Blog World Hunger

Agricultural Investment and Virtual Global Food Reserves

ifprimedia — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:28:14 GMT

This past June, world leaders met in Rome to respond to the troubling food crisis which has dragged millions of the world’s most vulnerable into poverty. The Rome Summit called for global action in regard to increased food aid, the elimination of export bans, and extra seed and fertilizer provisions for small farmers. In addition to these short term solutions, leaders also urged their "development partners" to invest in agricultural research for long term food security. An IFPRI policy brief written by Shenggen Fan and Mark Rosegrant concluded that investing in agriculture is key to addressing the current food price crisis. They estimate that spending an additional $14 billion per year could boost African agricultural production by 7.5 percent annually through 2015. Unfortunately, agreeing and acting upon the Rome Summit recommendations has proved to be difficult. Almost one month later, the world food crisis was at the top of the agenda at the Group of Eight summit meeting in Japan last week. The cause of rising food prices has long been attributed to rising demand for food and feed, high oil prices, and biofuels. However, an IFPRI policy brief written by Joachim von Braun and Maximo Torero identifies the malfunctioning of world grain markets as an additional driver of the world food crisis. The brief proposed a "virtual global food community" that could provide emergency reserves and calm markets while avoiding the high storage costs, slow transactions, and risky price increases of traditional reserves. The G8 released a food security statement that mentioned a similar type of plan: "We will explore options on a coordinated approach on stock management, including the pros and cons of building a ‘virtual’ internationally coordinated reserve system for humanitarian purposes." Although the statement was not a firm commitment to the stockpile approach, it nevertheless urged other countries "with sufficient food stocks to make available a part of their surplus for countries in need, in times of significantly increasing prices and in a way not to distort trade."

New Scientist: "'Excuse me, friends, I must catch my jet'" by Debora MacKenzie

ifprimedia — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:05:45 GMT

In her witty commentary, MacKenzie quotes a satirical poem to emphasize that the leaders of the G8 summit are far removed from the reality of hunger. While their resolve is welcoming, she contends they fail to offer concrete solutions. She calls for a lowering of trade barriers and setting targets to achieve agricultural growth. The G8 leaders' emphasize the need for agricultural research and development, stressing the importance of CGIAR centers in particular. This, she says is a step in the right direction, but the question of funding is still unresolved.

Link to the editorial

Can small-scale livestock farmers compete?

M Allen — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:22:35 GMT

Thirty-eight year old Lorna Clerigo has been raising pigs for more than half of her lifetime. Her father taught her the ins and outs of pig production at a tender age. But Lorna started growing pigs on her own only when she got married in 1989. With an initial inventory of just 30 pigs, and armed with technical experience, sheer guts and determination, Lorna has since added a few pig pens here and there and before she knew it, she was raising 350 head of pigs twice a year. Her farm is located along the rolling terrain of Barangay Sorosoro Ibaba, Batangas City, about 112 kilometers south of Metro Manila, Philippines.

For Lorna, growing pigs as an independent producer was not an option because she thought that she would not be able to compete with the large-scale producers in her town. She faced many challenges, including the cost of quality feeds and other inputs, lack of access to credit, and breaking into a competitive market as a small producer.

To overcome these constraints, she began raising pigs under contract with the Sorosoro Ibaba Development Cooperative (SIDC). SIDC provides Lorna with relatively good sources of weanlings and veterinary services, extends loans of up to Php200,000 (about US$4,400), and provides other useful resources.

The future of small livestock farmers like Lorna will depend on the options for institutional arrangements such as contract farming that integrate farmers in high-value supply chains.

To see IFPRI’s latest research on the forces shaping market access for small holder farmers, please visit http://www.ifpri.org/PUBS/abstract/rr157.asp

G8 Leaders’ Statement on Global Food Security

M Bayeh — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:23:41 GMT

Comments by Joachim von Braun, IFPRI Director General
July 11, 2008

It is very promising that global food security is now on the G8 agenda, and will stay there, as G8 leaders want to review progress at the next summit.
It is encouraging that actions regarding global markets and increasing production are being proposed; however, insufficient attention is being paid to actions on social protection and nutrition for the poorest. The food security and nutrition of the poor, which was already compromised before the world food crisis hit, is now severely jeopardized. High food prices lead the poor and hungry to limit their food consumption and switch to less-balanced diets, with potentially irreversible consequences for their nutritional status and health. Well-designed safety net programs can address these problems with high payoffs, in terms of economic productivity, poverty reduction, and improved nutrition.
It is noteworthy that there was attention to accelerating development of second-generation biofuels. But given that biofuels are estimated to have accounted for about 30 percent of the increase in grain prices between 2000 and 2007, the G8 did not address short-term measures such as freezing biofuel production at current levels, reducing it, or introducing a moratorium that would temporarily suspend the use of grains and oilseeds for biofuels production until prices come down to reasonable levels, thus providing relief for poor people.
It is reassuring that the G8 has taken note of the large amount of resources needed to overcome the food crisis, including the need to “reverse the overall decline of aid and investment in the agriculture sector, and to achieve significant increases in support of developing country initiatives.” It is important that steps are taken to assure that committed funds, including the US$10 billion that has already been committed since January 2008, are actually released in a timely manner. However it is disappointing that no clear commitments were made to specific amounts; mention was only made of the “appropriate scale.”
It is notable that the G8 has paid attention to the global governance architecture of agriculture and food security, but it is not enough to simply add an unclear set of actors and yet more meetings (“global partnership,” “global network of high-level experts,” “G8 expert group; G8 Ministers of Agriculture meeting”) without a clear understanding and delineation of the mechanisms for coordination.
Progress in hunger reduction since the mid-1990s has been disappointing, and poverty remains severe and persistent in many parts of the developing world. The current food crisis will push even more people into poverty and hunger. The G8 has taken an important step in committing to assist vulnerable people and countries. It is important that these good intentions are translated into timely action on the global, regional, and national levels. The strategy for the way forward should include a well-structured package of actions to address the emergency now unfolding, along with a package of actions that would bring resiliency into the food system and help prevent another crisis. With climate change threatening future food security, the G8 needs to better connect the food security agenda to the climate change agenda.

