global food crisis

Aid is not enough to address food price crisis, says Oxfam

World leaders at a UN meeting in Switzerland must go beyond immediate aid to address the root causes of the global food price crisis, said international agency Oxfam today.

"Aid is urgently needed to address the immediate threat to poor people posed by higher food prices but money is not enough. World leaders must take this opportunity to address structural problems such as under-investment in agriculture and unfair trade rules, which are exacerbating the problem," said Celine Charveriat, Oxfam International's Deputy Advocacy Director.
Among those attending the two-day meeting called by UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon, are World Bank president Robert Zoellick and WTO Director General Pascal Lamy, along with the heads of 20 other agencies. Oxfam is calling on them to consider long-term, structural solutions to the crisis and to see it as an opportunity for reform.

High on Oxfam's list of recommendations is an end to current biofuels mandates in rich countries, widely recognized as fuelling price rises and speculation. Experts have predicted that biofuels targets may result in an extra 600m people being hungry by 2025.

Charveriat: "Biofuels are not only a major cause of increasing prices but are also linked to labour rights abuses and land grabs in developing countries. Furthermore, research suggests they may make climate change worse. In this context it is absolute madness to have mandatory targets."

Oxfam also accused rich countries and global institutions of hypocrisy for criticizing poor countries' policy responses, while failing to acknowledge their own culpability.

Charveriat: "The EU, US, and World Bank have criticized developing countries for imposing export bans but they have largely failed to point the finger at themselves. Decades of trade liberalization and dumping have increased poor countries' dependency on food imports and vulnerability to shocks. Export bans may well not be the ideal response, but without coordinated global support they are among the only options poor countries have."

Oxfam is calling for fairer trade rules and increased investment in agriculture in developing countries, focused on small-scale producers and women. Donors should provide support for this and help fund safety nets and social protection schemes for the most vulnerable people.

Oxfam warned that increasingly erratic weather caused in part by climate change would cause further disruption in world food production and undermine poverty reduction in the future, unless dramatic and immediate action was taken.

Charveriat: "Rich countries must step up to the plate on climate change by increasing funding for adaptation and taking immediate action to mitigate against further warming. Now is also the perfect time to reform the global food aid system, which is inefficient and has created dependency in many countries."

Soros quote

In human affairs, as distinguished from natural science, I argue that our understanding is imperfect. And our imperfect understanding introduces an element of uncertainty that's not there in natural phenomena. So therefore you can't predict human affairs in the same way as you can natural phenomena. And we have to come to terms with the implication of our own misunderstandings, that it's very hard to make decisions when you know you may be wrong. You have to learn to recognize that we in fact may be wrong. And, even worse than that, it's almost inevitable that all of our constructs will have some kind of a flaw in them. So when it comes to currencies, no currency system is perfect.

So you have to recognize that all of our constructions are imperfect. We have to improve them. But just because something is imperfect, the opposite is not perfect. So because of the failures of socialism, communism, we have come to believe in market fundamentalism, that markets are perfect; everything will be taken care of by markets. And markets are not perfect. And this time we have to recognize that, because we are facing a very serious economic disruption.

Now, we should not go back to a very highly regulated economy because the regulators are imperfect. They're only human and what is worse, they are bureaucratic. So you have to find the right kind of balance between allowing the markets to do their work, while recognizing that they are imperfect. You need authorities that keep the market under scrutiny and some degree of control. That's the message that I'm trying to get across. --George Soros *

BOOK REVIEW: Philip Bobbitt's Terror and Consent: Rethinking the future on fighting terror

By historian Niall Ferguson

Just as the 14th-century plagues were unintended consequences of increased trade and urbanization, so terrorism is a negative externality of our borderless world.

Maybe we start considering our own consumption practices that impact food costs?

World Bank tackles food emergency

World Bank head Robert Zoellick warned that 100 million people in poor countries could be pushed deeper into poverty by spiralling prices.

The crisis has sparked recent food riots in several countries including Haiti, the Philippines and Egypt

Dean Baker on farm subsidies...

The NYT Takes Back Its Harsh Criticism of Farm Subsidies

Well, they didn't actually acknowledge that they had been wrong, but the NYT today complained that high food prices (partly the result of biofuel subsidies) are having a devastating impact on the developing world. The NYT used to run editorials on a regular basis that complained that farm subsidies "harvest poverty" in the developing world.

Okay, here's the problem. Subsides lower prices. Let's say that again (I know it seems simple, but many highly credentialed people get it wrong), subsidies lower prices. The farm subsidies that the NYT harshly condemns lead to lower worldwide food prices.

The NYT can complain about high food prices leading to hunger for people who can't afford food. It can also complain about low food prices stifling agricultural development in poor countries. But, it cannot complain about both high and low food prices and expect anyone to take its views seriously.

The reality is that rich country agricultural subsidies have a mixed impact on the developing world. Their elimination would benefit producers and provide a net benefit to some countries, but this would not be the boon the NYT, along with the World Bank and some NGOs, implied. It would be a great step forward if this issue could be discussed more seriously in the future.