World Agriculture
Developments, trade, data, and topics in world agriculture
-
The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2013《2013 the State of Food Insecurity in the World presents the latest estimates of undernourishment and progress towards the Millennium Development Goals and World Food Summit hunger-related targets. The latest assessment results show that we have made new progress in achieving the 2015 Millennium Development Goals. Developing regions as a whole are on track to achieve this goal, but there are still huge differences between regions, and we need to increase our efforts immediately. More efforts. The purpose of the 2013 report is not only to measure food insecurity, but also to propose a set of indicators intended to reflect the multidimensional nature of food insecurity, its determinants and consequences. A comprehensive set of data will be developed for each country based on this set of indicators to provide a more detailed picture of the food security situation in each country and to guide policymakers in the design and implementation of targeted and effective policy measures to contribute to the eradication of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition. The report also provides a detailed analysis of the different experiences of six countries, based on a set of indicators, which gives us a picture of the intersection of progress and setbacks. The experiences of these countries have shown us together the importance of social protection and nutrition-enhancing interventions, policies to increase agricultural productivity and promote rural development, diversification of sources of income, and relentless mainstreaming of food security and nutrition into public policies and programmes. Key points of the report · 2011-13 during the year, global estimates of total8.42 hundreds of millions of people, more than 1/8 of the world's population, suffer from chronic hunger and lack access to adequate food for an active life. This figure is down from the 2010-12 0.868 billion. The total number of undernourished people has fallen by 17 per cent since 1990-92. · developing regions as a whole are on track to achieve the Millennium Development Goals on hunger1 great progress has been made in this regard. If the average annual rate of decline over the past 21 years is sustained until 2015, the incidence of undernourishment will fall very close to this target. If this goal is to be achieved, more efforts and actions must be taken immediately. · growth helps to raise incomes and reduce poverty, but higher rates of economic growth are not guaranteed to benefit all, there is no guarantee that more and better jobs will be created for all, unless policies explicitly target the poor, especially the rural poor. In poor countries, the only way to alleviate hunger and poverty is to achieve sustained and beneficial growth. · despite the overall progress that has been made, there are still significant differences between regions. Sub-Saharan Africa remains the region with the highest incidence of undernourishment, with little progress in recent years. West Asia has made no progress, while South Asia and North Africa have made slow progress. Most countries in East and South-East Asia and Latin America have shown significant declines in both the estimated number and incidence of undernourishment. · food security is a complex state. It contains multiple dimensions-availability, access, utilization, and stability-that can be better understood through a range of indicators. · inadequate food and inadequate nutrition can go hand in hand. However, in some countries, the prevalence of undernutrition (expressed as the proportion of stunted children) is much higher than the prevalence of undernourishment (expressed as the lack of dietary energy availability). In these countries, nutrition-enhancing interventions play a critical role in improving nutrition in food security. Improvements require a range of food security and nutrition-enhancing interventions in agriculture, health, sanitation, water supply and education, particularly targeting women. · policies aimed at increasing agricultural productivity and food availability, especially those targeting small farmers, contribute to poverty reduction, even when poverty is widespread. When these policies are combined with social protection and other measures that can increase the income of poor households for food, they can generate dynamic markets and create employment opportunities, resulting in more positive results, promoting rural development and achieving equitable economic growth. · globally, remittances are three times larger than ODA and have a significant impact on poverty and food security. The report argues that remittances help to reduce poverty, thereby reducing hunger, improving diets and, when matched by sound policies, increasing investment on farms. · persistently mainstreaming food security and nutrition into public policies and programmes is a key to achieving poverty reduction. Food security and agriculture should be placed at the top of the development agenda through comprehensive implementation of reforms, an improved investment climate, and sustained social protection, which are essential to significantly reduce poverty and undernourishment. http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/zh/ man of Feeding
