Identificación y levantamiento de información

problems the world faces in addition to climate change, poverty and resource scarcity (Collodi and M’Cormack, 2009:1). It is expected that by 2050, the world’s population will have grown to 9 billion. Most of this increase will be in Asia and Africa, which will face increased strain on already insufficient resources. Sustained population growth, aggressive economic competition and increased consumption will result in intensive exploitation and pressure on resources (UNEP, 2009; OECD 2003). Despite rapid population increases, crop yield growth has slowed in much of the world because of declining investments in agricultural research, irrigation, and rural infrastructure and increasing water scarcity. The combined effect of population growth, climate change, land degradation, crop and cropland losses to non-food production, water scarcity, desertification, resource-depleting subsistence strategies and urban expansion means food production could be as much as 25 percent less than demand by 2050 (UNEP, 2009). Continued population growth means pressure is being

placed on arable land, water, energy, and biological resources to provide an adequate supply of food while maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem. As the world population expands, the food problem will become increasingly severe. With the myriad of challenges facing agricultural production in developing countries, Garrett Hardin’s (1968) "Tragedy of the Commons" points out that, human beings are constantly making use of goods, space, and resources that are also available to others. The personal benefit of using these “commons” is clear, but on an individual level, the impact made is seemingly trivial. This makes a rational individual conclude that the benefits of the commons can be enjoyed without causing any slightest damage to it, yet as a group, we wreak havoc (Christensen, 2005).

According to Hardin (1968) there exist problems that lack a technical solution, an example being the “population problem” whereby our ever-growing human population, with each individual trying to maximize their gain, is subject to a finite planet. Influenced by Social Darwinism, Hardin suggests that the prospect of an ever-growing population where all individuals are trying to maximize their own gain in a finite environment is impossible. The tragedy comes as the usage of each common climbs above the optimal level.

A striking illustration of the tragedy is seen in a situation created by pollution where, “The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them.” (Christensen, 2005). When put into the context of a very large population, this “rational man” and all those with a similar mind-set, demonstrates that we “are locked into a system of fouling our own nest”. Hardin (1968) further argues that legislation is ineffective in encouraging human temperance in the use of commons. Laws or legislation cannot reverse overuse of the commons therefore, change must occur in the attitudes of the human race.

Returning to the population problem, Hardin (1968) suggests that human breeding must be limited. He correctly states that “with appeals to limit breeding, some people will undoubtedly respond to the plea more than others” which means that those less receptive to this plea will out-breed the others,

thereby strengthening population growth. Therefore, the population problem and the tragedy of the commons are closely interlinked. Whether the population problem lacks a solution or not is irrelevant. To understand that the collective overuse, and resulting tragedy, of the commons will govern population growth in our finite environment is absolutely sufficient (Christensen, 2005).

The ability of agriculture to support growing populations has been a concern for generations and continues to be high on the global policy agenda. Over the past several decades, some experts have expressed concern about the ability of agricultural production to keep up with global food demands (Brown and Kane 1994; Meadows et. al., 1992). Proposed measures will be insufficient to ensure adequate food supplies unless growth in the human population is also controlled (Pimentel et al., 1994). Using the neo-Malthusian argument, there are claims that populations continue to grow rapidly, while yields of staple crops continue to decline (Pretty et al., 1996:2). Consequently, ecological limits to growth have already been reached exacerbated by the current state of knowledge, where new technological breakthroughs are unlikely. Solving these problems means making population control the first priority (Kendall and Pimentel, 1994).

However, there are arguments or alternatives that have been forwarded in an attempt to find a way around the dilemma caused by increased population growth. Some have argued that genetic and scientific modification of food is likely to be necessary, for human and animal consumption (DCDC, 2007). New agricultural methods such as better rain-fed agriculture and irrigation management, genetic engineering for higher-yielding crops, aquaculture should be considered. In this debate, I am of the view that food insecurity is not only a result of inadequate food supplies which cannot be resolved by increasing investment in agriculture alone. It is a complex phenomenon which has been compounded by population growth and resource degradation in light of ecological limits. Population growth is a real problem which requires communities and governments and come together to find common solutions. My suggestion is that population programmes be integrated into overall development objectives and be linked to other resource issues. Distribution and rural-urban migration patterns should be at the same time linked to improved

resource management to increase crop yields and preventing land degradation which ultimately ensures sustainable livelihoods for the rural poor. This approach is meant to increase chances of increasing food production while protecting the environment and easing the burdens of the rural poor.