Martin Schmid

Date : 09 avril 2010, 08:33

I agree with the approach of local food procurement presented by Josette Sheeran in cases where local producers are able to supply the required food. Moreover, it is important to avoid that the local population not dependent on aid is hit too hard by a high rise of local prices, what might be a consequence of the higher demand caused by local food procurement by aid actors. In every case, one has to be very careful to find the right market balance in order to avoid negative side effects.

Generally, the concept of local food procurement should not only be applied in the context of “Food for the Hungry”, but also in the context of “Food for the Full”. In times when climate and environment policies have become an important part of development policy, it is hypocritical to grow beef for the industrialised countries when millions of acres of South American rain forest are destroyed every year for pastures but also for the soy production to feed the cattle.
The local population in these producing countries like Brazil makes little profit from this kind of outsourcing of Western meat production, but the consequences for the local and global ecosystem are devastating.
In addition to the destruction of precious, irreplaceable rain forest, the meat has to be transported thousands of kilometres to meet its consumer. Thus, the amount of CO2 for each kilo of “outsourced” beef multiplies.
This comment may seem rather losely connected to the main comment, but Brazil is an example of a very unsustainable food industry exporting to industrialised countries, although some part of its own population is not sufficiently supplied with food. One could reduce this problem by focusing on a less export-orientated, more sustainable agricultural sector.
This comment is not meant to oppose all kind of food exports, since many countries rely on them, but the production of the exported food has to be more sustainable. Otherwise, it would be just a “flash in the pan” and the food production would decline again after the total destruction of the rain forest. Many of the poor people do not benefit from the export of food, but they have to bear the negative consequences resulting from a destroyed environment.

Folayemi

Date : 20 octobre 2008, 18:57

Is there a list of the African countries that WFP "Purchase for Progress" is targeted at?

Phillip Huggan

Date : 30 juin 2008, 22:32

I'm presently looking into how farm policy is passed and a nation-by-nation assessment of policies relating to individual crops.
I think the general strategy to initiating a holistic agriculture framework should focus upon lessening consumption of developed world corn syrup, unhealthy oils (ie. all except sunflower and canola I think), sugar, red meats where feed is grown on land with other potential uses (alfalfa on marginal land okay, corn/barkey feed not okay), barley...and I think developing world production should be decreased for all crops where rainforests are harmed.
I'd increase consumption of fruits and vegetables in the developed world, and grains for food, especailly highly storable wheat, in the developing world.
In all cases should tobacco and ethanol (unless a complete energy lifecycle accounting is first undertaken) production be decreased.
In all cases should honey and beeswax be subsidized. Bees pollinate 10x as much crop value as is their industry capitalized. This is probably the lowest hanging fruit.
Of particular importance are the policies of China and the USA, both exporters of more than 10% world production of food.
Rather than reducing first world subsidies, I'd like to see the developed world allocate a small portion of their subsidies to subsidize their competitors in the third world. IDK the optimal ratio, but maybe something like a 60% European subsidy would see the EU subsidize the 3rd world at a 6% rate. A 40% Canadian subsidy would see the 3rd world subsidy be at 4%. Merely removing subsidies would raise commodity prices and harm developing world farm labourers and urban poor.
Be nice to research a crop that contains all 8 amino acids. Also, urban greenhouses are the way of the future and this research should be promoted. Especially since fruits and veggies tend to grow in warm coastal humid climates and I'd think global warming induced rainfall and temperature variations would harm fruit yields particularly hard.
The EU should probably allow GMOs where the gene traits are greater insect tolerance, drought tolerance, etc. Maybe assign a ladder of GMO importance and delay less important traits while waiting for further research to determine the odds of crops turning into weeds or nutritional harms and other frankenfruit issues. Having the ability to rapidly transition back to pre-GMO agriculture might address GMO fears.
It might make sense to index an agri-company (machinery, seeds and fertilizer) R+D (or even corporate) tax credit inversely to a food inflation rate index. When food prices rise you want Monsanto and Potash to output more stuff. If GMO producers would fast-track desirable gene traits, maybe they could be excempted from some future environmental damage liability.

