High Food Prices: The What, Who, and How of Proposed Policy Actions
The complex causes of the current food and agriculture crisis require a comprehensive response. In view of the urgency of assisting people and countries in need, the first set of policy actions—an emergency package—consists of steps that can yield immediate impact:
- expand emergency responses and humanitarian assistance to food-insecure people and people threatening government legitimacy,
- eliminate agricultural export bans and export restrictions,
- undertake fast-impact food production programs in key areas, and
- change biofuel policies.
A second set of actions—a resilience package—consists of the following steps:
- calm markets with the use of market-oriented regulation of speculation, shared public grain stocks, strengthened food-import financing, and reliable food aid;
- invest in social protection;
- scale up investments for sustained agricultural growth; and
- complete the Doha Round of World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations.
Investment in these actions calls for additional resources. Policymakers should consider mobilizing resources from four sources: the winners from the commodity boom among countries; the community of traditional and new donor countries; direct or indirect progressive taxation and reallocation of public expenditures in the affected countries themselves; and mobilization of private sector finance, including through improved outreach of banking to agriculture.
Because of countries’ diverse situations, the design of programs must be country driven and country owned. Accountability for sound implementation must also rest with countries. At the same time, a new international architecture for the governance of agriculture, food, and nutrition is needed to effectively implement the initiatives described, and especially their international public goods components. Global and national action is needed, through existing mechanisms, well-coordinated special initiatives, and possibly a special fund.
To read the full paper, please visit http://www.ifpri.org/PUBS/ib/foodprices.asp
This sounds as if someone wants to use the crises to push for agricultural trade liberalization.
Reply to this
I don't dispute any of the suggestions made in this informative article.
The problem I see is that the solutions, if implemented, guarantee that the world will continue chasing its tail while the problems which are supposed to be addressed are compounded.
Unless one believes that unlimited population growth can be sustained in a finite world, these problems will not only continue to become worse--they will affect more people in more-dire ways as the population continues to increase while the resources allowing that growth become ever-more scarce.
Why is there no mention of the world's burgeoning population as being at least partially causative?
Why is there no mention of rapid population decline, one child per family, the delaying of the onset of pregnancies, birth control or any of the myriad of other family planning strategies meant to reduce the population of the world by means other than starvation and the diseases which are closely linked to too many people?
And to those who believe the problem is not population, but excess consumption, why no mention of the greatest cause of over-consumption--unfettered multi-national corporatism?
Please. Does anyone have any answers to the questions I have posed, or cogent refutations of any of the implied assertions?
If so, I'd appreciate being enlightened and/or corrected.
Regards,,,John
Reply to this
thanks for this sharing. it is usefull for me...
Reply to this
Re: Steps 1 (emergencies) and 6 social protection)
In poor countries, including those 18 for which food riots have been reported, emergency assistance as a response to nationally high food prices will be difficult to calibrate and to target. Organisational structures for reliable 'social protection' will be weak or lacking and to build them will take time. Their absorptive capacity will therefore for quite some time remain low - with one exception: SCHOOLS.
Even in least developed countries, school systems can serve as effective conduits for various goods and services. In times of food crises, school feeding, whether 'developemtal' or not, offers a proven channel for near-immediate delivery of large volumes of food in kind or in cash (local purchases)for priority groups of poor populations. School feeding programmes are universally popular and easier to prepare and operate than almost any other forms of project food aid (in Afrika they are about the only food aid programmes that have been reliably implemented).The international agency for this form of aid exists - WFP. A large number of projects in the most needy countries is either already operational (many of these projects could be 'harmonika'like expended) or can quickly and almost routinely be prepared - RESOURCES PERMITTING.
Jens Schulthes
former Director for the Asia & Pacific Region, WFP
23 May, 2008
Reply to this
I'm presently looking into how farm policy is passed and a nation-by-nation assessment of policies relating to individual crops.
I think the general strategy to initiating a holistic agriculture framework should focus upon lessening consumption of developed world corn syrup, unhealthy oils (ie. all except sunflower and canola I think), sugar, red meats where feed is grown on land with other potential uses (alfalfa on marginal land okay, corn/barkey feed not okay), barley...and I think developing world production should be decreased for all crops where rainforests are harmed.