-
Food demand leads to destruction: why feeding 1.3 billion Chinese will starve the rest of the worldAppetite for Destruction Why feeding China's 1.3 billion people could leave the rest of the world hungry. BY DAMIEN MA, WILLIAM ADAMS | OCTOBER 1, 2013 On Aug. 20, the Australian mining giant BHP Billiton announced that it will pump nearly $3 billion into developing a deposit of Canadian potash, a mineral used in the manufacture of fertilizer destined for farms fields across the world. And in late September, Chinese pork producer Shuanghui officially purchased Smithfield Foods in the largest Chinese acquisition ever made in the United States. The companies' investments are both decisions that speak to a vote of confidence in global food consumption growth over the next decade -- and nowhere will bellies be filling up faster than in China. For three decades, resource-intensive manufacturing fueled China's spectacular economic rise. By 2012, the country was consuming nearly half of the world's coal and producing 46 percent of its steel, 43 percent of its aluminum, and about 60 percent of its cement. The Chinese economy has slowed in 2013 in part because of the government's recognition that such a resource-intensive growth model has become unsustainable. As a result, Beijing is trying to rebalance away from exports and investments and toward domestic consumption. Companies like BHP Billiton are betting that China's rebalancing will spur rapid growth in demand for food and the inputs needed to produce it. The underlying economic logic -- China as demand driver -- is the same, but it reflects the resource scarcity that is starting to replace maintenance of rapid growth as China's foremost economic challenge. An ironic legacy of economic success, China's resource scarcity is worsening as its GDP grows, incomes rise, and standards of living improve, placing new, daunting pressures on the domestic food supply. This is not necessarily because the Chinese agricultural industry is underperforming. The sector has long faced a daunting task: filling the stomachs of 20 percent of humanity with just 8 percent of the world's arable land and only about 30 percent of world's per capita availability of fresh water. But the task is further complicated by Beijing's grain security policy which insists on near self-sufficiency of production in spite of a scarce resource base, preventing imports from playing the same role as domestically produced food. Beijing's food security policy is an uncharacteristically impractical choice from a usually pragmatic government. It is motivated by the psychological legacy of repeated, disastrous famines that scarred the Chinese public over the last 150 years, the most recent being the policy-induced famine during the Great Leap Forward that led to tens of millions of deaths in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Food is central to the national mindset, especially for the many Chinese alive today who have personally experienced crippling scarcity. Food became more plentiful in the decades following Mao Zedong's death in 1976, when the Chinese government adopted liberal agricultural policies that allowed farmers to sell their products into the market. Called the "household responsibility system," this reform, as well as sustained investments in agricultural sciences and technology, prevented China from descending into the Malthusian nightmare of finite resources outstripped by exploding population growth that seemed to threaten the developing world in the 1970s. Since the early 1980s, China has been able to produce most of the meat needed for domestic consumption; the government also maintains a strategic pork reserve that it occasionally taps to lower pork prices. Over the last few years, the Chinese government has even achieved its goal of near self-sufficiency in rice, wheat, and other staple grains that form the basis of the Chinese diet. But the growth of China's food consumption is now threatening to undermine these achievements. The meat of the matter is, well, meat: Diets are being transformed by rising affluence and a cultural fixation that correlates carnivorousness with class status. Other formerly impoverished countries have seen their meat consumption rise alongside their GDP. But in China, it is progressing much faster than experts once expected. In 2000, agricultural economists, including former World Bank chief economist Justin Yifu Lin, predicted that China's per capita meat consumption would rise by over 50 percent in 20 years. Thirteen years into their forecast horizon, China's per capita consumption has already risen by more than 150 percent. Total annual meat consumption in China reached 80 million tons in 2012 -- equivalent to 115 