Washington Post Editorial: "Another Green Revolution"

ifprimedia — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:45:18 GMT

The Washington Post wrote an excellent editorial about the importance of agricultural research as food prices are on the rise. It emphasizes that the US government must renew its commitment to basic crop research and support CGIAR centers in their work of innovating new farming techniques that boost production and fight hunger. The editorial calls for a second Green Revolution as a way to increase food supplies and combat the current crisis.

Link to the editorial

Nanotechnology, Food, Agriculture and Development

M Allen — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:22:00 GMT

IFPRI Policy Seminar - June 18, 2008

Imagine eating foods without absorbing harmful allergens and cholesterol into your body. Imagine farmlands in developing countries with environmental sensors that automatically release pesticides and fertilizers only when absolutely necessary. Imagine going to your nearest market and being able to modify the foods you purchase to suit your nutritional needs and tastes. The first two concepts are fast becoming a reality. The third appears to be on the horizon. These are some of the revolutionary means by which nanotechnology promises to transform the way we grow, process, and eat food.

This seminar addressed the growing importance of nanotechnology, the main applications being developed in food and agriculture, and the implications of these applications for the developing world. Presentations by Mihail Roco (National Science Foundation), Hongda Chen (USDA/CSREES), and Guillaume Gruere (IFPRI).

Download presentations

Watch video of the seminar on IFPRI's YouTube Channel.

bEcon- Economics Literature about the Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops in Developing Economies

iyerramareddy — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:36:33 GMT

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) has recently compiled a web-base bibliography of peer-reviewed applied economics literature to assess the impact of genetically engineered (GE) crops in developing economies. All 190 articles currently in this database have been organized under four major themes that address the different areas of impact: advantages to farmers, consumer preferences and willingness to pay, size and distribution of benefits, and international benefits of trade. The literature is searchable by author, year, and keywords. If permission has been granted by publishers, the references include abstracts or links to full text. Whenever available, permanent links to each article’s website is provided, as well as links to full text. As this literature is maintained on a regular basis and feed on outside contributions it will provide a valuable up-to -date tool for all researchers in the area, particularly for those in developing countries.

bEcon is updated every three months, and a CD-ROM is produced on an annual basis for those with limited or no internet access.

For more information on bEcon, visit http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/becon/becon.asp.

The Supermarket Revolution in Developing Countries

M Allen — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:30:13 GMT

Policies for "Competitiveness with Inclusiveness"

Thomas Reardon and Ashok Gulati

A "supermarket revolution" has been underway in developing countries since the early 1990s. Supermarkets (here referring to all modern retail, which includes chain stores of various formats such as supermarkets, hypermarkets, and convenience and neighborhood stores) have now gone well beyond the initial upper- and middle-class clientele in many countries to reach the mass market. Within the food system, the effects of this trend touch not only traditional retailers, but also the wholesale, processing, and farm sectors. The supermarket revolution is a "two-edged sword." On the one hand, it can lower food prices for consumers and create opportunities for farmers and processors to gain access to quality-differentiated food markets and raise incomes. On the other hand, it can create challenges for small retailers, farmers, and processors who are not equipped to meet the new competition and requirements from supermarkets. Developing-country governments can put in place a number of policies to help both traditional retailers and small farmers pursue "competitiveness with inclusiveness" in the era of the supermarket revolution. Some countries are already taking such steps, and their experiences offer lessons for others...

Read the full policy brief.

June 17: Land Degradation and Sustainable Agriculture the Centerpiece of Day to Recognize the Significance of Desertification and Drought

clakatos — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:58:56 GMT

This year’s World Day to Combat Desertification and Drought is addressing “Combating land degradation for sustainable agriculture.” Sponsored by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the decision to focus on agriculture is particularly timely due to the rise in global food prices, and the impact this is having on the world’s poor farmers.

Although IFPRI has long studied land degradation, the problem is being further exacerbated by variables such as climate change and the desire to generate ever-higher yields. A recent IFPRI Discussion Paper examined the factors that influence crop yields and farmers’ use of inorganic fertilizer in Niger, with a call to further assess the relationship with land degradation. Land degradation is also a serious concern in the East African highlands, and a 2006 IFPRI book takes a look at strategies for sustainable land management in the region, based on materials from a related conference.

For more information, visit IFPRI’s Land Resource Management webpage. To learn more about UNCCD, visit http://www.unccd.int/main.php

High rice prices squeeze consumers

M Allen — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:19:33 GMT

Maria Teresa stands with her children at the doorway of her two-room house in Los Baños, the Philippines. At first glance, all of her children look healthy, but according to a visiting nutrition counselor, they are all malnourished. The youngest, Joyme, a severely undernourished two-year-old girl, weighs just 16 pounds (7.3 kg).

They are entirely dependent the earnings of Maria’s husband, a day laborer. He takes home about $10 per week, when he gets work.

Maria tells the counselor that she prepares fish and instant noodles with egg for her family. Later, she reluctantly admits that they eat only rice.

Globally, the price of rice has tripled since January 2007. While food price inflation affects all consumers, it hits the very poor hardest of all. For millions of poor Filipino families, buying rice at a market has become prohibitively expensive. Their main option now is to wait in long lines for government-subsidized rice and hope that the supply remains secure.

