Addressing the Global Food Crisis: Challenges, Opportunities, and Solutions - University of Manchester

This report discusses the growing challenge of combating global hunger and malnutrition. The convergence of demographic, viral, and war-related crises makes it even more challenging to tackle food insecurity. The report evaluates how policy, market, and institutional failures have led to the food crisis and the subsequent connections to other global crises and systemic disorders. It also evaluates the different approaches to tackling the food crisis and provides recommendations on how various stakeholders could reverse the decline in global food security. The report also critically compares IPES-Food's approach to transforming the food system with that of Olam's approach, incorporating the business management and governance implications with the transformational opportunities and challenges involved in solving the problem.

Introduction
According to Timmer (2010), a food crisis can be defined as a dramatic increase in
hunger and malnutrition rates at the local, national or global level. The challenge of
combating hunger, food insecurity, as well as all forms of malnutrition is growing
(FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, 2022). The convergence of demographic,
viral, and war-related crises now ensures that tackling broader global food insecurity
and eliminating malnutrition is even more challenging. Population and consumption
growth have led to increased demand for food resources for much of this century,
while increased competition for land, water and other resources has threatened food
supplies (Godfray et al., 2010). In 2022, an estimated 345 million people across 82
countries were experiencing or were at serious risk of experiencing food insecurity;
this is an increase of nearly 200 million people compared to pre-pandemic levels
(Global Health 50/50, 2022). The food crisis transcends the issue of hunger and also
extends to other key issues, such as gender inequality and poverty. The gender gap
in food insecurity has increased from 1.7% in 2019 to over 4% in 2021, and globally,
women are more often food insecure compared to their male counterparts (Global
Health 50/50, 2022). Various efforts to address the food crisis have involved
institutional, political, and corporate changes, including IPES-Food and Olam
International resolutions. In attempts to solve the food crisis, different opportunities
and challenges arise.
This paper comprises two sections. The first part will seek to evaluate how policy,
market and institutional failures have led to the food crisis and the subsequent
connections to other global crises and systemic disorders. Alongside this, an
evaluation of the key debates surrounding the different approaches to tackling the
food crisis will follow, as well as recommendations of what various stakeholders
could do to reverse the decline in global food security and the adverse social and
environmental impacts on the global food system. The second part will critically
compare IPES-Food's approach to transforming the food system with that of Olam's
approach, incorporating the business management and governance implications with
the transformational opportunities and challenges involved in solving problems.

Part A
The causes of hunger and food insecurity are numerous and mainly the result of
economic shocks, such as conflict, poverty, hyperinflation, and rising commodity
prices; environmental shocks, including floods or droughts and climate change, are
also to blame (Global health 50/50, 2022; Rother et al., 2022). Concurrently to this,
policy, markets and institutions are failing to make positive changes regarding food
crises. First, the policy has flaws. Governments make policies to protect the interests
of the country, but they stimulate negative effects. According to a report by the World
Trade Organisation (WTO) (2022), WTO members are introducing trade restrictions
at a rapid rate - for the first time since 2009, export restrictions exceeded import
restrictions during the WTO's trade monitoring review. In addition, there has been a
surge in trade-related policies imposed by countries since the start of the war in
Ukraine (WorldBank, 2023). In response to the conflict, some food-exporting
countries adopted protectionist facilities, which exacerbated the negative impact on
international prices and market volatility (Rother et al., 2022). The food crisis was
worsened in part by increasing policies and restrictions on food. For example, where
Russia and Ukraine were important producers and exporters of important agricultural
commodities, minerals, fertilisers and energy, the halting of their export activities
engendered a rise in already high pre-war prices (Ben Hassen & El Bilali, 2022).
Secondly, the policy framework of governments has been incoherent, resulting in the
problem failing to be addressed in essence. Different policies focus on limited areas,
and the outcomes of a policy may negatively impact an area outside of the focused
target. For example, the self-sufficiency of a country in terms of food supply and the
uneven impact of food production on the soil is a rather complex issue, and it
becomes more challenging because of WTO rules and EU policies to promote trade
between countries (Reisch et al., 2013). Thirdly, there is the failure of governments
in terms of monitoring. After analysing the policy processes of countries in the
context of the food crisis, Babu (2013) indicated that even when there are functioning
data collection systems, most of the data collected is not processed in a timely
manner, with only some of the processed data being analysed, and only part of the