pounds a person. That total is double that of the United States, though the average Chinese person still eats only about half as much meat as an average American. Members of China's middle class -- estimated at roughly 10 percent of the population, or 140 million people -- eat more meat than the average Chinese. By 2020, however, the middle class is projected to be 40 percent of China's population. In wealthy cities like Beijing, residents consume an average of 130 pounds of meat per person annually. In Taiwan, where developed-world incomes meet ethnic Chinese dietary preferences, consumption is much higher at 190 pounds per year. Barring dramatic cultural and ethical shifts, there will likely be hundreds of millions more regular meat consumers in mainland China in the coming decade, as continuously rising incomes make middle-class lifestyles affordable. Sadly, pork chops don't grow on trees. While China is close to self-sufficiency in meat production, it is far from it in terms of the feed grains, principally soy, that raise the livestock destined for Chinese dinner tables. One of the world's largest soy producers until 1996, China has seen production levels languish over the last 15 years while domestic consumption has grown to five times the amount that Chinese farmers can supply. Foreign soybeans are now ubiquitous in the Chinese agricultural value chain. Today, China increasingly looks like it is following the examples of Japan and Taiwan, two Asian nations that became food importers as growing cities took land away from agricultural use, rising incomes allowed consumers to enjoy more diverse diets, and urbanization pulled people from farms and rural life. These trends will have important global implications. Take rice, for example. Although Chinese rice yields rose dramatically in the 20th century, China found it necessary to import 2.6 million tons of rice in 2012. With the global market accustomed to a weak Chinese buying presence -- the country has been a net exporter of rice almost without fail for the last half-century -- China's rice purchases may have helped send global prices to a near all-time high. It seems too early to say that China's domestic rice production has hit the same supply-side bottlenecks that have required the country to become a huge soy importer. But the recent discovery of cadmium-tainted rice produced in central China -- only the latest in a series of food scandals -- certainly does not help alleviate pressures. Anxious Chinese consumers could opt out of the domestic rice market and demand to buy the staple of their diet in the global market, further eroding China's self-sufficiency. Another revolution in agricultural technology could mitigate these scarcities; however, this is very unlikely in the near term. The fruits of the Green Revolution, from which China benefited tremendously a generation ago, seem exhausted -- not only in China, but globally. As economist Tyler Cowen noted in his 2012 book, U.S. farming productivity growth leveled off between 1990 and 2002. A similar dynamic may be at play in China, where burgeoning imports suggest agricultural productivity growth is stagnating. All these factors point to a harrowing decade ahead for Chinese food security. Just as the last three decades of catch-up economic growth created a wealthy middle class in China, the next decade could see catch-up consumption growth from hundreds of millions of Chinese who do not yet eat meat daily. The Chinese government is experimenting with rural land reforms and industrial farming to encourage higher efficiency and promote economies of scale. But between ideological opposition to allowing rural land to function as a form of productive capital and pragmatic concerns over the livelihoods of landless rural peasants, progress will likely be too slow to prevent Chinese food demand from outstripping supply. China will likely become a reluctant and ever-larger presence in global food markets. This will benefit economies like the United States that are major food exporters. But just as China's industrial and property booms of the last decade buoyed prices of oil, coal, and iron ore, in this decade Chinese food demand growth could raise food prices in the United States and elsewhere. China already consumes 60 percent of the rest of the world's soybean exports. And as it keeps growing, China could fundamentally alter global food supply and demand. Of course, Beijing does not make policy for the countries from which it imports agricultural products, but as Amazonian rain forests are cleared for soybean production or if global rice prices spike again, China could see a backlash. Chinese policymakers are certainly concerned about the impact of their country's food demand on the rest of the world, which is one reason they insist on grain self-sufficiency. The less China buys on the market, the less it will be in the international spotlight. Toeing such a line will be difficult. China's unmatched combination of scale and need means it cannot be an anonymous participant in global markets. The China price that today describes the country's cheap manufactured exports could soon refer to higher-priced food on dinner tables across America. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/10/01/appetite_for_destruction_china_food_supply?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full contributions by Zhang Hongzhou