For information on rising food prices and IFPRI’s recommendations please visit www.ifpri.org/themes/foodprices/foodprices.asp

June 5: World Environment Day Focuses on Climate Change and Reducing Carbon Emissions

clakatos — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:37:38 GMT

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is using World Environment Day 2008 to draw attention to the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Day highlights resources and initiatives that promote low carbon economies and lifestyles, such as improved energy efficiency, alternative energy sources, forest conservation, and eco-friendly consumption. The primary international celebration will take place in Wellington, New Zealand.
Although IFPRI has always focused on sustainable development, it is increasingly examining the impacts that climate change is having on the world’s poor, especially rural farmers. IFPRI and FAO recently released a paper examining the Impact of Climate Change and Bioenergy on Nutrition. On May 7, IFPRI Division Director Mark Rosegrant testified before the U.S. Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on the impact of biofuel production on high global food prices. A May 2008 IFPRI Discussion Paper assesses the impacts of a social forestry program in Indonesia that provided permits to farm on state-protected land in exchange for protecting remaining natural forestland, planting multistrata agroforests, and using recommended soil and water conservation.
For more information, visit IFPRI’s Climate Change and Bioenergy webpages. To learn more about World Environment Day, visit http://www.unep.org/wed/2008/english/.

Rising food prices will result in severe declines in mineral and vitamin intakes of the poor

Howarth Bouis — Thu, 29 May 2008 17:08:30 GMT

The poor in developing countries will cope with rising food prices in two primary ways: (1) by reducing the amount of expensive meats, dairy, fruit, vegetables, and pulses (non-staple food) consumed, resulting in large declines in mineral and vitamin intakes -- with significant negative consequences for morbidity, mortality, cognitive abilities, and growth (preschool children and females of reproductive age, in particular, are at risk for these deficiencies and so will suffer the most from food price increases); (2) by reducing expenditures on non-food items, such as education, housing, and medical care.

Four basic factors drive the first conclusion:

Expenditures on non-staple foods by poor consumers comprise 40-60% of total expenditures for food.
Demand for food staples (rice, wheat, maize, etc. depending on the geographical region and culture) is highly inelastic. Income and price elasticities for food staples in the aggregate are low.
In diets, minerals and vitamins are concentrated in non-staple foods; energy is concentrated in staple foods.
Current intakes of vitamins and minerals are already too low, resulting in high prevalence rates of micronutrient deficiencies. Modest decreases in present intakes of minerals and vitamins will drive these prevalence rates significantly higher, with severe consequences for the nutritional status of the poor and public health.

Given these food consumption and nutrient intake patterns described in 1-4 above, the following empirical estimates can be drawn:

A 50% increases in all food prices across the board (holding income constant) will result in a 30% decline in iron intake; this, in turn, will result in an increase in the prevalence rate of iron deficiency among women and children of 25% percentage points (e.g. if currently the diets of women result in 60% consuming below the mean average iron requirement, then 85% will consume below the mean average iron requirement after the 50% price rise).

For more information see HarvestPlus Statement on Rising Food Prices (478K).

High Food Prices: The What, Who, and How of Proposed Policy Actions

M Allen — Tue, 20 May 2008 10:18:06 GMT

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

Biofuels and Grain Prices: Impacts and Policy Responses

M Allen — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:36:04 GMT

On May 7, 2008, Mark W. Rosegrant, Director of IFPRI's Environment and Production Technology Division, testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on the impact of biofuels on grain prices and its policy implications. Dr. Rosegrant’s analysis focused on three potential scenarios:

Recent food price evolution with and without high biofuel demand
Impact of a freeze on biofuel production from all crops at 2007 levels
Impact of a moratorium (elimination) on biofuel production after 2007.

From the conclusion: "It is therefore important to find ways to keep biofuels from worsening the food-price crisis. In the short run, removal of ethanol blending mandates and subsidies and ethanol import tariffs, and in the United States—together with removal of policies in Europe promoting biofuels—would contribute to lower food prices. But for the longer term, it is even more critical to focus on increasing agricultural productivity growth and improving developing-country policies and infrastructure related to the storage, distribution, and marketing of food. These factors will continue to drive the future health of the agricultural sector and will play the largest role in determining the food security and human well-being of the world's poorer and more vulnerable populations." Read full testimony.

Going hungry more often: Food prices and the poor

M Allen — Thu, 08 May 2008 16:39:33 GMT

© 2008, Augustine A. NdaghuDomitila Revilla Romero, 56, lives in a shantytown on the outskirts of Lima and works as a laundress to help support her three children, her nephew, and her daughter-in-law, all of whom earn increasingly precarious livings. But as food prices rise, Ms. Revilla is not only finding it harder to make ends meet, sometimes she cannot even put food on the table. It is a predicament that has left her in tears.

Ms. Revilla said that in March alone, the price of the cooking oil she buys increased 75 percent, from the equivalent of US$1.43 to US$2.50, while the price of rice rose by more than 50 percent, from US$0.64 to US$1.00. For someone who earns US$1.80 per dozen items laundered, and who already spends a disproportionate amount of her income on food, these increases mean that Ms. Revilla and her family will be going hungry far more often.

For more on how rising food prices are affecting the poorest and most vulnerable, and on emerging solutions to this crisis, see IFPRI's Food Prices page…

Interview with R. K. Pachauri, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

pshelton — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:08:05 GMT

The March 2008 issue of IFPRI Forum features an interview with R. K. Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, which won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore, on what climate change will mean for poor and rural people and what the next steps should be. Excerpts from the interview are included below.