analysed data then being used in the policy process. Poor handling can negatively
affect the quality of the policies as well as the decision-making that foresees it.
The market failures leading to food crises are the unethical self-interested pursuit of
profit, price fluctuation and high food prices. The high food price could lead most
poor people to spend a large part of their meagre income on food. Peterson (2022)
also indicated that for consumers in many low-income countries, the impact of food
supply shortages and price increases could be devastating. Investments in biofuels,
investments in agricultural commodities, and corporate monopolies in the market
have a dramatic impact on food prices, thus exacerbating the food crisis.
Firstly, investment in biofuels has led to higher food prices and food shortages. Over
the last 20 years, the high price of fossil fuels and the increasing interest in
greenhouse gas emissions, climate change and environmental protection have
increased the production and use of biofuels (Yoon, 2022). According to the T&E
(Transport Environment, 2022) report, 10,000 tonnes of wheat are converted into
ethanol for use in cars in Europe each day, which is the equivalent of 15 million
loaves of bread based on an average 750g loaf. Although Biofuels are positive for
the environment, the market's pursuit of interests and investments in biofuel
negatively impact the food supply, thus affecting food prices. The IMF (2022a) also
reported that some agricultural products are used as biofuels leading to food price
movement.
Secondly, investment in agricultural products distorts food prices. In recent years,
the number of equity-related investment funds associated with the food and
agricultural sectors, as well as the amount invested, has increased significantly. In
particular, this trend has escalated since 2005, financial investors' interest in the agri-
food sector began to grow while agricultural commodity prices began to rise (Clapp,
2019). Von Braun and Tadesse (2012) concluded that market-side speculation in
commodity futures is one of the major underlying causes of observed price volatility.
Speculators profit by investing in grains and commodity derivatives. Large amounts
of liquidity are shifted to agricultural futures in the short term, including grain, leading
to high volatility in agricultural futures prices.

Thirdly, corporate monopolies affect food prices and exacerbate food crises.
Agricultural price changes are first and foremost due to the monopolistic behaviour of
agricultural multinationals and large traders, who control the process of food imports,
food processing and the supply to food-importing countries (Murphy et al., 2012;
Murphy, 2006; Hendrickson et al., 2020). Shiva (2016) revealed that by controlling all
aspects of global agricultural production and agricultural product sales, western
agricultural multinational companies generated huge profits. Hendrickson et al.
(2020) also pointed out that the integration of food chains has reduced farmers'
autonomy and decreased their incomes by redistributing costs and benefits.
Moreover, large retail chains and supermarkets have significant market power over
both agricultural processors and producers. It is estimated that only four companies
control 90% of global trade (Murphy et al., 2012). Such a monopoly could lead to an
inequitable distribution of resources, and small farmers inevitably find it difficult to
continue.
Moreover, the inaction of the Institution and the failure to act on promises has
aggravated the food crisis. The G7 (The international Group of Seven) is an example
of this. OXFAM International (2022) claimed that they could have addressed the
economic inequality and climate collapse that led to this hunger but have so far failed
to do so beyond the supply of limited funds directed towards the problem.
Furthermore, the food crisis has not only exacerbated and affected hunger and
malnutrition but has contributed to existing societal inequalities and environmental
degradation. Salomon's (2011) analysis of the situation of the poor could apply to the
hungry: they are not just unable to participate in the global market for food, but they
are unable to participate in the same way as others. The food crisis subsequently
reveals wider inequalities. In most countries, there is existing inequality, such as an
unequal distribution of resources between men and women resulting from gender
discrimination. These norms and rights affect people, and historical evidence shows
that populations in countries with higher gender inequality are more food insecure
and undernourished than in countries with greater equality between the genders
(Global Health 50/50, 2022). The food crisis and climate change are interrelated.
Climate change affects crop yields and food systems. However, in order to cope with
the changeable and changing climate, the crop production practice and other

