How are transformation and crisis intervention related, Dr. Frick?

Things have turned out even worse than expected since you took office, haven’t they?

Dr. Martin Frick: Sadly, that’s one way of putting it. When I started here a year ago, I actually wanted to heavily focus on climate. Regrettably, while our future is uncertain, the climate issue is one area where we are most certain about the outcome. Then came the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And just like that, what we had been saying all along became abundantly clear overnight: The global food system is incredibly vulnerable! You can see that just by looking at how prices are skyrocketing globally because the world’s fifth largest grain exporter was taken off the market within hours. People always ask me where the hotspots are. Off course, they exist – like Lebanon, for example. However, the fact is that 345 million people are currently acutely starving in 82 countries around the world.

Hardly anyone is talking about Lebanon these days.

Exactly. And it affects many people. I just spoke with my colleague who is responsible for Latin America: The surging prices on that continent are causing instability in countries where we didn’t expect it. It’s a mixture of economic exhaustion after three years of the coronavirus pandemic, currency meltdowns, a strong dollar and extremely high prices. People are on the edge.

How would you summarise your first year in one sentence?

We are facing many crises, but everything is interconnected and merged into one big crisis. This systemic challenge cannot be broken down into individual parts. We have to tackle it as a whole.

What is this systemic crisis in specific terms?

We have political instability, war and conflicts, climate change, the aftermath of the pandemic, and a very fragile global food system that desperately needs to be transformed.

As a global community, we are powerless against political instability or violent conflicts...

We have seen this time and again, given the difficult constellation in the Security Council. But we can take countermeasures when it comes to preventing conflicts.

The fight against hunger is always a fight for stability and peace.

After all, the countries that are currently under pressure are not becoming more stable. Peace and stability start with food security. That’s where we need to start.

Do you expect a collapse in food production due to the correlation between the energy price crisis and fertiliser prices, which will further exacerbate the situation?

This is an example of the systemic crisis. We are concerned about fertiliser prices in the short term. But the long-term view is different. Artificial fertiliser is made from fossil energy, which is not a sustainable solution from a climate perspective. We need to return to traditional methods like crop rotation, humus formation and agroforestry. In other words, we need to mix forestry and agriculture. We also need to promote targeted animal husbandry in a manner that would contribute to fertilising. But this system cannot be changed over night. The transition to agroecology will take several years, but we can no longer postpone it, especially since it will also impact food security. We know that artificial fertiliser will become more expensive in the long run, which is why we need to move away from using it. From a climate policy perspective, it is clear that we can no longer afford industrial, high-intensity agriculture in the long run.

Major initiatives that have joined the fight against hunger, such as AGRA, would certainly disagree with you...

AGRA is also transitioning. AGRA has come under a lot of scrutiny in the last few years and has recently changed its position on the issue of artificial fertiliser. It is becoming increasingly clear that large-scale industrial agriculture is not even possible in countries of the global South, as it will cause to catastrophic losses of soil. Therefore, we must focus on small-scale agriculture, on smallholders, which is highly labour-intensive and diversified. It’s a better way to manage the available resources and build up natural capital.

You have worked for years on the transformation of food systems. Now you are involved in crisis intervention. Are these two contradicting positions? Are there also conceptual similarities?

Our slogan is ‘Saving lives and changing lives’. Besides UNICEF, we are the only UN organisation with a dual mandate: a humanitarian mandate and a development mandate for long-term food security. Unfortunately, one crisis follows another. That’s why our current focus is mostly on humanitarian issues at a ratio of 80:20. I have said all year that we must not neglect the aspect of ‘changing lives’. Despite the massive increase in contributions from countries like Germany, the gap between humanitarian needs and humanitarian funding is widening. Therefore, we have no other choice but to convert to agriculture.

So, merely considering the development aspect is not enough – we actually need to push it hard?

‘Saving lives is always a top priority. We cannot let people starve. But I would be very happy if we could get to 50:50, because public resources are more and more limited. Therefore, we have to try to get as much as possible out of these funds, especially in the long term. We can no longer afford this idealistic separation between humanitarian and developmental aid.

Does that also apply to climate financing?

Well, food systems – how food gets to our plates – are the biggest contributors to global warming, and they also have the greatest potential to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Increasing resilience in agriculture is the number one priority. Otherwise, we will face a perpetual global hunger crisis.