FORUM: In your Nobel lecture, you emphasized the impact of climate change on the poor. What are the most immediate climate-related problems facing the rural poor?

Pachauri: The rural poor are facing a range of climate-related problems. First, changes in precipitation patterns and increases in the intensity and frequency of floods and droughts have major implications for agriculture, water availability, and human health. For instance, whenever a flood occurs, health officials face a major challenge in preventing and minimizing the outbreak of diseases. The impacts of climate change on agricultural yield also directly affect the livelihoods of the poor. In a study carried out by my institute, TERI, we carefully studied the effects of two sets of influences on agriculture. The first relates to globalization and international trade in agricultural produce, and the second assesses the impacts of climate change on agriculture. Poor farmers are often not able to compete against subsidized food coming from developed countries and are therefore suffering the unfavorable effects of globalization on their livelihoods. Climate change only exacerbates some of these stresses. In fact, during the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in 2002, several African farmers demonstrated against agricultural subsidies in the developed countries because they found themselves unable to compete with prices of imports as a result. The relevant issue to be considered in this context is the fact that the rural poor are already subjected to several stresses for a variety of reasons. Climate change would only add to these stresses.

The poor are also unable to adapt to the impacts of climate change because often they do not have the technical or financial capacity to be able to take essential measures—for instance, creating infrastructure for storage of water.

FORUM: You mentioned that climate change can lead to inequality, conflict, and a realignment of power among nations. In what ways?

Pachauri: By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee was essentially taking into account the link between unmitigated climate change and the consequent threat to peace and security. Since the impacts of climate change are unequal across the globe, as is the extent of vulnerability of different societies, it is possible that those who are poor and vulnerable would not only fail to improve their lot, but would actually see a decline in their economic and social well-being as a result of climate change. This then can create larger inequality across the globe.

The potential for conflict can arise in several ways, such as conflict over scarce resources, as in the case of water in some parts of the world. But conflict could occur on a much larger scale if large populations move from those areas that are actually stressed to those that are relatively well off. It could, of course, also occur on account of impacts of extreme events. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report has identified the Asian megadeltas, which include cities like Dhaka, Kolkata, and Shanghai, as particularly vulnerable. Clearly, any damage on account of coastal flooding of these megadeltas and surrounding areas could result in a threat to peace. Indeed, when Hurricane Katrina hit the city of New Orleans, the aftereffects included widespread disorder, leading to crime and the breakdown of law and order.

FORUM: To mitigate the impacts of climate change on agriculture, what are some of the most significant actions that can be taken globally, nationally, locally, and individually? And how should agriculture itself contribute to mitigation?

Pachauri: The first step required for adaptation to the impacts of climate change is to understand the specific options that exist in the particular region being considered. In some cases cropping patterns may need to be changed. In addition, there may be a need to change agricultural practices, particularly involving the use of water. To that extent, technologies for efficient use of water, such as drip irrigation, would need to be promoted, if necessary, through incentives and regulations. In the longer term, there is a need for research and development to produce species and strains of plants that would be able to withstand droughts, higher salinity, and other adverse conditions that may occur as a result of climate change. When it comes to research and development, efforts need to be undertaken globally. Other actions may be taken at the national and local levels, but all of them would require substantial dissemination of information and knowledge.

As far as mitigation of emissions from agriculture is concerned, considerable research and development would be required to come up with practices and techniques that would reduce emissions without in any way compromising productivity. Overall, therefore, there is a substantial need for undertaking a program of research and development at the global and local levels by which new practices and techniques can be developed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

FORUM: In addition to mitigation, there is also the question of adaptation. What should be done to help poor people, especially farmers and the rural poor, adapt to the effects of climate change?

Pachauri: Adaptation to the impacts of climate change has taken place historically, and several communities and societies across the world have developed coping strategies that helped them withstand variations of climate and weather. What is projected to take place in the future, however, if mitigation measures are not adopted, is a level of climate change that would exceed what several communities could adapt to. Institutional responses would therefore be required to help farmers and the rural poor by providing credit during periods of prolonged drought and other climate-related difficulties and by creating infrastructure, for instance, for improved watershed management and efficient storage of water. But most important, agricultural extension services would need to be revamped to bring credit, seeds, and improved know-how to the doorstep of farmers and the rural poor.

FORUM: Now that the Bali conference on climate change has concluded, what do you see as the most important elements of a post-Kyoto international climate change mitigation regime?

Pachauri: The Bali Conference of the Parties dealt with several issues that it is hoped will find their way into the post-2012 climate change agreement. One important element that should be part of the agreement is adequate global financing of adaptation measures. In several instances, this is a matter of ethics and attention to equity issues. Some of the poorest and most vulnerable communities in the world have hardly any historical responsibility for emissions of greenhouse gases, and yet they may perhaps become the worst sufferers. It is critical that the world realizes the importance of help for such vulnerable sections of society in adapting to climate change.

To stabilize the earth's climate system, it is necessary to translate the desire for "deep cuts" in greenhouse gas emissions into specific measures that would achieve this objective. Given that technology is a crucial part of solutions to the problem of global climate change, access to improved technologies must be an important part of the agreement. Any multilateral agreement must also keep in mind the actions that it could trigger at the national and local levels. While it may be difficult to come up with benchmarks and standards for specific sectors in a global agreement, its provisions should be able to provide a direction for national policies that would collectively lead to a global outcome in keeping with the objectives of the agreement. Given the assessment of different stabilization scenarios by the IPCC, if the negotiating community is serious about tackling the problem of climate change, it will have to ensure that the agreement reached in Copenhagen leads to early reduction of global emissions, or else in future decades the task will become more difficult and intractable, leading to impacts of climate change that could have several negative consequences.