-
New Agricultural Policy Clear Key Obstacles: EU Agricultural MPs Accept Common Agricultural Policy ReformNew farm policy clears key hurdle: Agriculture MEPs endorse CAP reform deal AGRI Press release - Agriculture − 30-09-2013 - 18:37 Cows on a field©BELGA/DPA/F.May Legislation for the new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was endorsed by the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee on Monday, following last week's informal agreement in talks between Parliament, the Council and the Commission. "Today's vote gives the reformed common agricultural policy its final shape until 2020. For the first time in the history of the CAP reform process, the committee has managed to substantially change and improve CAP regulations. The result is simpler CAP which is more relevant to enterprises, workers, the next generation of farmers and rural areas", said Agriculture Committee chair and negotiating team leader Paolo De Castro (S&D, IT). The vote confirmed last week's informal deal on issues left out of the first (26 June) agreement on CAP reform. Last week, Agriculture MEPs won an increase in the rural development co-financing rate (I .e. the EU contribution) for less-developed regions, outermost regions and smaller Aegean islands to 85%. The Council also conceded a request by Parliament's negotiating team to include Rural Development allocations per member state in an annex to the Rural Development Regulation, granting the Commission the power to amend this annex through delegated acts (I .e. on its own initiative) in clearly defined circumstances. Direct basic or single area payments of above €150,000 to large farms will be reduced by at least 5%. In June, Parliament's negotiators inter alia inserted a rule that direct payments may go only to active farmers and boosted "greening efforts", by also winning its agreement to earmark 30% of total rural development spending for environment measures. They furthermore obtained a mandatory EU-wide scheme to give farmers under 41 years old an extra 25% in additional top-up payments for their first 25 to 90 hectares. Vote results The report on the Direct Payments regulation by Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D, PT) was adopted with 31 votes in favour, 8 against and 2 abstentions. The report on the Single CMO regulation by Michel Dantin (EPP, FR) was adopted with 27 votes in favour, 14 against and 0 abstentions. The report on the Rural Development regulation by Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D, PT) was adopted with 35 votes in favour, 3 against and 3 abstentions. The report on the Horizontal regulation by Giovanni La Via (EPP, IT) was adopted with 35 votes in favour, 6 against and 0 abstentions. Next steps Today's committee vote still needs to be confirmed by Parliament as a whole in a plenary vote at the October or November session. REF. : 20130930IPR21124 contributions by Zhang Hongzhou
-
Brazil's agriculture benefits from government neglectLeave well alone Brazil's agriculture has benefited from government neglect. Its car industry has had too much attention Sep 28th 2013 | From the print edition Cottoning on to more productive farming IN 1984 WALTER HORITA, the youngest of three sons of a Japanese immigrant who farmed 500 hectares (1,240 acres) in the southern state of Paraná, headed north in search of land. Mato Grosso do Sul and Mato Grosso, colonised by gaúchos from southern states in the previous two decades, were too expensive for him. Eventually he settled on western Bahia (see map below), where he bought 1,210 hectares, paying four sacks of soyabeans per hectare. “There was nothing," he says. “No roads, no schools, no health care, no electricity, no water supply, no phone." He got digging. By 1999 the farm was so successful that his brothers in Paraná sold up and joined him. Today the Horita brothers own 150,000 hectares in western Bahia, growing mostly soya, cotton and corn. The story of how Brazil's vast central and north-eastern crop belt was won starts in 1973, when Brazil's military regime decided to centralise agronomy research and set up the Brazilian agricultural research corporation, Embrapa. It sent 1,200 bright young scientists abroad to study. When they returned and were set to work, they achieved something of a miracle: they made the cerrado bloom. Until then, Brazil's savannah with its acid, nutrient-poor soil had been thought impossible to cultivate. It turned out that deep tilling, huge quantities of lime and fertiliser and fast-growing crops bred to suit the local conditions could coax a rich harvest from it. Go north, young man The new crops and techniques were adopted by gaúcho sons lured to the cerrado by the promise