Churchill was frequently warned that using all of India’s resources for the war effort could lead to starvation, but he ignored the warnings and chose to continue shipping rice from India to other parts of the empire. In 1942-43, rice stocks continued to depart India despite London’s denial of India’s viceroy’s urgent plea for more than 1 million tonnes of emergency wheat supplies. Churchill is said to have blamed the famine on the fact that Indians were “breeding like rabbits” and questioned how Mahatma Gandhi was still alive despite the starvation. Mukerjee and others also point to Britain’s “denial policy” in the region, in which large quantities of rice and hundreds of boats were confiscated from Bengal’s coastal areas in order to deny the Japanese army resources in the event of an invasion.

The proliferation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which led to the disappearance of native cultivars in most parts of the world, is also a major source of food insecurity. Foods that have been genetically modified have had additional genes added to them from other organisms. They’ve been around since 1994, and they’re made in a similar method as genetic engineering. The technique employed in this sort of crop management was developed to help farmers and merchants increase crop or food quality in a more effective manner. Some argue that this technology will aid individuals in the agricultural industry in reducing the quantity of crops and foods that are wasted. While there are numerous advantages to eating genetically modified foods, there are also potential drawbacks, which limit our choice of food.

According to research, people with allergies may be at danger from genetically modified foods. There are also claims that genetic modification frequently introduces or combines proteins not seen in the original animal or plant, potentially causing novel allergic reactions in our bodies. In other words, proteins from organisms to which you are allergic may be introduced to species to which you were not previously allergic. As a result, your choice of food will be limited. Also, GMOs are not 100% environmentally friendly. Despite the fact that many experts argue that genetically modified foods are safe for the environment, they nevertheless contain a number of ingredients that have yet to be demonstrated to be so. What’s more, what’s the worst part? These compounds are kept hidden from the general populace. Another significant possible disadvantage of this technology is that it may affect some ecological creatures, resulting in a reduction in biodiversity. When we eradicate a pest that is detrimental to crops, we may be eliminating a food supply for a species. Furthermore, genetically engineered crops may be hazardous to other creatures, resulting in a reduction in their numbers or perhaps extinction.

Some genetically engineered foods, according to Iowa State University, have antibiotic characteristics integrated into them, making them resistant or immune to viruses, diseases, or infections. These antibiotic indicators will remain in our bodies after we ingest them, making antibiotic treatments less effective. The institution also advises that eating certain foods and being exposed to antibiotics on a frequent basis may cause antibiotics to lose their potency, as seen in hospitals around the world. When compared to ordinary foods on the market, genetically modified foods are also said to have an unnatural flavour. This could be due to the substances that were added to their formula. Genetically modified foods contain compounds that have been shown in scientific studies to cause sickness and even death in a variety of species, including humans. Mice and butterflies, for example, cannot subsist on these diets.

Economically, bringing a genetically modified crop to market can be a pricey and time-consuming procedure, and agricultural biotechnology companies, understandably, want to maximize their profits. Many novel plant genetic engineering technologies and products have been patented as a result, and patent infringement is a major worry in the agricultural industry. Furthermore, consumer advocates are concerned that this will drive up seed prices to the point that third-world countries and small farmers will be unable to purchase them, expanding the divide between the rich and the poor.

In Africa and rest of the third world, food insecurity results from poor policy and lack of continuity. The prospect of small farmers, who grow much of the world’s food, being hungry, is unsettling. Let’s take the Green Revolution policy as an example. Africa has experienced a boom in financing to help local food producers grow more of the region’s food since the 2007-8 food crises, when price hikes for global commodity crops increased the possibility of food shortages. African governments increased agricultural development spending, aided by international donors who recognized, for the first time in decades, that developing countries needed to grow more of their own food and that small-scale farmers could be a critical part of that effort rather than a hindrance to growth. High international crop prices lured private investment into agriculture for several years. The charge was driven by global philanthropies, which had recently been endowed with billions of dollars in technological earnings.

In 2006, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation collaborated with the Rockefeller Foundation to start the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), a well-funded international development organization. By 2020, AGRA aimed to double crop yield and incomes for 30 million small-scale farming households while also decreasing food insecurity in 20 African countries but it seemed to have failed. According to research, crop yield has slowed, poverty remains high, and the number of hungry people in Africa has increased. Only a few numbers of small-scale farmers have profited from the Green Revolution. Some people have become indebted as a result of the high costs of commercial seeds and synthetic fertilizer sold by Green Revolution proponents. Despite $1 billion in funding for AGRA and $1 billion in annual subsidies from African governments to persuade farmers to purchase these high-priced inputs, AGRA has a poor track record.

According to current projections, the world will not achieve Sustainable Development Goal 2, Zero Hunger by 2030, and most indicators, despite modest progress, will fail to fulfil global nutrition targets. According to the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021 assessment, the health and socioeconomic repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic are anticipated to worsen the food security and nutritional status of the world’s most vulnerable population groups. To avert this, governments are urged to include nutrition in their agricultural strategies; work to reduce cost-escalating factors in food production, storage, transportation, distribution, and marketing – including inefficiencies, food loss, and waste; support local small-scale producers to grow and sell more nutritious foods, and ensure their access to markets; prioritize children’s nutrition as the category most in need; and foster behaviour change through education.