components of the food system have been adapted (Gregory & Ingram, 2009).
Moreover, based on the SDGs (UN, 2023), malnutrition and food insecurity from food
crises could negatively impact the hungry population, water security, healthy people,
sustainable cities and communities, alongside responsible consumption and
production. Dury et al. (2019) also pointed out that food and nutrition security cannot
be achieved without eradicating poverty and reducing the impact of environmental
degradation. These key crises are interrelated with the food crisis.
Scholars and organisations have researched various ways to address the food crisis
at present. For instance, open trade and climate change mitigation. However, these
approaches have been met with mixed responses. Climate change mitigation could
reduce the likelihood of a food crisis (Mavroeidis et al., 2022). On the other hand,
Hasegawa et al. (2018) pointed out that implementing horizontal and strict mitigation
policies could destabilise prices and supply chains of key agricultural commodities,
thereby weakening global food security. In turn, a decline in food security may lead
to malnutrition. Von Braun (2010) stressed that open trade could help reduce
extreme market volatility, subsequently ameliorating malnutrition and hunger.
Keeping trade open, including intra-regional trade, would allow food to flow from
surplus areas to those in need (IMF, 2022b; WTO, 2022). However, open trade could
result in bad conditions for small countries because of the reduction of tax revenue;
many small countries would need to make up for the loss of income from import
tariffs and fees (TEPSA, 2017).
Although today's food and agricultural systems have successfully supplied large
amounts of food to the global market, they have also had a number of negative
consequences. These include serious environmental problems such as water
pollution, climate change, loss of biodiversity, soil degradation (Reisch et al., 2013),
high GHG emissions, persistent hunger and micronutrient deficiencies (IPES-Food,
2016). This crisis cannot be ameliorated and solved without the collaboration of
various forces, which in this case involves the governments, business organisations
and consumers.
At the heart of strategies to address food insecurity is an effective institutional and
policy development framework (Hickey et al., 2012). Governments can help address
this through strong and timely policies, strict regulation and well-developed policy

systems. Organisations can provide support and offer incentives. For example,
developing and supporting projects that are sustainable can bring value to society
and the environment through more responsible practices (Camilleri, 2017). Yach
(2008) noted that collective corporate action is considered to have a greater impact
than individual action. Consumers can also help by incorporating sustainable
practices into their daily consumption. One-third of all food is wasted globally,
especially in the retail process and by consumers (Reisch et al., 2013). Consumers
can help solve these crises through their own practices, such as by consuming
sustainably and reducing food waste. Although the power of the individual is small,
when more people get involved, the positive power will enlarge.
Part B
IPES-Food is an independent group of specialists that directs discussions on how to
change to sustainable food systems globally (IPES-Food, 2023). Olam International
(2023) is a food and agribusiness that offers fibre, feed, and food ingredients to
thousands of consumers throughout the world. This section aims to critically
compare IPES-Food's approach to transforming the food system with that of Olam
International's approach and briefly discuss how business management and
governance can help to solve problems.
Olam transforms food systems by providing more sustainable food commodity
supply chains and consumption, as well as by focusing on helping farmers and
agricultural systems to develop sustainably. In this case, a good example of a
specific lever of change that Olam has identified and is pushing hard for concerns
the transparency of information. Greater visibility of the food ecosystem will enable
better decisions and more targeted interventions (Olam, 2021). Olam's digital
platform provides customers with greater visibility into the supply chain of their
products. Better visibility helps the supply chain to develop more sustainably.
IPES-Food (2016) argued that adapting practices will only improve some of the
outcomes of industrialisation and will not provide long-term solutions; thus, they
outlined that what is needed is a fundamentally different model of agriculture. IPES-