of virgin lands. They pushed northwards through Brazil's central states, eventually arriving in the region now nicknamed MaPiToBa: the cultivable parts of Maranhão, Piauí, Tocantins and Bahia. Not only vast farms but prosperous new towns sprang up as a result. When Mr Horita arrived in western Bahia, Luís Eduardo Magalhães (known as LEM) was just a petrol station. In 2000, when it had 18,000 residents, it split away from Barreiras, the region's only sizeable municipality at the time. LEM now has a population of 70,000 and is one of Brazil's fastest-growing towns. The mayor says his biggest problem is finding 2,000 new school places each year. The John Deere concession run from LEM by Chico Oliveira, another gaúcho pioneer, is one of the American farm-equipment maker's biggest worldwide. Around 40% of the 6.6m hectares planted with grains and oilseeds in MaPiToBa is in western Bahia. Much of it is producing soya and either cotton or corn, planted and harvested in the same year. Where rain is too sparse, millet replaces the cotton or corn. Marcos Jank of Agroconsult, a Brazilian consultancy, reckons that another 20m hectares in Brazil could be transformed in the same way without further advances in crops and technology. A further 6m hectares currently under pasture could be turned over to high-productivity crop farming. The transformation of the cerrado is often dismissed as Brazil's belated discovery of a competitive advantage. That leaves out a lot, and not just Embrapa's role and the courage of the gaúcho pioneers. Farming in the tropics is in many ways more difficult than in a temperate climate. Without cold winters, pests and crop diseases are harder to control. Intensive soil preparation and large amounts of lime and fertiliser require scale and capital. According to Rodrigo Rodrigues of Agrifirma, a company that buys and farms virgin cerrado, preparing land for its first crop-deep-tilling, root-picking, liming and so on-means passing over it 15 times, which costs as much as the land itself. The 1,300 members of AIBA, Bahia's farmers' association, on average farm 1,269 hectares each. The average American farm is 170 hectares. Other obstacles in the way of Brazil's frontier farmers include murky land titles. Bahia is better in this respect than other bits of MaPiToBa, and an electronic rural-land register will eventually bring a big improvement, but for now every purchase requires expensive due diligence. Brazil's Forest Code requires some land to be set aside on every farm nationwide, no matter how far from the rainforest. Getting the environment agency to agree on set-aside and grant a licence to start clearing can take years. Petty bureaucracy is a problem too. After buying a farm in western Bahia in 2009, Agrifirma built a 23km power line at a cost of 460,000 reais to connect it to the national grid. The power line has been finished since March, but the company is still waiting for permission to hook it up. Survival of the fittest On the wall of the Horita brothers' office in Barreiras hangs the framed root of a drought-resistant cotton plant. It is 3.4m long, a reminder of the power of natural selection in a harsh environment. Julio Busato, AIBA's president, says such forces have shaped the region too. One reason its farms are so big is that only the best made the grade, and they bought out the losers. “You don't hear those stories so often," he says, “but lots of people came and lost everything, and now they're, say, driving a truck ." It was the opening up of Brazil's economy that enabled Embrapa's tropical-farming technology to be taken up so widely, says José Garcia Gasques of the agriculture ministry. Until a couple of decades ago farmers were being supported by means of minimum prices, government-purchase schemes and trade controls, and agricultural output was growing only because extra land was being added. But in 1990 Brazil's then president, Fernando Collor, slashed tariffs and dismantled many import and export controls. Since then the total area under crop cultivation in Brazil has increased by 38% and production has more than trebled. Total factor productivity has been growing by 4.6% a year. “In these new areas [such as MaPiToBa] they rarely even mention the government," says Mr Gasques. “There's no culture of subsidies; it was broken 20 years ago ." In the past decade, propelled by the commodity boom, Brazil has become one of the world's largest agricultural producers. It is among the top three for nearly all of the 15 most widely traded crops. And since it uses less of what it grows than other big producers, it makes the biggest contribution of any country to feeding hungry mouths elsewhere. Even as Brazil's economy was opening up in the 1990s, industrial sectors with powerful lobbies in Brasília managed to hang on to some of their privileges, a legacy of the generals' infatuation with government-driven industrialisation. The result is an anomaly: a big agricultural producer that protects its farmers less than its manufacturers. A recent study by the International