Related Topics:Accessmagazine Accessnews AccessNewsMagazine food security

Up Next

World Press Freedom Day: NUJ Zone B calls for protection of Nigerian journalists

Don't Miss

World Press Freedom Day: Senate President felicitates with Nigerian journalists

Matthew Eloyi

Click to comment

Africa

Customs hands over illicit drugs worth N117.59m to NDLEA

Published

1 month ago

November 22, 2024

Matthew Eloyi

Customs hands over illicit drugs worth N117.59m to NDLEA

The Nigeria Customs Service (NCS), Ogun Area 1 Command, has handed over illicit drugs worth N117.59 million to the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA).

The Comptroller of the command, Mr James Ojo, disclosed this during the handing over of the drugs to Mr Olusegun Adeyeye, the Commander of NDLEA, Idiroko Special Area Command, in Abeokuta, Ogun, on Friday.

Ojo said the customs handed over the seized cannabis and tramadol tablets to the Idiroko Special Command for further investigation in line with the standard operating procedures and inter-agency collaboration.

He said the illicit drugs were seized in various strategic locations between January and November 21, 2024, in Ogun State.

He added that the illicit drugs were abandoned at various locations, including the Abeokuta axis, the Agbawo/Igankoto area of Yewa North Local Government Area, and Imeko Afton axis.

Ojo said that the seizure of the cannabis sativa and tramaling tablets, another brand of tramadol, was made possible through credible intelligence and strategic operations of the customs personnel.

“The successful interception of these dangerous substances would not have been possible without the robust collaboration and support from our intelligence units, local informants and sister agencies.

“These landmark operations are testament to the unwavering dedication of the NCS to safeguard the health and well-being of our citizens and uphold the rule of law,” he said.

He said the seizures comprised 403 sacks and 6,504 parcels, weighing 7,217.7 kg and 362 packs of tramaling tablets of 225mg each, with a total Duty Paid Value of N117,587,405,00.

He described the height of illicit drugs smuggling in the recent time as worrisome.

This, he said, underscores the severity of drug trafficking within the borders.

“Between Oct. 13 and Nov. 12 alone, operatives intercepted a total of 1,373 parcels of cannabis sativa, weighing 1,337kg and 362 packs of tramaling tablets of 225mg each,” he said.

Ojo said the seizures had disrupted the supply chain of illicit drugs, thereby mitigating the risks those substances posed to the youth, families and communities.

He lauded the synergy between its command, security agencies and other stakeholders that led to the remarkable achievements.

Ojo also commended the Comptroller General of NCS for creating an enabling environment for the command to achieve the success.

Responding, Adeyeye, applauded the customs for achieving the feat.

Adeyeye pledged to continue to collaborate with the customs to fight against illicit trade and drug trafficking in the state.

Africa

Ann-Kio Briggs Faults Tinubu for Scrapping Niger Delta Ministry

Published

1 month ago

November 22, 2024

Matthew Eloyi

Prominent Niger Delta human rights activist and environmentalist, Ann-Kio Briggs, has criticised President Bola Tinubu’s decision to scrap the Ministry of Niger Delta, describing it as ill-advised and detrimental to the oil-rich region.

Briggs expressed her concerns during an appearance on Inside Sources with Laolu Akande, a socio-political programme aired on Channels Television.

“The Ministry of Niger Delta was created by the late (President Umaru) Yar’Adua. There was a reason for the creation. So, just removing it because the president was advised. I want to believe that he was advised because if he did it by himself, that would be terribly wrong,” she stated.

President Tinubu, in October, dissolved the Ministry of Niger Delta and replaced it with the Ministry of Regional Development, which is tasked with overseeing all regional development commissions, including the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), North-West Development Commission, and North-East Development Commission.

Briggs questioned the rationale behind the restructuring, expressing concerns about its feasibility and implications. “But that’s not going to be the solution because who is going to fund the commissions? Is it the regions because it is called the Regional Development Ministry? Is it the states in the regions? What are the regions because we don’t work with regions right now; we are working with geopolitical zones,” she remarked.

She added, “Are we going back to regionalism? If we are, we have to discuss it. The president can’t decide on his own to restructure Nigeria. If we are restructuring Nigeria, the president alone can’t restructure Nigeria, he has to take my opinion and your opinion into consideration.”

Briggs also decried the longstanding neglect of the Niger Delta despite its significant contributions to Nigeria’s economy since 1958. “The Niger Delta has been developing Nigeria since 1958. We want to use our resources to develop our region; let regions use their resources to develop themselves,” she asserted.

Reflecting on the various bodies established to address the region’s development, Briggs lamented their failure to deliver meaningful progress. She highlighted the Niger Delta Basin Authority, the Oil Mineral Producing Areas Development Commission (OMPADEC), and the NDDC as examples of ineffective interventions.