Food's (2016) transformative approach is based on diversifying farms and
agricultural landscapes, optimising biodiversity, promoting interactions between
different species and replacing chemical inputs. This is all as part of a holistic
strategy to create fertile, healthy secure livelihoods and agro-ecosystems, titled the
"diverse agro-ecosystem" (IPES-Food, 2016).
The main difference in the transforming approach between IPES-Food and Olam is
that one is not market-based and the other is influencing and changing markets.
IPES-Food transforms the food system by changing farms, whereas Olam
transforms the food system by developing sustainable commodity supply chains and
consumption, but there exist similarities in their approaches. They both agree that
crops should be grown to suit the local land conditions and to increase crop
production. IPES-Food (2016) indicated that diversified agroecological farming's one
key point is the use of a wide range of species alongside less uniform, cultural
preferences, locally adapted varieties/breeds based on multiple uses, productivity,
taste and other criteria. Producing a diverse range of less homogeneous products
can expand production sources, income, and livelihoods (IPES-Food, 2016). Olam
(2022) has made a similar decision, supporting a technology - Innovation Mapping
for Food Security (IM4SF) - through its annual food security award, which provides
information on which crops and farming methods are best suited to conditions in food
insecure areas. Farmers involved in this project have seen their crop production
increase.
Certainly, there are many challenges and opportunities that arise in the transition
process. The key to the challenge concerns policy, as these systems are based on
different logics and power relations (IPES-Food,2016). However, the challenges
arise not only from existing systems but also from conflicts, natural disasters and
climate change. Opportunities are emerging all the time, and projects that focus on
transformation bring benefits not only to the business but also to the environment
and to the stakeholders. As one example, Olam's sustainable supply chain project on
cocoa provides educational opportunities for the children of local cocoa farmers (Ofi,
2022).

Businesses and the government are core players in addressing these challenges of
transformation and solving problems with the food system, and they can make a big
difference. For instance, Olam's strategy is strongly linked to sustainability and
contributes to other areas (such as education) while building sustainable supply
chains. This shows that businesses can provide a stronger and more positive impact
by addressing food systems and other issues involved in the crises. However, it is
often overlooked by many businesses since only responsible businesses use their
skills, resources and management capabilities to contribute to social progress
(Camilleri, 2017). Therefore, businesses need to do more than the current
management and also act responsibly and sustainably. And government actions and
policies need to be supportive (Yach, 2008). Collaboration between the various
forces will ultimately have a more positive impact on problem-solving.
Conclusion
This paper has evaluated policy, markets and institutional failures that lead to the
food crisis, as well as discussing some of the main arguments surrounding solving
the food crisis and has critically compared IPES-Food's approach to transforming the
food system with that of Olam International's approach. Suggestions on how
stakeholders, businesses, and governments could contribute to the solution were
also provided.
Policy shortcomings and discontinuities, as well as unsuccessful government
monitoring, are exacerbating the food crisis. The food crisis is worsened by the
unethical self-interested pursuit of profit in the markets, comprising sharp price
fluctuations in the food market and high food prices. Moreover, the inaction of
institutions and the failure to act on promises have contributed to the food crisis.
Many scholars and organisations assess routes to tackle the food crisis, such as
open trade, but these have been met with both support and opposition.
The food crisis is not only exacerbating and affecting hunger and malnutrition but
connects to the problems of climate change and inequality. Governments can help

solve the crisis through strong and timely policies, strict regulation and
comprehensive policy systems. Organisations can provide support and encourage
sustainable practices whilst consumers can bring sustainability into their daily
consumption.
In terms of approaches for transforming food systems, IPES-Food is based on
transforming farms to improve food systems, while Olam transforms food systems by
developing sustainable commodity supply chains and consumption. Both
approaches support the idea that crops should be grown to suit local land conditions
and increase crop production. In addressing these crises and transforming the food
system, companies will encounter challenges from more than just different logical
systems but also from conflicts, natural disasters and climate change. Similarly, it will
also bring opportunities to stakeholders. Responsible business management and
supportive governments can have a positive impact if problem-solving is attempted.
Although solving the food crisis and related problems is a long-term challenge, it can
be improved if all forces help each other and work together.