Rising Food Prices: What Should Be Done?

pshelton — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:01:08 GMT

by Joachim von Braun
IFPRI Policy Brief • April 2008

The sharp increase in food prices over the past couple of years has raised serious concerns about the food and nutrition situation of poor people in developing countries, about inflation, and—in some countries—about civil unrest. Real prices are still below their mid-1970s peak, but they have reached their highest point since that time. Both developing- and developed-country governments have roles to play in bringing prices under control and in helping poor people cope with higher food bills.

In 2007 the food price index calculated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) rose by nearly 40 percent, compared with 9 percent the year before, and in the first months of 2008 prices again increased drastically. Nearly every agricultural commodity is part of this rising price trend. Since 2000—a year of low prices—the wheat price in the international market has more than tripled and maize prices have more than doubled. The price of rice jumped to unprecedented levels in March 2008. Dairy products, meat, poultry, palm oil, and cassava have also experienced price hikes. When adjusted for inflation and the dollar’s decline (by reporting in euros, for example), food price increases are smaller but still dramatic, with often serious consequences for the purchasing power of the poor.

National governments and international actors are taking various steps to try to minimize the effects of higher international prices for domestic prices and to mitigate impacts on particular groups. Some of these actions are likely to help stabilize and reduce food prices, whereas others may help certain groups at the expense of others or actually make food prices more volatile in the long run and seriously distort trade. What is needed is more effective and coherent action to help the most vulnerable populations cope with the drastic and immediate hikes in their food bills and to help farmers meet the rising demand for agricultural products.

The Sources of Current Price Increases

The combination of new and ongoing forces is driving the world food situation and, in turn, the prices of food commodities. One emerging factor behind rising food prices is the high price of energy. Energy and agricultural prices have become increasingly intertwined (see figure). With oil prices at an all-time high of more than US$100 a barrel and the U.S. government subsidizing farmers to grow crops for energy, U.S. farmers have massively shifted their cultivation toward biofuel feedstocks, especially maize, often at the expense of soybean and wheat cultivation. About 30 percent of U.S. maize production will go into ethanol in 2008 rather than into world food and feed markets. High energy prices have also made agricultural production more expensive by raising the cost of mechanical cultivation, inputs like fertilizers and pesticides, and transportation of inputs and outputs.

At the same time, the growing world population is demanding more and different kinds of food. Rapid economic growth in many developing countries has pushed up consumers’ purchasing power, generated rising demand for food, and shifted food demand away from traditional staples and toward higher-value foods like meat and milk. This dietary shift is leading to increased demand for grains used to feed livestock. Poor weather and speculative capital have also played a role in the rise of food prices. Severe drought in Australia, one of the world’s largest wheat producers, has cut into global wheat production.

The Impacts of High Food Prices

Higher food prices have radically different effects across countries and population groups. At the country level, countries that are net food exporters will benefit from improved terms of trade, although some of them are missing out on this opportunity by banning exports to protect consumers. Net food importers, however, will struggle to meet domestic food demand. Given that almost all countries in Africa are net importers of cereals, they will be hard hit by rising prices. At the household level, surging and volatile food prices hit those who can afford it the least—the poor and food insecure. The few poor households that are net sellers of food will benefit from higher prices, but households that are net buyers of food—which represent the large majority of the world’s poor—will be harmed. Adjustments in the rural economy, which can create new income opportunities, will take time to reach the poor.

The nutrition of the poor is also at risk when they are not shielded from the price rises. Higher food prices lead poor people to limit their food consumption and shift to even less-balanced diets, with harmful effects on health in the short and long run. At the household level, the poor spend about 50 to 60 percent of their overall budget on food. For a five-person household living on US$1 per person per day, a 50 percent increase in food prices removes up to US$1.50 from their US$5 budget, and growing energy costs also add to their adjustment burden.

Policy Responses So Far

Many countries are taking steps to try to minimize the effects of higher prices on their populations. Argentina, Bolivia, Cambodia, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Morocco, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Vietnam are among those that have taken the easy option of restricting food exports, setting limits on food prices, or both. For example, China has banned rice and maize exports; India has banned milk powder exports; Bolivia has banned the export of soy oil to Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela; and Ethiopia has banned exports of major cereals. Other countries are reducing restrictions on imports: Morocco, for instance, cut tariffs on wheat imports from 130 percent to 2.5 percent; Nigeria cut its rice import tax from 100 percent to just 2.7 percent.

How effective are these responses likely to be? Price controls and changes in import and export policies may begin to address the problems of poor consumers who find that they can no longer afford an adequate diet for a healthy life. But some of these policies are likely to backfire by making the international market smaller and more volatile. Price controls reduce the price that farmers receive for their agricultural products and thus reduce farmers’ incentives to produce more food. Any long-term strategy to stabilize food prices will need to include increased agricultural production, but price controls fail to send farmers a message that encourages them to produce more. In addition, by benefiting all consumers, even those who can afford higher food prices, price controls divert resources toward helping people who do not really need it. Export restrictions and import subsidies have harmful effects on trading partners dependent on imports and also give incorrect incentives to farmers by reducing their potential market size. These national agricultural trade policies undermine the benefits of global integration, as the rich countries’ longstanding trade distortions with regard to developing countries are joined by developing countries’ interventions against each other.

Sound Policy Actions for the Short and Long Term

The increases in food prices have a dominant role in increasing inflation in many countries now. It would be misguided to address these specific inflation causes with general macroeconomic instruments. Mainly, specific policies are needed to deal with the causes and consequences of high food prices. Although the current situation poses policy challenges on several fronts, there are effective and coherent actions that can be taken to help the most vulnerable people in the short term while working to stabilize food prices by increasing agricultural production in the long term.