“NDDC was created by Olusegun Obasanjo…There was OMPADEC before NDDC. OMPADEC was an agency. Before OMPADEC, there was the Basin Authority…These authorities were created to help us. Were we helped by those authorities? No, we were not,” she said.

Briggs further described the NDDC as an “ATM for failed politicians, disgruntled politicians, and politicians that have had their electoral wins taken away from them and given to somebody else.”

Her remarks underscore the deep-seated frustrations in the Niger Delta, where residents continue to advocate for greater control over their resources and improved governance.

Feature

Securing the Digital Frontier: Global and Nigerian Cybersecurity Landscape

Published

3 months ago

October 2, 2024

Matthew Eloyi

Securing the Digital Frontier: Global and Nigerian Cybersecurity Landscape

“Cybersecurity is much more than a matter of IT; it’s a matter of national security.”
— Pauline Neville-Jones, former UK Minister for Security

By Ernest Ogezi

As the digital landscape rapidly expands, the global cybersecurity situation has reached a critical juncture. In an increasingly interconnected world, the scale and frequency of cyber threats continue to escalate, affecting individuals, businesses, and governments alike. October, designated as National Cybersecurity Awareness Month, serves as a stark reminder of the growing importance of cybersecurity and the collective responsibility we all share in securing our digital spaces.

Globally, the numbers paint a grim picture. According to a 2024 report by IBM Security, the average cost of a data breach has soared to $4.88 million, marking the highest figure ever recorded. This staggering figure underscores the severe financial implications of cyber incidents. Additionally, the number of data compromises worldwide in the first half of 2024 rose to 1,571, a 14% increase from 2023. These statistics highlight the growing sophistication of cyberattacks and the pressing need for more robust defenses. Ransomware, phishing, and advanced persistent threats (APTs) continue to dominate the threat landscape, with attackers constantly evolving their tactics.

The situation in Nigeria mirrors global trends but presents its own set of unique challenges. As Africa’s largest economy and a rapidly growing digital hub, Nigeria has experienced a surge in cybercrime activity. In 2022 alone, the Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System (NIBSS) recorded over 60,000 cyberattacks on financial institutions, amounting to billions in losses. The rise of digital banking, e-commerce, and the widespread adoption of mobile devices have made the country a prime target for cybercriminals. In response to these challenges, the Nigerian government has taken significant steps to bolster the nation’s cybersecurity infrastructure, with the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) playing a pivotal role.

NITDA, the agency responsible for regulating and promoting Nigeria’s IT ecosystem, has been at the forefront of the country’s cybersecurity efforts. In line with its mandate to foster a safe and secure digital environment, NITDA has implemented a series of initiatives aimed at enhancing cybersecurity awareness, promoting best practices, and strengthening the country’s defense against cyber threats. The agency’s role in cybersecurity is multi-faceted, focusing on policy development, capacity building, and public-private partnerships.

One of NITDA’s key contributions has been the development of Nigeria’s National Cybersecurity Strategy, which outlines the country’s approach to combating cyber threats. The strategy emphasizes the importance of protecting critical infrastructure, safeguarding personal data, and building cyber resilience. It also focuses on creating a culture of cybersecurity awareness across all sectors of society. NITDA has been instrumental in implementing this strategy by working with stakeholders to ensure its effectiveness.

In October 2024, as part of National Cybersecurity Awareness Month, NITDA launched a nationwide awareness campaign to educate individuals and organizations on the importance of cybersecurity. The campaign, which aligns with the global theme “Secure Our World,” emphasizes the shared responsibility of all Nigerians in protecting the digital landscape. Through workshops, webinars, and educational materials, NITDA is working to equip citizens with the knowledge and tools they need to safeguard their digital assets.

A key focus of NITDA’s efforts has been the protection of Nigeria’s critical infrastructure, including the financial, energy, and healthcare sectors. Cyberattacks on these sectors can have devastating consequences, not only financially but also in terms of public safety. In response, NITDA has collaborated with both national and international organizations to enhance the cybersecurity frameworks of these industries, ensuring that they are equipped to defend against evolving threats.

Beyond its focus on critical infrastructure, NITDA has made significant strides in fostering a cybersecurity-conscious workforce. Through its Cybersecurity Awareness Program, the agency has trained thousands of IT professionals, law enforcement officers, and government personnel on the latest cybersecurity trends and defense techniques. This capacity-building initiative is crucial for ensuring that Nigeria has a skilled workforce capable of responding to the ever-changing threat landscape.

Despite these efforts, the scale and complexity of cyber threats continue to grow. The rise of ransomware attacks, data breaches, and phishing schemes poses significant risks to both the public and private sectors. NITDA recognizes that cybersecurity is not a static field but one that requires constant vigilance and adaptation. The agency is therefore committed to continuously improving Nigeria’s cybersecurity posture through policy updates, enhanced defenses, and ongoing education.