Thoughts on food aid

Development requires fresh thinking. Throwing money at tried and failed programs is as deplorable as inaction. But new doesn't necessarily mean good.

Cash distribution is something that has been floating around among young(ish), forward thinking development scholars and practitioners for a while. Owen Barder makes the case:

American legislation requires that food aid be bought in the US, that  50 percent of commodities be processed and packed in the US before shipment, and that 75 percent of food aid managed by USAID and 50 percent of the food aid managed by the US Department of Agriculture be transported in “flag-carrying” US-registered vessels. The result is that only 40% of money spent on food aid by the US actually goes towards buying food; the rest goes to US transport companies. Buying the food locally would be better, but best of all might be something even more radical.  Why not give the money itself to people who are hungry?

Not a bad idea, but keep in mind that most countries that really, really need international food aid are often not open to the help: Burma after last year's Cyclone Nargis, Zimbabwe for the past 29 years, North Korea - the list goes on. De-tying food aid from American agricultural producers is a noble cause and a good idea, but that doesn't mean direct cash aid is its' logical, or even possible, conclusion.

Feeding humanity

* Posts on agriculture represent my personal opinions on the subject.*

Yesterday, Rory made an important observation: the global food crisis isn’t over. Indeed, many of the long-term changes in global food supply and demand haven’t changed since last year’s price spikes. And as the world’s population continues to grow, finding a way to feed everyone will become an increasingly central challenge for humanity.

When it comes to the feasibility of significantly increased food production, I am no Malthusian. The great promise of genetically-modified crops, combined with current low levels of agricultural productivity in most of the developed world, suggest that current yields can be substantially increased. To this end, we should support programs that aim to increase productivity in the developing world through better rural infrastructure, mechanization of agriculture, increased fertilizer use, seed pilot programs, etc. We should also encourage biotechnology research and development in rich countries.

However, agricultural land, like any natural resource, is distributed unevenly. Some countries are better positioned to grow food than others. Because of this, we need to advocate strongly for total liberalization of international agricultural trade. This is the only way to ensure that every country, including those with poor resource endowments, has equal access to market-priced agricultural staples. Let’s not forget that a significant trigger of global food price spikes were temporary export controls enacted by major wheat and rice exporting countries. Improve agricultural productivity wherever possible and work simultaneously toward agricultural free trade.

But agricultural trade liberalization would require an unprecedented degree of global policy cooperation. I am particularly worried that the economic crisis will actually result in a breakdown of international cooperation, which could herald a significant domestic retrenchment of politics. History shows us that globalization is hardly the natural state of international affairs. However, some of the most dangerous problems that humanity faces, like climate change and food security, will require global solutions. If we can’t find a way to cooperate, our shared future will be bleak.

What are the consequences of farming abroad?

*As with any writing that pertains to trade and agricultural issues, I would like to note explicitly that this post represents solely my own opinions.*

A couple weeks ago, there was a fascinating story about the South Korean corporation Daewoo leasing land in Madagascar for the purpose of farming. This is especially notable because it is the latest in a series of land deals, whereby rich countries with limited agricultural production capacity are acquiring land in the developing world for the purpose of growing food to ship back home. A number of Middle Eastern countries have made similar arrangements in Africa, particularly Sudan, and China has been actively pursuing land deals in Brazil.

The scope of this deal is particularly staggering: if it is finalized, Daewoo would acquire a 99-year lease on 1.3 million hectares (half the size of Belgium) for no money, but Madagascar would presumably benefit from increased employment and rural development. I suspect the potential gains are highly skewed toward Daewoo, though I don’t want to fault a sovereign government for negotiating a deal presumably in its best interests.

However, I’m interested in the larger implications of this ‘farming abroad’ trend. In my mind, it’s inherently a sensitive issue because it involves food, which we all consume. Necessarily, agricultural investment will be more controversial and visible than, say, a sovereign wealth fund acquiring a stake in a foreign bank. The countries that are seeking these deals need to be very careful to avoid looking like imperialists, and there certainly needs to be a careful balance between how much food is exported and how well the domestic market is served. I wouldn’t bet on these contracts being honored very long if there were food shortages in the host country. How does any government allow food to be exported if locals are starving without full-throated international condemnation and vicious domestic civil unrest? My point is, land lease contracts ought to be managed with the utmost care to balance public relations and, more importantly, ethical concerns. A contract that looks skewed toward the foreign party is in neither side’s interests, in my mind.

Second, the lesson which these countries appear to have gleaned from the food crisis earlier this year is that self-sufficiency is the best option. If we follow this thinking to its logical conclusion, we risk severe resource-driven competition and conflict, especially as the world population continues to expand. For humanity to secure its food future, we absolutely need free and non-distorted agricultural trade at the multilateral level. That countries are drawing the opposite conclusion and adopting what I would describe as “beggar-thy-neighbor” food policies is troubling, to say the least.

(Photo from Quack A Duck's photostream)

The buck stops where?

The Times reported yesterday on the latest announcement in Raul Castro's string of changes to Cuba's stagnant economic structure.

The most recent aspect of his shift from the socialism of his elder brother allows farmers access to government land to privately farm up to 99 acres. More so than the bureaucratic fat-trimming he promised when he took office, the new policy reflects a substantive shift away from outdated ideology, ill-advised borrowing, and staggering inefficiency.

The successes of China and the domestic and international umbrage towards Chavez may have awakened Raul that he needs to move beyond his brother's policies. His attempts to revitalize the economy and allow for private enterprise are a step in the right direction. It's a wise move for his political stature and the fate of his countrymen.

We should not get too excited as the government will still own the land and political freedoms are still woefully inadequate. We can only hope that with economic liberalization, political space will soon open up. I'll leave you with a quote from Raul struck me as quite insightful to the state of Cuba and his vision.

“Socialism means social justice and equality, but equality of rights, of opportunities, not of income...equality is not egalitarianism.”