I'd increase consumption of fruits and vegetables in the developed world, and grains for food, especailly highly storable wheat, in the developing world.
In all cases should tobacco and ethanol (unless a complete energy lifecycle accounting is first undertaken) production be decreased.
In all cases should honey and beeswax be subsidized. Bees pollinate 10x as much crop value as is their industry capitalized. This is probably the lowest hanging fruit.
Of particular importance are the policies of China and the USA, both exporters of more than 10% world production of food.
Rather than reducing first world subsidies, I'd like to see the developed world allocate a small portion of their subsidies to subsidize their competitors in the third world. IDK the optimal ratio, but maybe something like a 60% European subsidy would see the EU subsidize the 3rd world at a 6% rate. A 40% Canadian subsidy would see the 3rd world subsidy be at 4%. Merely removing subsidies would raise commodity prices and harm developing world farm labourers and urban poor.
Be nice to research a crop that contains all 8 amino acids. Also, urban greenhouses are the way of the future and this research should be promoted. Especially since fruits and veggies tend to grow in warm coastal humid climates and I'd think global warming induced rainfall and temperature variations would harm fruit yields particularly hard.
The EU should probably allow GMOs where the gene traits are greater insect tolerance, drought tolerance, etc. Maybe assign a ladder of GMO importance and delay less important traits while waiting for further research to determine the odds of crops turning into weeds or nutritional harms and other frankenfruit issues. Having the ability to rapidly transition back to pre-GMO agriculture might address GMO fears.
It might make sense to index an agri-company (machinery, seeds and fertilizer) R+D (or even corporate) tax credit inversely to a food inflation rate index. When food prices rise you want Monsanto and Potash to output more stuff. If GMO producers would fast-track desirable gene traits, maybe they could be excempted from some future environmental damage liability.
Reply to this
Decelerated growth of agriculture sector is translated into a lower overall growth of GDP during 2007-08 which grow at 2.6 per cent against previous year growth of 3.8 per cent. Besides the weather induced fluctuations, what ails the growth of agriculture sector has been reduced capital investment and plateauing of productivity of major crops. However, there seems to be turnaround. Gross Capital Formation (GCF) as a proportion of GDP has improved from a low of 10.2 per cent in 2003-04 to 12.5 per cent in 2006-07.This however needs to be raised to 16 per cent during the Eleventh Plan to achieve the target of 4 per cent. Acceleration of growth of this sector will not only push the overall GDP growth upwards, but make the growth more inclusive. To provide impetus to this sector, Finance Minister introduces a plethora of schemes for the staggering farm community hoping for largesse in his agro-political economy based budget.
Indebtedness is one of the major factors for farmer’s suicides and agrarian crisis. To give boost to the agricultural sector, the scheme of Debt Waiver and Debt Relief for farmers has been announced. All agricultural loans disbursed by scheduled commercial banks, regional rural banks and cooperative credit institutions up to March 31, 2007 and overdue as on December 31, 2007 will be covered under the scheme. The total vale of overdue loans being waived is estimated at Rs. 50,000 crores. For marginal and small farmers (holding up to 2 hectare), there will be a complete waiver of all loans that were over due on December 31, 2007 and remained unpaid up to February 29, 2008. In respect of other farmers, there will be a One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme estimated at Rs.10, 000 crores for all loans that were over due on December 31, 2007 and remained unpaid up to February 29, 2008. Under OTS, a rebate of 25 per cent will be given against payment of balance of 75 per cent .Agricultural loans which were rescheduled by banks in 2004 and 2006 through special package will also be eligible under this debt wavier and debt relief package. The implementation of this scheme will be completed by June 30, 2008 and farmers will be eligible for fresh loan upon being granted debt wavier or signing of an agreement for debt relief under the OTS.
The relief package has taken into account recommendations of the Expert Group on Agriculture Indebtedness chaired by Prof. R Radhakrishna set up by the Ministry of Finance in August 2006 and submitted its report last year. The group’s recommendations include rescheduling farm loans to all affected families, disbursement of fresh loans and waiver of interest liability by up to two years for both short and long term loans with the burden be shared by the central and states governments. But the strong advocate of abolishing freebies has moved on the same path.
None of the committees’ setup by the government on agricultural reforms and farmers welfare has ever recommended a complete waiver of loans. Ra
Reply to this