COMMENTARY

Yes, but food self-sufficiency for poor countries is the wrong goal

Autumn 2008
One can only share Michel Barnier’s empathy and deplore the human suffering caused by the surge in food prices. The increase in the price of major food crops could undercut the remarkable progress in poverty reduction achieved in recent years. So Mr. Barnier’s call for strengthening food supply is also easy to agree with. The global food crisis poses serious macroeconomic challenges to low-income countries and could undermine their hard-won macroeconomic stability.

Increasing food production in low-income countries is indeed crucial in responding to the food crisis, and the aim should be to ensure food security rather than food self-sufficiency. The distinction is important; few if any countries in the world are naturally self-sufficient – geography and climate often don’t permit it – so aiming at self-sufficiency would in many countries promote an inefficient use of resources. Food security implies availability and access to food for all.

More rather than less trade liberalisation would help ensure food security, so the recent breakdown in the Doha Round negotiations is unfortunate. Agricultural trade is still much less liberalised than trade in goods. Production subsidies in rich countries such as those of the CAP have so far kept international food prices artificially low, discouraging production in other countries. More widely dispersed food production could therefore decrease price volatility by attenuating the effects of localised meteorological misfortunes. Export restrictions have multiplied in recent months, and even though they are allowed under WTO rules, export subsidies further distort food markets by decreasing production incentives for farmers, and pushing up international prices.

Policies to ensure food security of course extend well beyond trade policy. Financial and technical support for low-income countries to help boost food production will be essential. Paradoxically, many developing countries are already surplus producers of basic food grains, yet have high numbers of malnourished people unable to afford food. Delaying the food price increases or providing direct food aid can serve as emergency measures to protect the poor, but such measures are untargeted and very costly. In the long run, there is no alternative to passing on higher food prices to consumers. It is therefore essential to develop effective social safety nets to protect the most vulnerable members of society.

The food crisis poses formidable macroeconomic challenges to middle and low-income countries. For food-importing countries, higher import bills will worsen balance of payments positions that are already under strain from rising energy prices. This is a particular challenge to countries with inadequate foreign exchange reserves. By providing external support to finance additional food imports, the international community is helping low-income countries avoid balance of payment strains.

The food crisis is also putting new strains on government budgets. Some countries may need to increase public spending to accommodate the cost of measures adopted to mitigate the impact of increasing food prices on the poor. Fiscal responses need to be carefully designed, however, to safeguard the soundness of public finances, maintain debt sustainability and preserve spending on other sectors crucial for development such as education, health and infrastructure.

Higher inflation risks undermining hard-won macroeconomic stability – and once again this is especially true of many low-income countries. Higher food prices have already led to substantial increases in headline inflation because of the high share of food in their overall consumption, and thus in the consumer price index. While any permanent rise in food prices must in due course be passed on to consumers, monetary policy should not allow the current food price shock to translate into a generalised and sustained increase in inflation.

Addressing the food crisis requires broad cooperation among the countries affected, donors and international organisations to put in place a more comprehensive policy response. Smoothly-functioning international agricultural markets would ease the food crisis, and international support has a role to play to help poorer countries implement good policies. Stepped-up budget support can help finance food aid, targeted support for the poor, and increased investment in agriculture, without jeopardizing macroeconomic stability. Low-income countries can also benefit from additional technical assistance to set up efficient, targeted, social safety net systems.

You need to be logged in to rate and comment on articles.
Click the log in or register button in the top right corner of this page.
Add rating
 
You are not logged in.
Please log in or register to submit
comments or rate articles.
 
 

The fourteenth edition of Europe's World is out. We feel it's fair to say that few if any publications in the field of international relations and policy debate have grown as fast or widened their scope so remarkably as Europe's WorldTable of contents of Issue 14.

The search is on for 'global governance' solutions to the world's economic and political problems. The trouble is, of course, that there's not much agreement across Europe or around the world on what sort of policy instruments, institutions and rules would open the way to a fairer international system serving the needs of North and South, East and West while avoiding the pitfalls that led to the global crisis.  Read more

 
Forum Europe - Financing Europe's Energy needs and Climate action in the 21st Century

 

IS HOME-GROWN
TERRORISM A FAILURE
OF INTEGRATION
POLICIES OR
THE SYMPTOM OF
A WIDER CRISIS?
 

 
What do YOU think?