I agree that for too long the need to invest in agriculture has been a low priority issue. The time has come to place agriculture higher on the policy agenda and to focus on the needs of smallholders.
It is true that for the first time in history more humans live in urban rather than in rural areas. This has been true of Australian society for many years with a break down resulting in the understanding by urban society of the costs and problems of the small minority of our society who live on and work the farms. Australian farmers are amongst the most productive farmers in the world, ready to use modern technology to preserve the land and increase crop yield.
Australian farmers have always been price takers and this has resulted in an inability to get a return on their product. They have been leaving the land and drifting to the cities to obtain a living wage.
Within Australia there is arable land lying fallow. There are crops wasted every year because the price is too low to warrant the cost of harvesting.
Only if there is a radical change in the attitude of governments ensuring changes to policies to protect and assist Australian farmers, plus a change in the attitude of the urban population willing to pay a higher price for Australian produce, will the Australian farmer be able to assist during the predicted food famines of this century.

Relying on science, particularly when the science budgets are being significantly reduced and are increasingly forming smaller parts of total budgets, is hardly conducive to an integrative approach to the food problem or crop sustainability problems. Shouldn't the approaches be widened? It is apparent to most that the world cannot continue to support the numbers it currently has, let alone cope with any significant increase. Science just won't do it so I question your desire to rely on it to provide answers. It most certainly has a place but not on its own.

Oil supply is now decreasing and phosphate resources are approximagtely 75% depleted. These factors alone make continuation of modern industrial agriculture (aka the "green revolution") impossible. The only way forward is population stablization and then reduction (will be forced on us the hard way by mother nature if we don't) and then localisation of agriculture, recycling of human wastes back to crop-growing soils and much higher human labour inputs. This sounds radical but there is literally no alternative - other than collapse and starvation.

Arctic dog identified the elephant in the room - ie overpopulation. Unless we can find another planet or two, providing lots more affordable food will simply lead to even more mouths to feed, with a consequent devastating effect on the environment.

True, economic development, as in Europe, has reduced the numbers of children in families, but a more pro-active approach such as China's one-child policy, is overdue.

Australia can do its little bit by reversing the Harradine-inspired refusal of overseas aid where family planning is practised. However, with the number of Roman Catholics in Parliament, and the religiously and socially conservative nature of our PM, this may prove difficult. Rather than the Harradine approach, it would be more sensible that family planning be a pre-requisite for Australian aid!

I come from a low income farming background, but must admit to being a bit wary of the approach recommended by "Country girl". Not sure at all that "policies to protect and assist Australian farmers" are the answer. This usually means handover of more subsidies to promote uneconomic activites.

Arcticdog observes correctly, population pressures are the most significant influence being ignored in this article.

The advances in science have improved food production significantly, over the past few decades, thus the supply side of the equation has responded to the need.

What is not happening is the demand side, which continues to outstrip the limits of sustainability.

We acknowledge the world is a finite place, that growth cannot continue and some resources are under stress. The bleeding obvious thing is to address the demand side of the equation and stop population numbers. That applies especially to burgeoning third world populations.

To country girls “Within Australia there is arable land lying fallow. There are crops wasted every year because the price is too low to warrant the cost of harvesting.”

I guess when the economics turn and food [production becomes more critical, it will attract the sort of economic returns which will make it viable.

Like Protea I believe throwing subsidies at any industry, be it agriculture or manufacturing, only warps the market at the expense of the tax payer and for the benefit of a minority vested interest.

We have moved, in the past two decades away from the “protectionist” model more toward the free-market model of economic activity. Protectionism begat protectionism and ultimately harms the consumer and the national economy through tax-payer subsidy of inefficient and incompetent business sectors which draw in resources away from new opportunities.

The author says “Farmers need access to the information and tools – inputs and technology – that will allow them to make the right choices to address sustainability”.
True enough, they need such access – but “sustainability”, by any reasonable definition will still be pie in the sky. “Not by bread alone” can it be achieved, and it is a cruel hoax to pretend that it can.
When will CropOlogists stop such pretence? Rather than merely cramming more human sardines into the limited planetary sardine-tin, could they not ask for action in minimizing what has become an attempt at perpetual increase in food-hungry communities?
Unless such action is addressed, all the good works they envisage do nothing at all for that magic term sustainability. While there is not a squeak out of them to ask for attention to the fundamental problem, should they expect to be taken seriously when waving the “sustainability” banner? By all means, Paula, get back to your good works – but please give the disinformation a miss.

Isn't it fascinating that the writers of the recent spate of articles about the food crisis and sustainability on Online Opinion ignore the impact of population growth? What is this? A conspiracy of silence?