Chamber of Commerce, a business lobby group, ranked Brazil as the most protectionist of the world's 20 biggest economies. But according to figures from the OECD, a rich-country club, agriculture is largely left to fend for itself. State support accounts for just 5.7% of farm income in Brazil, compared with 12% in America, 26% across the OECD and 29% in the European Union. Brazilian carmakers are particularly cosseted. The government first offered infant-industry support for foreign car firms prepared to open local factories in 1952. From 1974 to 1990 car imports were banned almost completely, and subsequently they were subjected to high tariffs which still persist. Brazil went from having no car industry at all to making 3.3m vehicles a year. Yet not even high tariffs could save carmakers when the currency strengthened. In 2005 imports made up just 5% of sales; by 2011 their share had leapt to 22%. The government responded by setting quotas on car imports from Mexico, with which Brazil supposedly has a free-trade agreement for cars, and to add an extra 30% to the sales tax on cars made anywhere other than Mexico and Brazil's partners in the Mercosur free-trade block. That provoked complaints to the World Trade Organisation. The government's latest wheeze is to offer tax breaks for local research and development, which came into force in January. Carmakers who sign up to the programme do not have to pay the extra 30% sales tax. The stated aim is to make cars produced at home more competitive by stimulating innovation. In practice, manufacturers without a local presence will face higher taxes if they import more than a few thousand cars a year. Several, including BMW and China's JAC Motors, have decided that building factories in Brazil is a price worth paying for access to the world's fourth-largest car market. The new policy may indeed increase local production, says Maurício Canêdo Pinheiro, an economist at the Fundação Getulio Vargas. And government support can stimulate innovation, as Embrapa has shown. But Brazil's farmers innovated not only because the government offered help but because they were threatened with competition. Support for innovation tied to market protection is unlikely to work the same magic. Besides, in the 1970s and 1980s Brazilian farms were small and undercapitalised, Mr Pinheiro points out, whereas “global car firms are big enough to innovate without government help ." Unlike their counterparts in the United States and the European Union, farmers are now Brazil's most ardent proponents of free trade. They want an EU-Mercosur deal, which has been mooted for years and is becoming urgent for Brazil, since from next year it will be rich enough to lose its trade preferences. Bahian farmers want to cattle-ranch on cerrado that has too little rain for crop-farming, but for that to be profitable they need new markets. “We'd love to sell to Europe," says Mr Busato. “Their meat is so expensive ." Kátia Abreu, the president of Brazil's main farmers' union, says Brazil needs to rethink its entire attitude to trade. “There's no sense in trying to protect your market the old-fashioned way," she says. “A piece of every supply chain, that's what we should be looking for." A cattle-rancher, she turns to a homely analogy: salting and sun-drying meat will work well only if the meat is of good quality in the first place. “All those incentives for industries that can't compete, they're just wasted salt ." From the print edition: Special report http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21586679-brazils-agriculture-has-benefited-government-neglect-its-car-industry-has-had-too contributions by Zhang Hongzhou
-
The world agricultural system is biased towards developed countriesGlobal agriculture system favours rich countries Martin Khor The Star Asia News Network Kuala Lumpur September 28, 2013 1:00 am Tariff rules imposed by the World Trade Organisation penalise developing countries even when they want to price and distribute food to help their own poor A fight taking place in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) shows how the rules on agriculture allow rich countries to continue huge subsidies whilst penalising developing countries' farmers. Food is one of the most important and emotive of all issues. As consumers, we can't survive without it. Agriculture also employs the most people in most developing countries. Ensuring farmers have enough income is key to development and social stability. Some countries that have not achieved this have faced rural disgruntlement and then upheaval. Increasing food self-reliance is a goal in many countries. Food security became a high priority after global food prices shot up to record highs in 2008, and there was a near-scramble for food items, including rice, because of potential shortages. Also, reducing and eventually eliminating world hunger is one of the key development goals adopted by governments at the United Nations. Against this background is a remarkable discussion now taking place at the World Trade Organisation, as