The 36th meeting of the FAO’s Committee on Food Security (CFS) concluded in archetypal UN fashion: one and a half hours of apparently aimless milling about followed by a call to order, a ten minute exchange during which it becomes clear that the milling about was actually about last – very last – minute negotiations, and, finally, adoption of the report by acclamation. So ended the first meeting of a revamped piece of the UN system — a small but fascinating piece.
Why fascinating? Because last year governments agreed to a major overhaul of the way the committee works, and to give the committee a pre-eminent role in the coordination of UN food security policy. The FAO, World Food Programme (WFP) and the International Fund for Agriculture and Development (IFAD) jointly run the CFS. There are several new mechanisms alongside, including one defining a Civil Society Mechanism to ensure adequate and accountable participation from the non-governmental sector writ large, and a recently constituted High Level Panel of Experts (yes, another acronym: HLPE) that will be commissioned by the CFS to write reports and more generally to provide the benefit of independent advice and thinking.
One of the encouraging signs out this past week of meetings in Rome was the attention given to the question of agricultural price volatility. Somewhat buried in a catch-all of an agenda that included climate change and vulnerable populations, price volatility was a component of the third of three roundtables organized by the CFS this past week. The World Food Program was responsible for finalizing the background paper, and for organizing the roundtable itself. FAO then organized a side-event on the topic, to which I was invited to speak about food reserves.
It is not a time to be complacent. As former IFPRI-Director General, Joachim von Braun, warned in an August op-ed in the Financial Times, “Some lessons have been learned from 2008, but too little has been done to prevent future crises. In particular the malfunctioning of world grain markets has not been addressed – a failure now haunting world markets.” As first wheat and then maize prices have gone into price panic in recent weeks, it is obvious governments have moved all too slowly to put in place the mechanisms needed to better anticipate potential crises, to limit the damage they might cause, and to tackle the structural causes of the volatility itself.
FAO staff are not of one mind on grain reserves, either on their usefulness or the likelihood of the tool actually working. But on balance, it is fair to say many are skeptical. Not as hostile as some governments (e.g. the U.S.) and not as welcoming as others (e.g. France). Given the mixed experiences countries have had, this is hardly surprising. But in an age when volatility is again on the rise, and when many analysts, from many different parts of the political, geographical and economic spectrum, are agreed that production is only going to get less predictable, it was good to have a platform from which to address an audience of government officials, civil society representatives and a few staff from different intergovernmental agencies on the subject. Note that support for reserves in some form is coming from both the think tanks (notably IFPRI) and some of the widely read economic press, such as the Economist and the Financial Times.
In brief, the argument for grain reserves is premised on the observable fact that food markets are characterised by relatively fixed demand and uncertain supply, at least in the short-term. Variations in successive harvests, as well as in yields region by region, have led governments to use reserves as a way to even out supply for thousands of years. Indeed, most governments have some kind of food reserve in their purview, although nothing like to the extent that was true thirty years ago.
Keep advertising-free journalism alive! Please support Truthout today.
Trade, too, is invaluable to most countries’ food security, and has been used by many societies as a way to enhance domestic supply for centuries. But the 2007-2008 food price crisis highlighted the limits of trade. Global trade, like local production, has its own versions of supply shocks and resulting volatility. Meanwhile, many of the exporters that had been pushing at the WTO to reduce all barriers to trade, and to insist that the realization of food security required only that countries have access to their surpluses, imposed export restrictions. Few of these restrictions lasted long, but the message they sent was unmistakeable: when push comes to shove, our domestic needs will come first. The importing countries, many of them, heard the message.
Most recently, on October 19 ASEAN members agreed to put in place a revamp of their emergency rice reserve mechanism. In December, the governments of West Africa will meet to discuss how to create a regional emergency reserve from the existing national reserves in the region. As hosts of next year’s G20 summit on agriculture, France has put volatility at the centre of the agenda for the meeting.
At the same time, IFPRI is proposing a relatively small, globally managed reserve to be called upon in emergency situations. They suggest the World Food Programme should host the reserve, an idea not without merit, because WFP is a major grain buyer and distributor and therefore has considerable operational experience, as well as a need for grain that could ensure the reserve was properly turned over, avoiding waste. WFP has yet to respond to the proposal in any kind of formal way.
Of course, excessive volatility cannot be resolved through reserves alone. The reform of financial markets, discussed elsewhere on this blog, will be critically important, as will a host of measures that might best be summarized as investment (both public and private) in the storage, processing and distribution of agricultural commodities and food. When the High Level Panel of Experts established by the CFS turn their attention to the writing of a paper on the issue, they will want to touch on a number of these policy interventions. But here’s hoping they give reserves the attention they deserve. Long disregarded by most economists, and therefore by too many governments as well, reserves continue to offer a useful tool for agricultural development and food security. With today’s communication and transportation technologies, the potential to build a truly functioning reserve system has been enhanced. Add an arms-length institution, with proper oversight but independent of the ruling party and properly trained and paid staff, and governments will find themselves equipped with a powerful tool to protect and promote the right to food. Here is hoping the CFS can push this debate along, moving those governments with a will for change to act before the next crisis hits.
Sophia Murphy is a senior advisor to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) on trade, food security and global governance issues.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.