For your info, here are a few quotes from the UN report World Population Policies 2007: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2007/Publication_introduction.pdf

- Many developing countries have realized the importance of reducing high rates of population growth in order to ease mounting pressure on renewable and non-renewable resources, combat climate change, prevent food insufficiency and provide decent employment and basic social services to all their people. (p.7)

- In 2007, fertility was viewed as too high in over half of developing countries, including most parts of Africa, Southcentral Asia and South-eastern Asia. (p.12)

- Fifty-four per cent of developing countries considered their fertility to be too high in 2007. Ninety per cent of the least developed countries held that view. (p.13)

- Developing countries with high fertility are grappling with the challenge of providing decent work for their growing labour forces. In 2006 there were nearly 200 million unemployed persons, an increase of 18 per cent since 1995 (ILO, 2007). The highest rates of unemployment and underemployment are found in the poorest countries. There is a general recognition that employment generation in developing countries requires employment-intensive economic growth combined with a coherent set of employment and human development policies. (p.11)

- During the last three decades, most developing countries have strengthened their support for increasing access to contraceptive methods. Even previously pronatalist Governments, which in the past had wanted to maintain or even increase population growth, have gradually modified their stance and accepted family planning and contraception as integral components of maternal and child health programmes. (p.15)

- Despite widespread government support for increasing access to contraceptives, demand is believed to outstrip supply. It is estimated that more than 100 million women lack ready access to safe and effective means of contraception. (p.14)

Developing countries obviously recognise they have a population problem. Why aren’t we doing more to help them address it with more family planning assistance?

How does government subsidisation on the production of ethanol and biodiesel from grain fit into your thoughts?
Unless the USA, EU and assorted countries including Australia call a halt to the subsidised expansion of the grain ethanol industry we will shortly see ten percent of the world’s grain being converted to ethanol.
Depopulation may be one answer but what about the other side of the coin.
Ever increasing standards of living in the developed world, epitomized by this demand that we must drive cars must also be looked at as an unsustainable use of the world’s resources.

And Country Girl, I do not think that subsidized higher profits for your farmers come ahead of the misery of many millions of people. The farmers time will come without the conversion of grain to ethanol

Population increases have to be checked, particularly if “…820 million people in developing countries are suffering from hunger today.”

If this many people are starving now, how on earth can we expect to cater for another 1.7 billion in less than a quarter of a century? How can anyone presenting these figures even think that the problem of over-population and subsequent starvation can be solved?

Plant modification might be of some use, but suitable land is still needed to grow crops. Are we to denigrate further huge tracts of land like the “Millions of hectares of natural habitats and the biodiversity they support remain undisturbed through these efforts to date”? The over-clearing of land in third world countries – due to over-population - is where it all started.

This author seems to think that it can be had both ways: use more land, but the “The quest for food must not overwhelm uncultivated land and wildlife habitat.”

Yeah!

The problem is not one of food shortages; it is one of over-population. A world which can allow a population increase of 1.7 billion by 2030 is an insane world.

It was predicted within the last week that food in Australia will become much more expensive as demand from hugely growing countries like China increase. We will pay more to ‘feed the world’. Well, to hell with that. Let the rest of the world take some responsibility for itself.

In view of the catastrophic climatic and environmental events we are told will get worse, countries like Australia, able to feed themselves, should be growing enough for themselves and exporting only whatever surplus there might be.

As it is, food export has nothing to do with fine feelings for mankind; it has to do with greed and profit (higher prices for the populations of exporting countries, to help exporters make money).

Population control is the only answer to world food shortages, and efforts to do something about the problem should be under focus – not the production of more food

"Developing countries obviously recognise they have a population problem. Why aren’t we doing more to help them address it with more family planning assistance?"

As I understand it, the main reason people in third world countries have lots of kids is to compensate for the fact that a lot of them die young and the more kids parents have, the more help they have in older age. Pretty reasonable from their point of view.

So, I believe the thing that will help them the most is to give them access to the open economy where they can gradually attain a better standard of living (and hence do without the need to have more kids). Providing family assistance on its own is like moving deck chairs on the Titanic.

On the subject of localised food production, I saw an interesting TV preview re urban farmimg in Cuba where vacant lots in the cities have been turned into market gardens. Could we do something similar here?

At the very least, large farm lots could be set up on the outskirts of cities adjacent to sewerage farms. Agricultural scientists could conduct plant/crop growth trials using varying degrees of purified sewage. Once they work out what cocktail works best, why not use it to fertilise the ground to enhance fertility and productivity? Then set up a transport network that takes the produce to markets in the cities.

I agree with most posters that reducing the world population is the answer. Why world leaders cannot see this is a mystery.

We have to do far more to demand change to RC and others thinking and tie foreign aid to birth control.

I forgot to include that the ridiculos 'baby bonus' should be the first thing to go. If we ever need more people here that could easily be accomodated by an increase in immigration for a period.

RobP

Re your comment: "As I understand it, the main reason people in third world countries have lots of kids is to compensate for the fact that a lot of them die young and the more kids parents have, the more help they have in older age. Pretty reasonable from their point of view."

Another reason why "people in third world countries have lots of kids" is because women are expected to have sexual intercourse with their partners. Sexual intercourse without contraception often equals pregnancy which may not always be the woman's (or man's) desired outcome. And I don't think women in many of these countries are often in the sort of relationship which allows them to follow "abstention".

Why shouldn't women and men in developing countries be given the opportunity to control their own fertility, just like people in developed countries?

