Showing posts with label FAO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FAO. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

ESCALATING FOOD PRICES-A RECIPE FOR SOCIAL UPHEAVAL?

Food inflation is a worrying factor in many countries including India and opinions differ regarding the root causes for such distortions in the consumer prices of staple commodities like rice and wheat at global level. Sound economic principles always blame supply-demand distortions for the phenomenon of rise in market prices with demand out-stripping the supply. But a closer look will tell a different story. If per capita availability of food grains on a global level is calculated, the available stock is more than adequate to be distributed equitably but political and economic considerations do not permit such a simplistic interpretation of food inflation. Though world is supposed to be a global village after the setting up of WTO regime, blurring the national boundaries, the ground reality is different as each nation is still wedded to the welfare of its own citizens before considering the needs of others. Probably such practices can never be abolished as reflected by periodic export bans enforced by producing/exporting countries to prevent shortages and consequent price rise locally. According to FAO, frequent changes in export policies can cause distortions in global prices which should be avoided in the larger interest of humanity.

Probably in an idealistic world, sharing of happiness and sorrow equitably can make this planet a happier place to live but in the comity of nations all are not equal, some being poor, some rich and many others super-rich. It is only in countries practicing communism or socialism, remnants of equity can still be seen while in vast majority of countries the gap between the rich and the poor is widening significantly year after year. Take for instance the situation in the richest country in the world, the US where there is a substantial segment of population, being terribly impoverished and this most democratized country can do very little to bridge the ever widening gap. The agricultural policy in this country is so distorted that valuable foods that can feed millions of hungry people are being fed to meat animals and more are diverted to make ethanol for driving automobiles. Who can force this country to alter its policy to be fairer to fellow denizens? Probably none, as long as the pro-agriculture and pro-industry lobbyists have crucial influence on the government policies.

According to the FAO, the 2007-2008 food crisis in the world was mainly due to hastily taken decisions by some governments to ban exports in order to insulate their population from shortages and such knee-jerk reactions exacerbated the crisis, further aggravating the impact on over all food insecurity atmosphere around the world. The world body felt that export restrictions imposed by some surplus food-producing countries provoked more uncertainty and disruption on world markets, drove prices up further globally, while depressing prices domestically. This in turn acted as disincentive for the farmers to produce more food. It may be recalled that in 2008, India banned rice exports on lower procurement by the government while in 2006, it barred sugar exports as prices began to surge in the domestic market. Recently India banned onion exports after prices surged at retail outlets to nearly Rs 100 a kg. Russia banned wheat exports after its production dropped 5 million tonnes owing to the worst drought in five decades. It is true that such food inflation at a global level hits many poor countries which depend on imported foods for meeting the needs of their population as their food import bills reach non-affordable levels..

In principle what FAO says makes eminent sense but in practice putting it into practice is fraught with enormous implications. Does a country have no right to govern itself without interference from outside? Is the welfare of another country more important than that of the domestic population? What should be the criteria that should govern the export policies of a country? These are issues that must be addressed collectively by the countries who are members of the WTO to evolve a consensus. There are food security concerns facing practically every country in this planet, the degree of severity varying from one to the other. The experience and dilemma of a country like India must be a lesson for others. It was only recently that the government was hauled by the Supreme Court for allowing huge quantities of food grains to rot with no adequate storage facility available in the country. If even a part of the stock was offloaded into the global market , the world prices could have surged making the lives of many importing countries miserable. What options this country has under such circumstances?

Unless the world cooperates more meaningfully and sincerely, a solution to the surplus-shortage cycles vis-a-vis staple food grains and consequent price instability will refuse to go away. Either FAO must initiate action for setting regional food banks in different regions based on contributions from surplus countries or there must be inter-country cooperation mode for meeting one country's export obligations by another country with more favorable production situation. For example Russia, instead of abrogating its export obligations unilaterally last year could have requested India to help it out on a bilateral basis and settling the account on mutually accommodative terms. Same could have been done in the case of Onion where Pakistan could have helped India to pre-empt any supply problem and uncontrolled price escalation. The expected impact of the potential effect of the anticipated drought in China can be significantly lessened if appropriate arrangements are made by surplus producing countries to directly supply by-passing the global trade mechanism as an emergency basis. Recent pronouncements by the Prime Minister of India that environmental changes are responsible for food inflation is too simplistic a view that states the case but cites no solution!

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Thursday, November 19, 2009

THE FOOD SUMMIT-A RITUAL GONE THROUGH!


The Food Summit which just concluded has been termed as a ritual without achieving any thing substantial and repeating the same platitudes expressed in the last Summit, viz halving the number of hungry people in the Planet by 50% before the year 2015. The gross disinterest evident amongst the well to do nations is reflected by the scanty attendance of the heads of these countries. The disappointment is writ all around and the African nations were left wondering about their future with global aid not readily forthcoming to the extent needed. The statistics of hunger can make any one scary about future. According to the FAO one in six denizens in the world go hungry and their absolute number has swollen to 1.02 billion as per the latest count and 17000 children are supposed to be perishing every day due to food insecurity.

Lack of global initiative and global unity in the world is the root cause of putting in place a permanent mechanism for hunger alleviation of a durable nature. It is vital that both the developed world and the developing countries come together and extent support for a global initiative in the war against hunger. Developing countries themselves need to do more to support their farmers, especially in the African continent. Richer countries and U.N. agencies have to be very proactive in increasing funding directly to the third-world country's farmers who need quality seed, efficient quality fertilizers and enhanced access to credits. According to the FAO, the estimated financial aid that is required works out to about $40 billion for investment in agriculture annually to combat hunger which is equivalent to 17 percent of all official development aid instead of the current 5 percent

What is galling is that no specific amounts have been committed during the Summit creating some doubts about the future of aid programs originating in the developed countries. While in absolute terms aid amounts are sizable, the relative proportion invested in agricultural sector needs to be increased, if increased aid flow does not materialize, sacrificing or postponing non-food investments. Late Norman Borlaug often expressed his view that what Africa needs is a Green Revolution similar to that occurred in Asia in sixties and seventies of the last millennium and this is where investments ought to be made.

One of the critical issues is the over eagerness of multinational companies, backed by rich countries to sell GM technologies to African countries which cannot be considered viable under the conditions prevailing in the continent. It is inexcusable for the First World to tie economic assistance to GM technology in the name of modernization of agricultural sector in these poor countries. The input intensive and restrictive seed generation properties associated with GM technology, combined with uncertainties about yield and crop failure make the farmers weary about the new technology. Economic assistance must come with no strings attached, if the recipients are going to be really benefited. In the interest of a peaceful world and congenial growth atmosphere, cooperation, understanding and mutual appreciation amongst all nations are prerequisites.


V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com