First, in the short run, developing-country governments should expand social protection programs (that is, safety net programs like food or income transfers and nutrition programs focused on early childhood) for the poorest people—both urban and rural. Some of the poorest people in developing countries are not well connected to markets and thus will feel few effects from rising food prices, but the much higher international prices could mean serious hardship for millions of poor urban consumers and poor rural residents who are net food buyers, when they actually are exposed to them. These people need direct assistance. Some countries, such as India and South Africa, already have social protection programs in place that they can expand to meet new and emerging needs. Countries that do not have such programs in place will not be able to create them rapidly enough to make a difference in the current food price situation. They may feel forced to rely on cruder measures like export bans and import subsidies. Aid donors should expand food-related development aid, including social protection, child nutrition programs, and food aid, where needed.

Second, developed countries should eliminate domestic biofuel subsidies and open their markets to biofuel exporters like Brazil. Biofuel subsidies in the United States and ethanol and biodiesel subsidies in Europe have proven to be misguided policies that have distorted world food markets. Subsidies on biofuel crops also act as an implicit tax on staple foods, on which the poor depend the most. Developed-country farmers should make decisions about what to cultivate based not on subsidies, but on world market prices for various commodities.

Third, the developed countries should also take this opportunity to eliminate agricultural trade barriers. Although some progress has been made in reducing agricultural subsidies and other trade-distorting policies in developed countries, many remain, and poor countries cannot match them. This issue has been politically difficult for developed-country policymakers to address, but the political risks may now be lower than in the past. A level playing field for developing-country farmers will make it more profitable for them to ramp up production in response to higher prices.

Fourth, to achieve long-term agricultural growth, developing-country governments should increase their medium- and long-term investments in agricultural research and extension, rural infrastructure, and market access for small farmers. Rural investments have been sorely neglected in recent decades, and now is the time to reverse this trend. Farmers in many developing countries are operating in an environment of inadequate infrastructure like roads, electricity, and communications; poor soils; lack of storage and processing capacity; and little or no access to agricultural technologies that could increase their profits and improve their livelihoods. Recent unrest over food prices in a number of countries may tempt policymakers to put the interests of urban consumers over those of rural people, including farmers, but this approach would be shortsighted and counterproductive. Given the scale of investment needed, aid donors should also expand development assistance to agriculture, rural services, and science and technology.

Conclusion

World agriculture is facing new challenges that, along with existing forces, pose risks for poor people’s livelihoods and food security. This new situation calls for policy actions in three areas:

comprehensive social protection and food and nutrition initiatives to meet the short- and medium-term needs of the poor;
investment in agriculture, particularly in agricultural science and technology and in market access, at a national and global scale to address the long-term problem of boosting supply; and
trade policy reforms, in which developed countries would revise their biofuel and agricultural trade policies and developing countries would stop the new trade-distorting policies with which they are hurting each other.

In the face of rising food prices, both developing and developed countries have a role to play in creating a world where all people have enough food for a healthy and productive life.

Toward a New Global Governance System for Agriculture, Food, and Nutrition

M Allen — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:59:28 GMT

Commentary

Toward a New Global Governance System for Agriculture, Food, and Nutrition
What Are the Options?

Joachim von Braun and Nurul Islam

The current world food and agricultural policy system is in disarray. For some time, we have observed the symptoms of this disarray with concern. These symptoms include incoherent or inadequate responses to exploding food prices; the slowdown in agricultural productivity growth; looming water problems; a disorderly response to higher energy prices; rapid concentration in multinational agribusiness corporations without the necessary institutional innovation to guide them; lack of progress in addressing scarcity; adverse impacts of climate change on agriculture; widespread nutrition problems, including hunger, obesity, and chronic diseases; and agriculture-related health risks, such as avian influenza. Governments and international institutions have notoriously underinvested in public goods related to agriculture, food, and nutrition, such as rural infrastructure, agricultural research, and rural institutions, which have international spillover effects and global impact.

National policies are central, but the increasing globalization of the agrifood system calls for collaboration across country borders to adequately address new opportunities and challenges. The world food system that has evolved over recent decades has not effectively achieved food safety, good health, and sound nutrition for the poor and hungry. Improved institutional architecture and governance is needed to ensure that the following functions in the agriculture, food, and nutrition system operate effectively and efficiently at the global level:

research, innovation, and intellectual property rights (IPRs);
trade and standards;
food safety and health;
private investment and competition policy;
climate change, adaptation, and mitigation;
cross-boundary water management; and
natural resource use related to, for instance, soils and biodiversity.

For most of these functions, some institutions, conventions, declarations, and organizations already exist, but we believe that there is ample room for scaling them up, efficiently coordinating them, or increasing their effectiveness. Current global investments in these areas—so vital for the international community—are clearly suboptimal. Too little research and development (R&D) is taking place on the crops and technologies of most interest to poor farmers. Trade policies and standards are in some cases harming poor countries' capacity to develop their own agricultural systems. Food safety standards are not sufficiently harmonized. The absence of appropriate international institutions to guide competition has resulted in noncompetitive markets and trade behaviors—private and public—at the global level. The world is investing far too little in mitigating and adapting to climate change in agriculture. Cross-boundary disputes over water are almost certain to become worse in the future as resources come under increasing pressure. And patterns of natural resource use too often pose threats to the global commons, such as biodiversity.