Re your comment about the "open economy" etc. Note this quote from the internet edition of Bangladesh's The New Nation (4 April 08):

Government officials are calling "upon the people to check population growth and help ensure development of the national economy. The current trend of population increase must be checked, otherwise it may pose a threat to the healthy growth of the country’s socio-economic uplift programmes…” http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2008/04/04/news0579.htm

Elizabeth,

Fair point. The lack of contraception issue you raise is allied to, and nested in with, the fact that people are poor. I guess my argument was that no progress will be made until the big issue of lack of development opportunities was addressed. I suspect that when that happens you'll see movement on a lot of different fronts, contraception included.

Agriculture has been described as the process of converting oil into food. As we approach peak oil and the price skyrockets, I can't see agriculture being the answer to food shortages. Growing and using biofuels is just going to limit food production.

As other posters have pointed out, the real problem is over-population, and Australia and Europe are well placed to lead the way here, if our politicians have the courage to do so. Without immigration, our populations are in natural decline, so we have an opportunity to develop a new style of economy based on a stable or declining population. It will take a lot of ingenuity, and we'd have to abandon the mantra of endless growth but I'm sure it can be done and I'd much rather we had a softish landing under our own control than a catastrophe at the hands of self-interested global corporations.

*How does government subsidisation on the production of ethanol and biodiesel from grain fit into your thoughts?*

If you crunch the numbers Goeff, then right now its cheaper to
use canola oil in your diesel engine, rather then diesel. So its
going to happen, subsidies or no subsidies.

But then please stop subsidising the oil industry. The war in Iraq,
to try and secure oil supplies, cost Australians a bleeding fortune!

As to population growth, sadly our politicians are too lilly livered
to take on the hugely powerfull lobby group encouraging population growth, ie. the Vatican.

Perhaps poor countries should send them the bill, to feed the
starving masses. They certainly are not short of a quid, look at
the pomp and splendor of the Vatican.

Fact is, send the third world more boatloads of food, without
more family planning, you will land up with another 80 million
a year more to feed, as we have now.

Increasing land degradation without any end in sight,widespread and prolonged droughts in all food-producing countries and charity-hungry non-producers, putting more and more land into bio fuel production to combat the earth-warming that threatens the earth and the spiralling cost of foodstuffs that will result wil bring about a culling of the earth's population.The elephant in the room is undoubtedly the main cause of millions having to die.Nothing can stop this. The earth was never meant to support the exploding population that has resulted as a natural process.Now nature has to correct the problem and we will call this cruel.
Accept it as inevitable and plan for a good life for those who can and will eventually survive.I am not being a prophet of doom.These are merely cold facts objectively stated. The history of the world will prove me right.

socratease

GET REAL!

There won't be another 1.7 billion people.

The human species is on the edge of extinction.

The price of petrol will be around $2 by 2009. That's next year in case you hadn't noticed! Already you will have noticed people queued up at bowsers. That little panic is just the start. By 2011 it will be around $5 per litre & bowsers will be closing down & so too will our lives..
Why? Anyone with the slightest interest in THERMODYNAMICS will tell you that biological organisms live along energy gradients or more precisely along ENTROPY gradients..
Jelly fishfor example live along the thermocline between the ocean surface and about 50 metres and will live forever because of that perennial entropy gradient.
The elephant in the room here for Modern humans is that our life sustaining entropy gradient is between the petrol bowser and our living rooms. Cheap oil has underwritten our staggering economic, scientific and population explosions since the beginning of the 20th century.We all now depend on oil for everything we do. Even if you don't drive a car, ekectricity, water and all other life sustaining essentials are run by people who do. If oil becomes NOT CHEAP we are all dead.

The mechanics of that death are irrelevent. Just as the humiliating, bloody, twitching gasps, the horrors of the death of a man brutally stabbed through the heart seem to go on forever, he is dead & cold at day's end. It will seem to go on forever in all its mathematically defined dynamic war, famine and disease horror for humans, but by the end of about 2025 we homo spiens will also be just as cold & dead.

So in answer to the question "How will we feed 1.7 billion more people in 2030?" Its like a suicide off a cliff saying on the way down: "I wonder what I will do for lunch tomorrow?"

But the REAL answer to the question is: "" Unless we perfect drilling operations for hot-rock-GEOTHERMAL, the ONLY adequate replacement for cheap oil ... who gives a f##K!"

The Elephant in the room comments:

One of the first casualties of petrol prices rising beyond $5 per litre, sometime in 2011, will not be agriculture it will be pregnant women. They will become outcasts.

And there will be no tears, no sympathy. The equal rights status afforded to women on such a widespread basis means they must now have equal responsibility in caring for this planet by not increasing human numbers. Numbers that threaten not only our agricultural base but us ALL.

Women may be forced to conceive but by God there is no force on Earth that can make them have a child if they choose not to have it.

“SAVE our agricultural sustainability … SAY NO TO CHILDREN”

A one child per woman policy (1CP) is essential if we are to survive and be able to adequately feed ourselves.

I repeat: "SAY NO TO CHILDREN”

Posted by the Elephant in the room.