|
Global economic turbulences have
turned debates back to the basics. Systemic
fundamentals are being tested with forces of
reorientation, and what used to be exclusive talk in
expert corners is now ending up in parliaments and
public gatherings.
News anchors across the world are
acting as part-time economists with tolerable but
sometimes annoying mistakes in analysing economic
crises. It is as if the global ship is sailing
through turbulent waters and all the passengers are
looking for solutions to stabilise its journey.
One such effort of discussing global
food price volatility was an event organised last
week by the Technical Centre for Agricultural and
Rural Cooperation (CTA) located in Brussels,
Belgium. By bringing global agricultural experts
under one roof, for a day, to discuss the
increasingly variable global food prices, the
discussion aimed to create a consensus about causes
of the imminent problems of the global belly.
Situated at the heart of the
shattering eurozone, the CTA feeds global
policymaking with a closer look at agricultural
issues that often gets overlooked by European
bigwigs with Nostradum suits. In dealing with the
issues of price volatility, the latest Brussels
Development Briefings were led by marginal
interests.
Urbanites crave lower prices, while
farmers wish for higher returns. Politicians want
the deal settled peacefully, whereas academicians
wish to reduce the cost of the transactions. As
often is the case, however, the many dancers do not
dance in harmony and the floor gets chaotic.
As it appears, the global debate on
agriculture is deprived of the valour of practical
experience. As a renowned expert puts it, the system
is structurally biased towards transitory interests
with agriculture receiving little of the public
financial steam. Even when it comes, it overburdens
weak institutions that channel it for easy
decisions, such as ordering massive import
consignments, rather than reorienting the basics of
investment.
With over 70pc of household incomes
directed at buying food, the talk of the briefings
is no longer distant from domestic headlines. It
embraces the worries of the emerging African
middleclass, the marginalised poor, the insecure
rich, and whoever else does not fall into these
categories. Issues of stabilising the food supply
for the ever-expanding global belly, which has seven
billion sub-bellies to feed, feels so familial that
the voices at Brussels could rightly be heard in
Addis Abeba.
Increasing food prices is the daily
reality of urbanites, with no foreseeable structural
solution other than increasing supply.
Surely, the Ethiopian government has
remained so very devoted to agricultural development
that a salient transformation is happening. Yet,
productivity has remained so low that the return on
investment is yet to materialise.
Experts agree that enhancing
productivity is no singular objective. It rather
demands a comprehensive approach of redressing
climate change, food market instabilities, financial
sector functions, and urban-rural linkages.
Sure, it all looks rosy in the
blueprints. It is not unreachable, either, as
countries, such as Ghana and Ethiopia, have
evidenced.
Away from the usual tune of export
earnings, however, the recent briefings have
introduced concrete evidence the reoccurring price
volatilities after the global food crisis of 2008.
Global food markets went bust so abruptly that the
poor were left in the margins of global crisis
stocks. Public investment regimes were left exposed,
so much so that it came to be known that they were
swimming naked.
For African farmers, the bust was a
rare opportunity to witness the real prices of their
produce. It was a reminder of the sheer size of
structural bias in the sector, within which they
were losing.
In contrast, urbanites understood
that they did not have a reliable buffer to sail
through these kinds of shocks. It was shocking for
investors that an immediate revival of agricultural
investment from Middle East and Asia flocked to
African countries, not to mention Ethiopia.
As responsive as the change was, it
could not be sustained, experts proclaim. Indeed, it
required cool heads that could think above the reach
of the waves. Yet, all available voices were highly
concentrated, vehemently partisan, poorly informed,
and problem-oriented.
Even after three years, systemic
stability is so distant that global policymaking
fights the very fire of 2008. Inflationary spirals
have continued to send shocks into the spines of
public investment regimes, household budgets, and
farmers’ investments.
Increasing input prices are
worsening the situations of poor countries.
The widening mismatch between demand
and supply of food underlies the spiralling
inflation of food items. Certainly, it is on the
supply side of the equation that tangible policy
actions could be taken. But, it all takes time.
Creating a responsive global food
supply calls for enhancing agricultural
productivity, experts agreed at the briefings.
Uncertain is the question of how many delegates will
take the assignment home to effectively lobby for
concrete policy actions. But, at least, the CTA
serves the purpose at the European capital.
Closer, to home the governmental
plan envisions doubling agricultural production by
2015. Huge efforts of farmer mobilisation are going
on, with local government officials directly engaged
in the monitoring and evaluation of progress. With
the past year spent on preparation, a lot is
expected in the years to come. Eventually, inflation
stays in the kitchen.
Although no easy answer might be
availed for the issue of price volatility,
gatherings such as the one organised by the CTA, are
essential to ring the alarm bell calling for
harmonious policy action.
After all, is harmony not also
volatile?
|