Phillip Huggan

Date : 22 mai 2008, 22:17

My advice to participants of the FAO's June 3-5 High-Level Conference of World Food Security:

1) Scrap all biofuel ethanol subsidies and redirect them towards wheat production (maybe also other protein-rich crops intended for direct human consumption).
2) Taxes/tarriffs on hogs and beef cattle where both the source and consumption are 1st world nations, with the proceeds redistributed in a way that sustainably assists 3rd world farmers (such as the FAO's IFSP and all of CGIAR's activities).

i) All the recent papers exposing the craponomics of ethanol from maize (and all other crops) are correct. The USA is spending about $4.5 billion/yr in subsidies that are costing her energy consumers $7 billion/yr, given a complete energy life-cycle analysis. I suggest transferring subsidies rather than eliminating them, because it eliminates much (not all) political lobbying pressure that may otherwise extend the subsidies indefinitely.
I suggest wheat as the new subsidy target, because it is the grain with the longest shelf-life. A glut of wheat on the market would stimulate the construction of more grain elevator storage capacity. In addition, wheat is generally not utilized as feed. A recent increase in meat consumption in China is part of the reason for recent agri-commodity price rises. By subsidizing a crop used for direct human consumption, the former inflationary effect is mitigated somewhat. If the externality of health and nutrition is considered, it might also make sense to redirect some of the ethanol subsidies to protein-rich crops as well as wheat. I wouldn't suggest subsidizing oats or any other crop widely used for animal feed, despite the high protein content. Perhaps beans and lentils.

ii) The first world primarily suffers from obesity related consumption maladies like diabetes and heart disease, not malnutrition and starvation. I'm not sure, but I think it would save healthcare dollars in the 1st world by increasing the price of red meats. This despite such a policy harming relatively poor 1st world red meat consumers such as myself. In addition, there are many negative environmental externalities implicit in operating a large hog farm.
Hog and beef exports from 1st world nations to other 1st world nations, or more powerfully, all hog/beef consumption in 1st world nations where the point of origin is another 1st world nation, could be taxed/tarriffed. The revenue could be directed towards 3rd world farmers in a way that insures sustainable farming practises. IDK what all of these would be; the construction of a agriculture commodity futures exchange in Ethiopia, drip irrigation, education of farm diversification towards labour intensive high value crops like peppers...the goal is to not retard the growth of a domestic 3rd world farm supply chain. I don't suggest eliminating 1st world food subsidies as this would increase prices for 3rd world poor non-farmers. Rather, I think the process should be to give 3rd world farmers about the level of subsidy 1st world farmers enjoy.

In general, we were closer to a solution a few years ago when food prices were low. All that was missing was income subsidies to 3rd world farmers. I don't know if the financial institutions (microfinance) to directly subsidize 3rd world farmers for the most part exist or if they must be created. We must work backwards now and deconstruct (literally, ethanol conversion factories) the actions that are increasing food prices. Most types of agriculture R+D should be better funded, especially bioengineering more resiliant and storable crop varieties. As agri-commodities move in concert with oil (a 0.6 correlation), perhaps a multilateral hedge fund could be set up to stabilize income for 3rd world farmers; some of the revenues from suggestion #2 could be used to speculate on long petroleum contract positions as grain prices rise (this could be risky as new factors could eleiminate the 0.6 correlation)? Simpler insurance schemes might be available.

Kayzad Namdarian

Date : 17 mai 2008, 08:24

Josette,

If the WFP gets every single dollar it desires for Food Aid, and more, does it currently potentially have the capacity, and reach, to end all deaths associated with starvation?

CHE THUY NHU

Date : 12 mai 2008, 09:44

I read all realated with article .
I agree that the locally procurement allow reduce the cost for transport and shortage .
Also the food is appropried with eating habit .
People need to learn the rules of procurement .
The local law system should be clear .
Reserve system Vietnam have locally procurement .
This system keep foods , medicine , vacxin for urgent situation .
Thank you Che Thuy Nhu -Danang

Phillip Huggan

Date : 10 mai 2008, 18:21

A tax-cut or subsidy for food consumption whose point of food origin (farm) is one-day travel distance from the consumer?
Don't wanna get carried away with the low-footprint concept as many 1st world consumers are applying political pressure to limit to food exports.
Life cycle analysis of oil costs in food is what is trying to be estimated and costed here.

Rob Brazier

Date : 10 mai 2008, 01:17

I recently learned that many of the oil rich countries in the middle do not contribute to the WFP. The USA by far gives more than any other country and we are criticized about everything while countries like these are given a pass.