The roles and structures of the global organizations addressing agriculture, food, and related health issues—the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Food Programme (WFP), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)—have evolved over the past six decades. Individually, they all serve important functions, but collectively they may now require rethinking and adjustment to meet new and emerging challenges related to agriculture, food, and nutrition in a comprehensive fashion in the coming decades.

Our comments here are designed to stimulate a dialogue on what the future global institutional architecture and governance of agriculture, food, and nutrition might look like and how it might be achieved. A focused discussion at the global level seems overdue. The questions are:

If we were to design a global governance system for agriculture, food, and nutrition, what would it look like?
How should the governance system be designed so that it can adapt well to the changing needs for global public goods in the future?
What type of structure should the international governance system have?
How should the current governance system be reformed?
What are the roles of the different actors, including new actors such as the private sector and civil society, in a future global governance system for agriculture, food, and nutrition?
How would the system of existing international organizations, including their structure and interrelationships, be changed?
What role should the United Nations (UN), the Group of 8, and various groups of developing countries play in such a reform process?

Here are some initial thoughts on the broad outlines of options for change in global governance and coordination of the agricultural system. There are three options—not mutually exclusive—for change.

The first option is to maintain the current institutions and make marginal improvements. This option could involve, for example, strengthening the UN and CGIAR systems for agriculture, food, and nutrition in terms of their effectiveness, their governance, and their resources, as they are clearly underfunded.

The second option is to form an innovative government network—that is, to strengthen government-to-government systems for decisionmaking in the areas of agriculture, food, and nutrition through a set of agreements and conventions. More structured networks could be created between institutions within governments. Such steps are beginning to be taken in some fields, such as public health, but not much in the areas of agriculture, food, and nutrition.

A third option is to expand the current system to explicitly engage the new players in the global food system—the private sector and civil society, including large private foundations—together with national governments in new or significantly reorganized international organizations and agreements. Given that the global food system is in reality no longer governed only by governments, this inclusive approach seems worthwhile now.

The three options are listed in order from quite realistic to rather utopian. Moving forward may require a combination of these three options. One approach to implementation might be to establish a superstructure (for example, a panel appointed by the UN leadership) to guide changes in the global governance of agriculture, food, and nutrition across the existing specialized institutions and organizations. Coming to a meaningful synthesis of the three options will require leadership on the part of the governments of the world. Countries with leading roles in the global agricultural system now go beyond just European nations and the United States to include Brazil, China, India, and others. Leadership could well come from the developing countries, and not only the largest ones.

It is clearly time to re-examine the global architecture and system for governing agriculture, food, and nutrition—all of which fall between the cracks of much of the current global governance structure—to determine how best to address the challenges the world now faces. Small adjustments will not achieve the needed changes. The ultimate goal must be to quickly come closer to a world that sustainably provides each person with enough food to live a healthy and productive life as envisioned in the Millennium Development Goals. The current system does not live up to this task. The leading global organizations involved with agriculture, food, and nutrition themselves should explore these issues further and invite a global dialogue for change.

Joachim von Braun is director general of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Nurul Islam is an emeritus senior research fellow at IFPRI.

This is a slightly revised version of the commentary of the same title that appears in the March issue of IFPRI Forum.

What Goes Down Must Come Up: Global Food Prices Reach New Heights

M Allen — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:15:40 GMT

Prices are surging for food commodities worldwide, posing a tough policy challenge for developing countries—can they protect poor consumers without squelching new opportunities for farmers?

Poor consumers across the globe are up in arms about their rising food bills. In December 2007, Mexicans rioted in response to an enormous jump in tortilla prices, which quadrupled in some parts of the country. The following month Indonesians took to the streets to protest high soybean prices. In February 2008, protesters in three major towns in Burkina Faso, angry about the rising cost of food and other basics, attacked government offices and shops. Unrest linked to food markets has recently occurred in Guinea, Mauritania, Morocco, Senegal, Uzbekistan, and Yemen.

The new "agflation" that has riled poor consumers marks a sharp break with the past, which was generally characterized by years of slowly falling food prices. The Economist reports that during the three decades between 1974 and 2005, real food prices declined by 75 percent. In the three years since 2005, however, they have risen by 75 percent, and the price hikes affect nearly every food commodity. Prices of wheat, butter, and milk have tripled since 2000, and prices of maize, rice, and poultry have nearly doubled. Meat, palm oil, and cassava prices have all gone up, too. Overall, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) food price index rose by nearly 40 percent in 2007, compared with a 9 percent increase in 2006, and prices in 2008 are higher than they have been in decades.

The years of falling food prices were good for consumers, but not so good for farmers. Now, while consumers in urban areas cannot be expected to welcome soaring food prices that eat into their wallets, the higher prices should theoretically reward farmers with greater profits and better livelihoods. "Many media are reporting that high prices are good for farmers, which is true for much of the sector, but it's more complex than that," says Daniel Gustafson, director of the FAO Liaison Office for North America, at a recent IFPRI seminar. "Many poor farmers in developing countries are net food buyers."

The task for governments is to help farmers take advantage of higher prices to increase productivity—and thereby production and incomes—to improve their living standards and ensure that poor consumers who are already living on the edge are not pushed into destitution. This balancing act will not be easy.

Full article on IFPRI website

Call for concept notes

M Allen — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:05:02 GMT

Agriculture and Health Research Platform

Bound by complex two-way linkages, agriculture and health are essential for reducing poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition. In April 2006, the Alliance Executive of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) endorsed the Agriculture and Health Research Platform (AHRP) as a basis for further research, capacity strengthening, and communications within and beyond the CGIAR. The Platform has since established a long-term collaboration with the health sector following an October 2006 meeting in Geneva with representatives of the World Health Organization (WHO). This was further advanced at a multistakeholder workshop, co-hosted by WHO, in June 2007 in Geneva where research priorities were identified, opportunities for collaborative research explored, and a consensus established on the governance of the platform. A health advisory group of global public health experts advises the Platform, along with a core research group comprising representatives of the CGIAR centers, WHO, FAO and several NGOs and academic institutions. IFPRI coordinates the work of the Platform on behalf of the CGIAR.

