After peaking earlier this year, world food prices have retreated in recent months. Nevertheless, the UN is warning of another food crisis that could push more than 100 million people back into absolute poverty.
With human numbers rising and income growth pushing up per-capita consumption too, must food remain expensive? The UN Food and Agriculture Organization said in its latest report last week that nearly 1 billion people are undernourished. Are they condemned to remain hungry? Not at all.
During the second half of the 20th century, food supplies grew faster than demand and real prices for cereals declined by 75 percent. Because cereals account for more than 60 percent of the human diet, consumers paid a lot less for food.
These days, population growth is slowing but demand is still going up quickly because of improved earnings. By 2050, demand for food will probably increase by between 60 percent and 100 percent. And if we don’t grow more food per hectare or farm more land, real food prices will rise.
So there was nothing unexpected about the current rise in demand for food. As UN World Food and Agriculture Organization Director-General Jacques Diouf said: “It was predictable and we predicted it, and it was avoidable, but the world failed to avoid it.”
But “the world” is not to blame — the blame lies with individual governments, especially in the poorest countries, that put up huge barriers to the movement of food, keeping prices high.
Only 15 percent of African trade takes place within the continent. Poor countries’ tariff barriers are higher on average than in developed countries. South of the Sahara, the average tariff on agricultural imports is 33.6 percent. And over-regulation, red tape, delays at customs and corruption all make it worse.
Since these obstacles make inputs more expensive too, domestic producers are prevented from responding fully to higher food demand.
Ukraine is a perfect example of a country with huge agricultural potential that remains largely untapped. Simply farming more efficiently and using better inputs, such as fertilizer, could nearly double current crop yields. This would allow Ukraine to export 50 million to 80 million more tonnes of cereal a year. This is enough in cereal-equivalent terms to feed 50 million people in China. In India, where average consumption is lower, 100 million people could be fed.
Ukraine is so well adapted to farming that it was a world leader in the mid-1880s. It was later the bread-basket of the Soviet Union and, today, it remains a net exporter despite the Communist legacy. But export quotas and other government meddling keep domestic prices artificially low, removing the incentive for farmers to grow more.
On the other side of the world, Argentina shows similar wasted potential. Farming 15 million hectares instead of the current 9 million hectares would generate an additional 30 million tonnes of cereal for export every year. This could feed 30 million people for a year in China, or 60 million in India.
But, here too, production is held back by politics, with Cristina Fernandez’s administration following the lead of previous governments in using every available tactic to keep food cheap, whatever the real cost. In March, export taxes on several foodstuffs were increased, with soybeans, the main export crop, now taxed at 45 percent. Decades of such policies have reduced the amount of land under cultivation since the early 1960s.
The vain pursuit of self-sufficiency has landed many countries in difficulty today, especially those without the vast potential of Argentina or Ukraine.
Nigeria, Senegal and Malawi pursue this mirage, while many of the poorest sub-Saharan countries actually are proudly “self-sufficient” in food. The result is that per capita food consumption is alarmingly low.
Governments want to keep food cheap, yet fail to realize that restricting exports leads farmers to invest less and produce less. Such moves by China, India and Vietnam push up prices for everyone.
Indeed, the response of governments to the food crisis has largely been counter-productive — more than 30 countries introduced export restrictions or outright bans, making food prices soar further. Freeing trade and freeing farmers is the only way to get a good deal for producers and consumers everywhere.
Douglas Southgate is professor of agricultural, environmental and development economics at Ohio State University.
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
Prior to marrying a Taiwanese and moving to Taiwan, a Chinese woman, surnamed Zhang (張), used her elder sister’s identity to deceive Chinese officials and obtain a resident identity card in China. After marrying a Taiwanese, surnamed Chen (陳) and applying to move to Taiwan, Zhang continued to impersonate her sister to obtain a Republic of China ID card. She used the false identity in Taiwan for 18 years. However, a judge ruled that her case does not constitute forgery and acquitted her. Does this mean that — as long as a sibling agrees — people can impersonate others to alter, forge
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS