How Are Countries Responding to the Global Food Crisis?

By Getachew Mequanent

This piece continues our discussion on the current global food crisis (Good job Tangible Assefa, aigaforum.com). One World Bank document provides a list of 59 countries affected by food crisis, of which 21 are in Sub-Saharan Africa, 3 in East Asia and Pacific, 13 in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, 9 in Latin America, 4 in the Middle East (including North Africa) and 8 in South Asia (http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/foodprices/, see Country Policies). The Bank indicates that this is a partial list of countries, which may mean that there are more countries affected by food crisis.

The Bank identifies eight policies and programs supported by these countries to cope with the food crisis. The data is generic and presented in table format. A footnote indicates that information on some countries is incomplete.

The policies are: 1) reduction in taxes on food grains, 2) increasing food supply using food grain reserves, 3) restriction of exports of food crops and 4) imposing price controls and creating subsidy programs. Hence, out of the 59 countries,

-33 countries have reduced tax on food grains;

-18 countries have increased food supply using their reserves;

-18 countries have imposed export restrictions;

-29 countries have imposed price controls and created subsidy programs;

The Bank notes (in a footnote) that while tax reductions are “consistent with longer run policies to improve food security”, the other three policies could create problems for achieving long-term food security. In my understanding, the Bank is telling governments not to interfere too much in the operations of the market.

The programs are: 1) “cash transfer”, 2) “food for work”, 3) “food ration/stamps”; and “4) school feeding”. Hence, out of the 59 countries,

-17 countries have transferred cash;

-14 countries have food for work programs;

-12 countries have rationed food; and

-21 countries have school feeding programs.

As we can see, not all countries have responded the same ways. Therefore, we need to find out how countries, as a group, have supported most, some or a few of the policy and program measures outlined above. Thus, one country (Pakistan) has supported seven out of the eight policy and program measures identified by the Bank. For example, Pakistan has reduced taxes, increased food supply, restricted exports, controlled prices, transferred cash, rationed food and has school feeding programs. Five countries (Sri Lanka, Niger, China, India and Bangladesh) supported a mix of six policies and programs outlined above, another five countries (Burundi, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Bhutan and Maldives) supported five policies and programs, seven countries supported four policies and programs, eight countries supported three policies and programs, 20 countries supported two policies and programs, 11 countries supported only one policy or program, and finally, 2 countries have done nothing (Nigeria and Uganda).

One has to consider country-specific contexts which influence policy and program choices. For example, the Pakistani government might have recognized the political implications of food crisis, since opposition forces that exist outside of the mainstream political arena (e.g., Islamic groups) can exploit the situation to gain a political high ground.

The Ethiopian government did not control prices, ration food and provide support for school feeding programs. This then makes Ethiopia among the 33 countries that reduced taxes, 18 countries that increased food supply, 18 countries that imposed export restrictions, 17 countries that transferred cash and among the 14 countries that created food for work programs. We can’t say anything here about the long-term impact of these policies and programs (there are complex issues), but we can commend the Ethiopian government for taking swift actions to address the current food crisis. However, long-term solutions are necessary. The government might have overlooked the capacity constraints of small highland producers of food crops, such as recurrent droughts, land shortages and land degradation, which limit crop yields; they just couldn’t produce enough to feed 80 million people. Food security should be identified as a national security issue requiring active and sustained government support.

Getachew Mequanent

May 2008