On October 16 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization celebrates World Food Day – and this year’s theme is “The Right to Food”. As well meaning as this campaign may be, it ignores the real reasons why the majority of farmers in developing countries are poor. In order to set out a better way for agriculture and development, The Sustainable Development Network is releasing a list of the worst myths which afflict the debate, two of which are below:
1. Myth: A country must produce its own food in order to feed itself in times of difficulty.
Reality: Markets and the freedom to trade are the best ways to improve food security and to reduce the cost of food. Trade means that resources are used more efficiently in each place – countries like Hong Kong, who cannot grow food, use their labour, capital, and knowledge to produce other goods and trade. On the other hand, many Sub-Saharan countries are nearing self-sufficiency – but hunger and poverty remain high.
The World Bank estimates that global free trade would add $287 billion to world income each year, half of that accruing in poor countries. Much of this would come from agriculture. Access to markets would allow poor farmers to generate income for themselves and their families, making it more likely for them to escape subsistence farming and poverty.
2. Myth: Wealthy countries should eliminate subsidies and trade barriers, but developing countries should not
Reality: Agricultural subsidies and regulations hurt the poorest farmers and consumers, while benefiting the elite – in rich and poor countries alike. As subsidized farmers in wealthy countries overproduce commodity crops like sugar and dump the surplus on world markets, prices are driven down – to the ultimate detriment of farmers in poor countries.
Moreover, around 70% of tariffs paid by developing countries are actually paid to other developing countries. This makes food difficult to obtain and artificially expensive.
Douglas Southgate, an agricultural economist at Ohio State University, commented:
“Governments need to get out of the way, cut restrictive tariffs, and remove state marketing boards, to allow businesses to work — because people are perfectly capable of feeding themselves, if only they were allowed to.”
For more myths and realities about agriculture, read:
“Agriculture and Poverty- Myths and Realities”, by the Sustainable Development Network– available for download at http://www.sdnetwork.net/files/pdf/Agriculture_and_Poverty.pdf
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The reason that food doesn’t get to some countries is because the means of distribution are inadequate.
I would have to agree with the Sustainable Development Network.
To summarise:
1 Free global trade in food would increase food security and decrease the cost of food.
2 All subsidies and trade barriers increase the cost of food, and hurt the poor the most.
3 Free trade in agriculture would eliminate unfair competion and allow poor farmers to exploit their “comparative advantage” in that they can produce food more cheaply than richer countries.
4 Farmers should be allowed to accept or reject modern agricultural technologies as they wish.
Imagine for a moment that you are the prime minister of Japan.
You have been convinced to dispense with the agricultural support subsidies that have kept so many uneconomic farmers in business for so long.
The japanese agricultural industry collapses immediately, food imports from Australia flood the market, and food prices plummet. Things are great.
Agricultural land is quickly sold for other activities, theme parks, manufacturing, residential.
Then, one day, a submarine from hostile North Korea sinks an Australian freighter carrying food to japan.
Australian seamen refuse to man any ship headed fro japan for fear of their lives. All other shipping does the same.
Where do you get the food necessary to feed your people. You have 15 days to solve the problem, this being the amount of food product held in reserve.
Maybe you now regret removing the agricultural subsidies, and you realise that foregoing national food security is a matter of national life or death. Too late. You sign a memorandum of surrender to North Korea.
PP
You have some assumptions in that extreme case – the classic argument for food security. Can Japan feed itself? Or does it trade for the extras?
Near other extreme is the current case. Third world countries with agriculture, means of trade, and opportunity to lift (trade)themselves out of poverty hampered by developed world regimes of subsidies and tarrifs.
So do we keep the agricultural subsidies and tarrifs, and dump the resulting surpluses on the third world as “aid”? Crashing local markets and further impoverishing local farmers?