Israeli remedies for India’s food security problem

Every year after Rosh Hashanah (the Jewish New Year) when I visit India, my home country, the first drastic change I notice is the food inflation rate. In New Delhi if you send an SMS to a restaurant for home delivery service, you may get your order in less than 20 minutes, which goes to show that there are plenty of food options available. At the same time, however, you will notice the numerous beggars on the streets. There is thus something visibly wrong that led me to ask myself whether it is possible for us to directly connect the agriculture field to people in need?

There is a fundamental rule in business management: If you want your business to profit then you should do something essential for all human beings. Yet why is it that the IT sector is so thriving while food farming, an elemental need in life, is not profitable and that in last 15 years over 200,000 farmers have committed suicide in India?

Agriculture scientists worldwide emphasize the fact that at the current growth rate, the world population may reach 9 billion by 2050 and that to meet the increase in demand we must elevate production levels. However, current statistics show that while today’s world population amounts to 6.7 billion, we produce enough food for 11.5 billion people, almost double than required. The main reasons for such a lurid problem has to do with problematic trade and economic policies. As a result, farmers are committing suicide, much of the public is suffering from food inflation rates and the majority of profits are taken by middle-men. What we need then is just a proper food chain supply and that constitutes a huge business opportunity for Israeli agritech companies.

To overcome these problems the Indian government is planning to bring a food security bill for poor people, as well as FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) to improve the food chain supply for the common man before next year’s election. There are big debates taking place about the implementation of such a critical bill in this time frame.

Although a national food security bill provides food to poor people on subsidized rates after having bumper crops yields, no one knows what economic, political and social impact it will have. For example, instead of bringing down food prices, this seems to have had the opposite effect. The bill has been criticized for low food entitlements and inadequate attention to nutrition. Moreover, if a small farmer could get food grain for as little as Rs.1 per kg, as proposed in the Food Security Bill, what incentive would s/he have to grow her/his own? And what would happen in a bad crop year or successive bad years? Currently, production and availability of food grain for implementing the Food Security Bill does not appear to be an issue since on average one third of the food grain production every year is wasted due to lack of proper storage facility. We have had bumper crops every year — 259.32 million tons in 2012-13 — and have enormous buffer stocks. Ever since Brazil launched the Zero Hunger Programme in 2001, it has pulled out 30-40 million people from poverty. Brazil promises to eradicate hunger by 2015 whereas in the Indian National Food Security Bill there is no such specific goal being doled out.  To me, it seems that while Brazil's Zero Hunger was time-bound and aimed at making hunger history, India's Food Security Bill is simply targeted at the 2014 elections.

At the same time FDI is going to open doors for US firms like Wal-Mart and Tesco. The government justification is that this will improve food chain supply, provide warehouse and especially cold storage facilities, thus having control over food inflation rates and giving the public the choice to buy from cheaper outlets. But at the same time, an influx of foreign actors would have a strong impact on unemployed people who work in small businesses for their daily survival and have no job security. Farmers, in addition, would not have the right to demand minimum support price (MSP) since these companies may buy goods from other countries and then sell them in India. Even though the government claims that it has placed safety nets in place, e.g. outlets would be open only in those cities where the population is over 1 million (currently 53 cities) and foreign firms would have to buy at least 30% of their products from the Indian market, these rules have yet to be accepted by the foreign companies with which the government is in negotiation.

In such circumstances start-up countries like Israel have much to offer India. To quote former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, “In an age where community involvement and partnership with civil society are increasingly being recognized as indispensable, there is clearly a growing potential for cooperative development and renewal worldwide”. India should thus consider adopting Kibbutz-like agriculture practice to minimize transportation and storage problem, which will then lead to further price control by removing the involevement of middlemen.

Land is a productive asset, but for many farmers who lack scientific agricultural practice, it is in the hands of unproductive people. Moreover, water and agriculture are inextricable. Thus , it is important to know how to exploit water for irrigation with minimal effort. Presently in India most farmers use underground water for irrigation and depend on diesel or electricity to pump it, which brings financial burden to poor farmers. In this context, there are many agricultural tools and methods that Israel can share with India, whilst at the same time getting access to Indian biodiversity – 45,000 plant species which can bring even further improved plant varieties through molecular breeding practices.

With the changing global climate, post-harvest damage has become very challenging throughout the world. During the rainy season (Monsoon) in India the price of vegetables like tomatoes and onions is very high. Bringing in options such as processed tomato purees and onion paste could present solutions in such cases. Here we should not forget that Israel exports vegetable products to the whole of Europe with minimal post harvest damage.

Several other small innovative applications like grain cocoon, biological pest control, and protected cultivation under greenhouses could also be very useful to solve India’s food security problem. Furthermore, dairy and fish farms, which stem off the agricultural branch may also benefit from Israel’s significant technological expertise.

Dr. Akhilesh Kumar is a Postdoctorate Fellow at The Volcani Center (Ministry of Agriculture and Research Organization) and a Fellow of the Israel Asia Center

Changing care: A shift in the global burden of disease - Carolien Van Embden Andres

International development and health are inextricably linked. One cannot talk about sustainable development without acknowledging the importance of health. This, I believe, most of us can agree on. Yet that is where the harmony ends. It is a jungle out there, in the field of global health. A jungle of ideas and solutions to a legion of health-related issues in a world that harbours so many different people, cultures and environments.

Many decision-makers take the concept of a jungle quite literal. Thinking about health in a global sense, there seems to be a traditional divide between the ‘’concrete jungle’’ that is the developed world and the ‘’real jungle’’ that is the developing world. Health-wise, the concrete jungle deals with chronic diseases (non-communicable diseases), whereas all the infectious agents that plague the ‘’real’’ jungle leave developing countries engaged in a combat against communicable diseases.

Yet, these ideas are very dated. Within the last decades, the global pattern of disease burden is shifting. Chronic diseases do not only affect the rich and the elderly, as commonly thought. In fact, most deaths from chronic disease now actually occur in developing countries. As their health systems are developed to address primarily acute problems, such as infectious diseases, chronic disease management becomes overshadowed and the issues inadequately dealt with.  

The biggest risk factors threatening our health today are blood pressure, tobacco, alcohol and poor diet; risk factors associated with chronic disease. The term ‘chronic’ conveys an important prospect: it means people will be spending more time living with disease. Simultaneously, cases of disability, whether due to disease or injury, will also spread exponentially. Although there is ample evidence available to provide a compelling argument in favour of the strengthening of health systems instead of solemnly targeting individual health areas and acute care, it seems donor-driven funding patterns do not allow this awareness to seep into the agendas of players in the field.

Without going into the power dynamics of money over policy there is a need for change. It is quite simple: changes in disease patterns means changes in care. We ought to be thinking about different approaches to health and healing. What does it mean to be living with disease/disability instead of merely suffering from it? What makes people crumble and what makes them cope?

Aaron Antonovsky, an American-Israeli sociologist, studied human resilience by looking into the cases of women that survived the Holocaust. Out of this group of women, only 29% appeared to be in good emotional health. Antonovsky was intrigued by how high this figure was, almost one third of women living through such a horrendous experience did actually have a positive outlook on life. This is what inspired him to formulate his sense of coherence theory.

People that have a strong sense of coherence during a difficult situation are able to comprehend, manage and derive meaning from troubling times. As such, they will experience less stress. And this is important. Stress is a major - if not one of the biggest - peril to health and healing. Reducing stress by having a strong sense of coherence can usually be prescribed to having understanding and perspective, resources and social capital. How a person is dealing with a disease will help shape its course.

Having a chronic affliction or a disability shakes the foundations of someone’s being. It changes the structures of daily life; our daily steps, habits and taken-for-granted certainties. As true as this may be for any disease, chronic conditions provide a much longer time-span to process these changes and learn to deal with them. During this process, social networks and institutions are relied on for support.

Diseases do not exist within a social vacuum. What causes disease to occur, spread and ultimately affect those involved is dependent on physical, psychological, social and environmental factors. Health care systems should therefore become more horizontal and integrative. Health issues are often interrelated; infectious diseases are entwined with chronic diseases. Some, such as HIV/AIDS are even hard to place under one banner, as therapeutic measures are increasingly becoming available worldwide.  We need health systems that are strong enough to accommodate a plethora of often unrelated health issues,, promote healing as well as coping, and that are open to wider social institutional involvement.  

Although this might seem a far stretch from what developing countries promptly need in terms of health care, shifting at least some of the focus towards building strong health care systems will be rewarded in the long haul. Surely initiatives to treat acute health problems remain relevant, as well as, for example, efforts to fight tobacco use and fast food intake. But if the focus is always on absence of disease and complete recovery, instead of the ability to cope with afflictions, we might overlook what is sometimes more important. In the end, the quality of health, as well as ill health, depends on the quality of care.

Carolien van Embden Andres has recently finished her Master’s programme in Medical Anthropology and Sociology at the University of Amsterdam.