In Africa, the WFP has had to reduce food rations to refugees. How do you change that?

We are an organisation that has almost no core funding. Basically, everything runs on project funding, so we depend on donors to give us the amounts we need for specific tasks. And if we don’t raise enough money, we have to cut back and set priorities. That’s a tough pill to swallow. But it also shows that, ideally, humanitarian aid can only be a short fix. Donors get tired of supporting the same situation time and again over several years. That’s why we need diplomatic initiatives for conflict prevention and long-term restructuring of food systems.

Are you having a tougher time breaking through?

(He exhales deeply.) It’s quite natural that after many years, at some point donors become less interested in providing support. Rich countries are also starting to feel the pressure, mainly because of the pandemic, but also the Russian war, which has led to military spending in Germany that no one had even thought of before. Meanwhile, solidarity in Germany is increasing and the WFP is receiving more and more support from Germany.

On the other hand, Europe is facing many crises of its own – from politics to the economy. Naturally, it is more difficult to see beyond the end of your own nose, isn’t it?

People, especially from our parliament, often ask me: What can we do in the long term? That is exactly where we need to focus our work: in addition to the fight against the climate crisis, food insecurity and political instability, our priority must be to strengthen the position of women. All this has to be tackled jointly. There are no viable solutions that only focus on one problem. It has to come from below.

Okay. So how can regions like sub-Saharan Africa successfully ensure their own food security?

Water is the first issue. Due to climate change, droughts not only last longer, but a year’s worth of rainfall pours down within one or two days. This is devastating because the soils are sealed, so the water runs off and destroys everything. Restoring soils is therefore a core solution for me. One kilogram of humus can store more than 20 kilograms of water...

...How can that be accomplished?

There are very simple technologies. In the Sahel region, we are digging pits that allow water to flow away more slowly when it rains.  We fill them with humus and plant tree seedlings in them to grow beautiful trees. And in the shade of these trees, the temperature drops and morning dew rises. It becomes cooler and wetter. It also makes farming easier. This increases the likelihood of rain – and it’s not voodoo science!

Some people are saying that there is enough food – it is just unequally distributed. Is that true?

In terms of quantity it’s true, but the reality is more complex. We often have a juxtaposition of food insecurity with simultaneous production for world market export, for example cotton. You can’t eat it. Countries have been taught for many years to focus on a few products for export and then buy food cheaply on the world market.

Why was that done?

It worked for a while, and it also served our self-interest to get more goods from the global South dirt cheap, like cocoa, bananas or cotton. Cheap T-shirts come at a price. Now we need regional markets and production for local supply.

Currently, three types of crops cover 60 per cent of the global calorie demand. This uniformity does not work because it depletes the soil, uses too much water and feeds the population too unilaterally.

In other words, the price of our cheap coffee and T-shirts is hunger?

That’s one way of looking at it. There’s a little bit more to it, but in a nutshell, that’s what it is.

Did nobody see it coming? Or did nobody want to see it?

It worked well. It’s not that Ukraine is the only country that exports wheat. It was just doing it very cheaply. Agriculture should not exploit existing resources like the mining industry.

It sounds cynical, of course, but do you also see the Ukraine war as an opportunity for transformation of food systems?

The pressure has increased significantly. I don’t want to talk about opportunities, because the situation is too dramatic for that. But this pressure can also accelerate change. It just doesn’t happen overnight.

Did you think at the beginning of your career that you would work so much with sustainability, nutrition and the fight against hunger?

Not at all. It actually just sort of happened. I was a diplomat in the Federal Foreign Office and specialised in human rights. In 2007, under the German EU Presidency, I helped negotiate the UN Human Rights Council and that’s when I first encountered the issue of climate change: The Maldives introduced a resolution on the subject – and people asked themselves: What does that have to do with human rights? Since then, we have learned a lot. And since that time, this topic stuck with me.

Have you also changed something in your own life during these years of work?

Oh yes. I have a car that is 23 years old and sits for four weeks until it is moved once. I have significantly reduced my meat consumption – when I do eat meat, it’s from production that means something to me. And I try to keep food waste to an absolute minimum by cooking in a way that reuses leftovers from the night before. It’s also fun, as it forces you to be more creative.