Further details can be found here: http://www.ifpri.org/themes/aghealth/aghealth.asp

The emerging research agenda of the Platform takes account of the broader concerns of stakeholders and policymakers in the agricultural, nutrition, and health communities. The Platform has identified several research priorities that would benefit from greater intersectoral collaboration. Research is intended to focus on mitigating negative effects on agricultural activities while maximizing opportunities for agriculture to benefit health, and better health to benefit agriculture. The ultimate goal is to undertake cutting-edge research at the intersections of agriculture and health that seeks to maximize impact on the rural poor.

Eligibility criteria

Concept notes that address one or more of these key themes (as described further below) are encouraged. Proposed research should also focus on issues:

that are of concern to both agriculture and health sectors;
that are better addressed jointly by health and agricultural researchers working together (and not by either sector acting alone);
that lend themselves to participatory and trandisciplinary methods and approaches;
that proactively address cross-cutting issues including gender and equity;
for which a clear magnitude of need has been established;
for which results have potential for large-scale impact;
where opportunities for undertaking the work are clearly evident;
where the probability of success is high.

Research is also encouraged that draws on innovations within the Ecohealth approach as pioneered by IDRC (www.idrc.ca/en/ev-3314-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html)

Multi-country/multi-site regional or international studies are encouraged.

It is not necessary to only focus on one of the three thematic priorities – research that addresses interactions between these themes is encouraged.

This initiative is not region-neutral. A special emphasis will be placed on work in Africa and Asia. As a very rough guide, it is intended that approximately 55% Platform activities in toto will engage with African stakeholders, 30% with Asian stakeholders.and 10%, Latin American.

Finally, the budgets of proposed research studies need not be limited to the funding ceiling of this call ($230,000) – indeed cofunding by other development partners and donors is encouraged. Such cofunding will need to be indicated in the budget section. Research studies may be of 1-3 years duration.

Format

Please submit concept notes of 5-8 pages that clearly state: problem statement, brief literature review, objectives, research questions, methods, expected outputs, outcomes and impact; partners and indicative budget. Funding up to a maximum of US$ 230,000 is available for selected studies. Concept notes will be reviewed by an independent panel, and several concept notes selected for development into full proposals.

Concept notes should be emailed to the AHRP Coordinator at s.gillespie@cgiar.org

Deadline: 11 May 2008

Research Themes

The following three themes are current priorities of the Platform for which proposals are encouraged in this first wave of research. (In addition to these three themes, large-scale work that relates agriculture to HIV/AIDS and to avian influenza is already underway.)

Nutrition, diet, and health. Food quantity and food quality are the primary linkages between agriculture, nutrition and health. While lack of energy is generally an issue only in highly food-insecure areas, micronutrient malnutrition is much more widespread and pervasive. As problems of insufficient and poor quality food persist, changes in the global environment are creating new emerging nutritional issues such as the “nutrition transition” – a process by which globalization, urbanization and changes in lifestyle are linked to excess energy intake, poor quality diets, and low physical activity which lead to rapid rises in obesity and chronic diseases even among the poor in developing countries. Another major long-wave issue is the challenge that climate changes poses on agriculture-nutrition-health pathways. How to adapt to this changing environment, address the double burden of under- and over-nutrition, and maintain adequate food supply while increasing the production of low cost high-quality foods to improve diet quality among the poor? How to promote and exploit the link between agricultural biodiversity and dietary diversity for better nutrition?
Water associated disease and water management. The linkages between agriculture, water, health and disease are fundamental to the disease burden on rural communities. Land and animals need water, forests are breeding sites for vectors of diseases, aquaculture depends on water, and families need water for consumption and for hygiene. There are multiple pathways by which agriculture, water and health interact, some beneficial (e.g. irrigation increases agricultural productivity) and others detrimental (e.g. irrigation water may increase malaria); and the relationships are often bi-directional (e.g. water affects agriculture and vice versa; water affects health and vice versa). Research needs in this area range from acquiring new knowledge about the interactions between agriculture, water and health, to developing joint thinking and efforts to disseminate and apply this knowledge more widely and effectively, and to carrying out specific case studies using integrated applicable solutions that can be brought to scale. How to maximize the productivity and poverty-reducing potential of irrigation while minimizing the risk of malaria and other water- and vector-borne diseases? The health aspects of wastewater use in agriculture are increasingly important as this water resource is available particularly to the peri-urban poor. The overriding influence of climate change is also a relevant concern for this theme.
Food safety and growing complexity in food supply chains. In developing countries diarrhea from foodborne and water-associated diseases kills an estimated 2 million people annually, and is predominantly linked to the lack of access to safe water, inadequate sanitation and poor hygiene, particularly among the rural poor. Capacity for prevention and control is limited, but options for an integrated water management approach for agricultural and domestic needs are substantial. Zoonoses represent another major food safety challenge. Effective, fair, equitable, intersectoral collaboration between agriculture and health organizations on research and action to prevent and control animal borne/food borne microbial zoonotic diseases is key. Other important research issues relate to impacts of – and developing policies to address -- changes in the global environment due to globalization, the rise in importance of supermarkets, changes in food demand, and the impacts of the Green Revolution on human and animal health.

We gratefully acknowledge the International Development Research Center (IDRC) for their support to the AHRP for 2008-10.