Reference List
1. Babu, S. C. (2013) Policy process and food price crisis: A framework for
analysis and lessons from country studies. Helsinki: The United Nations
University World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-
WIDER). Available at:
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/80926/1/755400127.pdf (Accessed:
6 January 2023).
2. Ben Hassen, T. and El Bilali, H. (2022) ‘Impacts of the Russia-Ukraine war on
global food security: towards more sustainable and resilient food systems?’,
Foods, 11(15), pp.2301.
3. Camilleri, M.A. (2017) ‘Corporate sustainability and responsibility: creating
value for business, society and the environment’, Asian Journal of
Sustainability and Social Responsibility, 2(1), pp.59-74.
4. Chadwick, A. (2017) ‘World Hunger, the Global Food Crisis and (International)
Law’, Manchester J. Int'l Econ. L., 14, pp.92.
5. Clapp, J. (2019) ‘The rise of financial investment and common ownership in
global agrifood firms’, Review of International Political Economy, 26(4),
pp.604-629.
6. Dury, S., Bendjebbar, P., Hainzelin, E., Giordano, T. and Bricas, N., eds.
(2019) Food Systems at risk: new trends and challenges. Rome: FAO, CIRAD
and European Commission. Available at: DOI: 10.19182/agritrop/00080
(Accessed: 9 January 2023).
7. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO (2022) The State of Food Security and
Nutrition in the World 2022: Repurposing food and agricultural policies to
make healthy diets more affordable. Rome: FAO. Available at:
https://www.fao.org/3/cc0639en/online/cc0639en.html (Accessed: 3 January
2023).

8. Global Health 50/50 (2022) Hungry for Gender Equality: The Global Food
50/50 Report 2022. Available at: https://doi.org/10.56649/WIQE2012
(Accessed: 3 January 2023).
9. Godfray, H.C.J., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., Nisbett, N.,
Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Toulmin, C. and Whiteley, R. (2010) ‘The future of the
global food system’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 365(1554), pp.2769-2777.
10. Gregory, P.J. and Ingram, J.S. (2009) ‘Climate change and the current 'food
crisis’’, CABI Reviews, (2008), pp.1-10.
11. Hasegawa, T., Fujimori, S., Havlík, P., Valin, H., Bodirsky, B.L., Doelman,
J.C., Fellmann, T., Kyle, P., Koopman, J.F., Lotze-Campen, H. and Mason-
D’Croz, D. (2018) ‘Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global
climate change mitigation policy’, Nature Climate Change, 8(8), pp.699-703.
12. Hendrickson, M.K., Howard, P.H., Miller, E.M. and Constance, D.H. (2020)
‘The food system: Concentration and its impacts’, A Special Report to the
Family Farm Action Alliance, pp.17.
13. Hickey, G.M., Pelletier, B., Brownhill, L., Kamau, G.M. and Maina, I.N. (2012)
‘Preface: Challenges and opportunities for enhancing food security in Kenya’,
Food Security, 4(3), pp.333-340.
14. IMF (International Monetary Fund) (2022a). World Economic Outlook:
Countering the Cost-of-Living Crisis. Washington, DC. Available at:
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2022/10/11/world-economic-
outlook-october-2022 (Accessed: 7 January 2023).
15. IMF (International Monetary Fund) (2022b) Global Food Crisis Demands
Support for People, Open Trade, Bigger Local Harvests. Available at:

https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/09/30/global-food-crisis-demands-
support-for-people-open-trade-bigger-local-harvests (Accessed: 7 January
2023).
16. IPES-Food (2016) FROM UNIFORMITY TO DIVERSITY. Available at:
https://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/UniformityToDiversity_FULL.pdf
(Accessed: 10 January 2023).
17. IPES-Food (2023) How We Work. Available at: https://ipes-food.org/about/
(Accessed: 9 January 2023).
18. Mavroeidis, A., Roussis, I. and Kakabouki, I. (2022) ‘The Role of Alternative
Crops in an Upcoming Global Food Crisis: A Concise Review’, Foods 2022,
11, pp. 3584.
19. Murphy, S. (2006) Concentrated market power and agricultural trade.
Available at: https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/451_2_89014.pdf
(Accessed: 8 January 2023).
20. Murphy, S., Burch, D. and Clapp J. (2012) CEREAL SECRETS. Available at:
https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/rr-cereal-secrets-
grain-traders-agriculture-30082012-en_4.pdf (Accessed: 8 January 2023).
21. Ofi (2022) Sustainability in cocoa. Available at:
https://www.ofi.com/sustainability/responsible-and-sustainable-sourcing/
sustainability-in-cocoa.html (Accessed: 10 January 2023).
22. Olam (2021) Transforming to serve a changing world. Available at:
https://www.olamgroup.com/content/dam/olamgroup/investor-relations/ir-
library/annual-reports/annual-reports-pdfs/2021/olam_annual_report_2021.pdf
(Accessed: 10 January 2023).
23. Olam (2022) Olam Food Prize. Available at:
https://www.olamgroup.com/sustainability/innovation-technology/olam-food-
prize.html (Accessed: 10 January 2023).

