In 1996, the World Food Summit set a goal of halving the number of hungry people worldwide by 2015. In 2000, the United Nations as a whole adopted a set of goals which included halving poverty and hunger by the year 2015. The world came together in order to tackle the hunger problem. And yet, conditions have [31] (1.deteriorated 2. rebounded 3. developed) in many places. Indeed, according to The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2003, the annual hunger report of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the number of people suffering from hunger worldwide has begun to rise once more.
With a view to identifying the causes of this failure, the report begins with an analysis of countries that have, [32] (1. deceptively 2. naturally 3. on the contrary), been successful in dealing with hunger. In Brazil and in China, rapid overall economic growth has led to significant growth of agriculture in particular. Both countries have made an [33] (1. obligation 2. illustration 3. effort) to control population growth and develop human resources, and have relatively low rates of HIV infection.
Nevertheless, the number of hungry people has grown in many other regions. Drought, civil war and growing numbers of AIDS patients have led to stagnation in agricultural food production. HIV/AIDS has [34] (1. robbed 2. attacked 3. downgraded) many developing countries of valuable labor, leading to poverty and hunger. In some developing countries, on the other hand, agricultural production has been expanded to an [35] (1. unreasonable 2. appropriate 3.accumulated) level to support population growth, leading to environmental problems.
Subsequently, in September of 2006, there was a meeting at the Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome to identify ways to achieve the U. N. goal of halving hunger by 2015. At the meeting, all of the participants were asked how the pace of reducing hunger could be accelerated, [36] (1. even though 2. Since 3. While) a 2005 review showed that progress was poor in most developing countries. Almost all the participants felt that the greatest threats to food security in the future come, first, from climate change (potential adverse changes in temperature, rainfall, and sea level) l, and, second, from the loss of biodiversity. There was a great deal of consensus on this issue among the diverse groups of representatives, including a farmer from Senegal, leaders of Oxfam and other non-governmental organizations, agricultural scientists, and food security specialists. The suggested ways to go forward [37] (1. ranged 2. Sprang. Diverged) from faithful implementation of the Kyoto Protocol to acting on the provisions of biodiversity, climate, and the prevention of the spread of deserts.
The growing awareness of the impact of climate change and biodiversity on food security and hunger has produced some interesting approaches to the issue. M. S. Swami Nathan, the Chair for Eco technology in U.N.E.S.C.O., described what he considers to be a way to turn awareness into action. Speaking on Agriculture on Our Spaceship Earth” in 1973, he proposed a strategy called do ecology” to deal with problems in developing countries. The “do ecology” strategy revolves around activities which will 38] (1. generate 2. curtail 3. conceal) an awareness of the economic possibilities of conservation and will thus help to reduce poverty. Two recent examples of “do ecology” below show its great potential.
First, the tsunami of December 2004 resulted in a severe loss of life and property along coastal Tamil Nadu in southern India, which is where Mr. Swami Nathan lives. For 15 years [39] (1. previously 2. Since then 3. Now, many residents of that district have been trying to persuade coastal communities not to destroy the mangrove forests along the coast. But the coastal people’s preoccupations with their livelihood did not allow them to heed that request. The tsunami miraculously changed their outlook. Villages adjoining thick mangrove forests were saved from the fury of the tsunami because of the wave breaking [40] (1. impact 2. role 3. force) played by the mangroves. But in nearby villages, where mangroves had been destroyed either for fuel wood or to create fishponds, several hundred fishermen died. This area is near the temple town of Chidambaram, [41] (1.which. 2. Where 3. When) centuries ago the temple builders had chosen a mangrove species as the temple tree. Following the tsunami there was a sudden awareness of the reason for this choice, and local people now refer to mangrove trees as “lifesavers.” What the residents could not achieve in 15 years by arguing that mangroves would serve as a natural, biological shield in the event of a flood was thus achieved in a day.
The same tsunami [42] (1. dictated to 2. concealed from 3. demonstrated to) farmers living near the shoreline the importance of conserving local varieties of rice. Several thousand hectares of rice fields along the coast became flooded with sea water. Most varieties of rice [43] (1. survived 2. perished 3. mutated), but a few salt resistant ones withstood the flood. This disaster, however, greatly helped to promote the conservation of local biodiversity, and now every farmer wishes to maintain a “seed bank” for the preservation of seeds belonging to diverse varieties. The disaster became an opportunity to prepare both fishing and farming communities to meet the [44] (1. challenges 2. demands 3. diseases) that are directly linked to a rise in sea level. The biodiversity conservation movements in this area have now become community driven.
A second example relates to the revitalization of the conservation traditions of tribal communities in the Eastern region of India. Fifty years ago, the tribal communities in the Kora put region of Orissa in eastern India were familiar with more than 1,000 varieties of rice, but at the turn of the century this [45] (1. hope 2. moment 3. figure) had fallen drastically. The people’s “dying wisdom” was related to the vanishing of their crops.
It became clear that the only way these tribal families would once again start conserving biodiversity would be by connecting conservation to economics. A [46] ( 1. dynamic 2. gradual 3. mechanical) program of participatory conservation and breeding, coupled with agricultural improvements, soon led to a big spurt in the production of “Kalajeera,” an aromatic local variety of rice, which is being snapped up by the market almost as soon as it is harvested. The same has started happening in southern India with medicinal varieties of rice used in traditional medical practice, and with under-utilized grains in Tamil Nadu.
Indeed, the practice of “do ecology” can be [47] (1. triggered 2. followed 3. symbolized) by an ecological disaster. Preaching does not help. We see this being demonstrated in areas of the Punjab too. Thirty years ago, when it was pointed out to Punjab farmers that their livelihoods would be threatened by the [48] (1. modest 2. specified 3. excessive) use of chemical fertilizers and the overexploitation of ground water, they listened politely, but did not change course. Now, in a despairing mood, they are ready to change. The adverse economics of unsustainable farming has led to indebtedness and occasional suicides. The timing has become [49] (1. inappropriate 2. tricky. opportune) for farmers to take to conservation farming.
Developing countries with pervasive poverty and expanding populations should spread a “do ecology” approach which can [50] (1. bring about 2. hold up 3. adhere to) both ecological and economic benefits. In addition to self-help efforts on the part of developing countries, there is also a need for still greater support from the developed nations. For this, Swami Nathan has proposed another important strategy named “don’t ecology” for developed countries. This strategy relates to regulations and restrictions in areas such as carbon emissions and the unsustainable consumption of natural resources. These two strategies, “do ecology” and “don’t ecology,” should work hand in hand to deal with the growing damage to our life-support systems.
コメントを残す