24. Olam International (2023) About us. Available at:
https://www.olamgroup.com/about-olam.html (Accessed: 9 January 2023).
25. OXFAM International (2022) G7 failure to tackle hunger crisis will leave
millions to starve. Available at: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/g7-
failure-tackle-hunger-crisis-will-leave-millions-starve (Accessed: 9 January
2023).
26. Peterson, E. (2022) The Coming Global Food Crisis. University of Nebraska -
Lincoln. Available at:
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/agecon_cornhusker/1155/ (Accessed: 7
January 2023).
27. Reisch, L., Eberle, U. and Lorek, S. (2013) ‘Sustainable food consumption: an
overview of contemporary issues and policies’, Sustainability: Science,
Practice and Policy, 9(2), pp.7-25.
28. Rother, B., Sosa, S., Kim, D., Kohler, L. P., Pierre, G., Kato, N., Debbich, M.,
Castrovillari, C., Sharifzoda, K., Van Heuvelen, E., Machado, F., Thevenot,
C., Mitra, P. and Fayad, D. (2022) Tackling the Global Food Crisis: Impact,
Policy Response, and the Role of the IMF?. Washington, DC: International
Monetary Fund. Available at:
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/IMF-Notes/Issues/2022/09/27/Tackling-
the-Global-Food-Crisis-Impact-Policy-Response-and-the-Role-of-the-IMF-
523919 (Accessed: 6 January 2023).
29. Salomon, M.E. (2011) ‘Why should it matter that others have more? Poverty,
inequality, and the potential of international human rights law’, Review of
International Studies, 37(5), pp.2137-2155.

30. Shiva, V. (2016) Stolen harvest: The highjacking of the Global Food Supply.
Lexington, KY: University Press Of Kentucky.
31. TEPSA (Trans European Policy Studies Association) (2017) Addressing
Developing Countries’ Challenges in Free Trade Implementation. Available at:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/acp/dv/
study/studyen.pdf (Accessed: 10 January 2023).
32. Timmer, C. P. (2010) ‘Preventing food crises using a food policy approach’,
The Journal of Nutrition. 140 (1), pp. 224–228.
33. Transport Environment (2022) Biofuels lobby 'immoral' over food crisis and
Russian oil. Available at:
https://www.transportenvironment.org/discover/biofuels-lobby-immoral-over-
food-crisis-and-russian-oil/ (Accessed: 10 January 2023).
34. UN (United Union) (2023) THE 17 GOALS. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org
(Accessed: 9 January 2023).
35. Von Braun, J. (2010) ‘Food insecurity, hunger and malnutrition: necessary
policy and technology changes’, New Biotechnology, 27(5), pp.449-452.
36. Von Braun, J. and Tadesse, G. (2012) ‘Global food price volatility and spikes:
an overview of costs, causes, and solutions’, ZEF-Discussion Papers on
Development Policy, 161, pp. 42.
37. WorldBank (2023) Food Security Update. Available at:
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/brief/food-security-update
(Accessed: 5 January 2023).
38. WTO (World Trade Organisation) (2022) OVERVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS
IN THE INTERNATIONAL TRADING ENVIRONMENT. Available at:

https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/TPR/
OV25.pdf&Open=True (Accessed: 5 January 2023).
39. Yach, D. (2008) 'The role of business in addressing the long-term implications
of the current food crisis’, Globalization and Health, 4(1), pp.1-5.
40. Yoon, S. M. (2022) ‘On the interdependence between biofuel, fossil fuel and
agricultural food prices: Evidence from quantile tests’, Renewable Energy,
199, pp.536-545.