part of the preparations for its Ministerial Conference in Bali in December. Developing countries grouped under the G33 are asking that their governments be allowed to buy food from their farmers, stock and distribute it to poor households, without this being limited by the WTO's rules on agricultural subsidies. However, their proposal is facing resistance mainly from major developed countries, especially the United States, whose ambassador told the WTO earlier this year that such a move would "create a massive new loophole for potentially unlimited trade-distorting subsidies ". This clash is an outstanding example of how the rules of the WTO favour the rich countries whist punishing the developing countries, including their poorest people. It is well known that the greatest distortions in the trading system lie in agriculture. This is because the rich countries asked for, and obtained, a waiver in the 1950s from the liberalisation rules of the GATT, the predecessor of the WTO. They were allowed to give huge subsidies to their farm owners, some of whom do not carry out farm activities, and to levy very high tariffs. When the WTO was set up, it had a new agriculture agreement that basically allowed this high farm protection to continue. The rich countries were obliged only to reduce their "trade distorting subsidies" by 20 per cent, and could change the nature of their subsidies and put them into a "Green Box" containing subsidies that are termed "non trade-distorting or minimally trade-distorting ". There is no limit to the Green Box subsidies. So the trick played by the rich countries has been to move most of their subsidies to the Green Box, including subsidies that are not directly linked to production, or that are tied to environmental protection. But studies have shown that the Green Box subsidies are in fact trade distorting as well. With this shifting around, the rich world's subsidies have been maintained or actually soared. WTO data show that the total domestic support of the United States grew from US$61 billion in 1995 (when the WTO started) to $130 billion in 2010. The European Union's domestic support went down from 90 billion euros ($121 billion) in 1995 to 75 billion euros in 2002, and then went up again to 90 billion euros in 2006 and 79 billion euros in 2009. A broader measure of farm protection, known as total support estimate, shows the OECD countries' agriculture subsidies soared from $350 billion in 1996 to $406 billion in 2011. The effects of continuing rich-country subsidies have been devastating to developing countries. Food products selling at below production costs are still flooding into poorer countries, often eating into the incomes and livelihoods of small farmers. Ironically, the developing countries, already the victims of the rich world's subsidies, are themselves not allowed to have the same huge subsidies even if they can afford it. The reason is that the agriculture rules say that all countries have to cut their distorting subsidies. So if a developing country has not given subsidies before, it is not allowed to give any, except for a small minimal amount (10 per cent of total production value). In other words, if you have given $100 billion in subsidy, you have to bring it down to $80 billion and you can transfer the rest to the Green Box, but if you haven't given any before, you cannot give one dollar, except for the minimum allowed. This is where the present WTO controversy comes in. Developing countries are asking that food bought from poor farmers and given to poor consumers should be considered part of the Green Box, without conditions. The present rule sets an unfair condition: that any subsidy element in this purchase scheme should be considered a trade-distorting subsidy, which for most developing countries is limited to this minimum amount (10 per cent of production value). Other Green Box subsidies, that developed countries mostly use, do not carry such a condition. The developing countries merely seek to remove the unfair condition that, in effect, prevents them from adequately helping their poor to get sufficient food. For example, India's parliament has just passed a food bill that entitles the poor (two-thirds of the population) to obtain food from a government scheme that buys the food from small farmers. But the estimated $20 billion-plus the government will spend annually may exceed the small minimum amount of subsidy it is allowed, because India was not a big subsidiser before the WTO rules came into force. For rich countries that are subsidising a total of $407 billion a year to disallow poor countries from subsidising their small farmers and poor consumers, is really a specially bad form of discrimination and hypocrisy. An outstanding case of the pot calling the kettle black. Whether this controversy can be settled fairly before the WTO's Bali ministerial remains to be seen. http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Global-agriculture-system-favours-rich-countries-30215788.html contributions by Zhang Hongzhou
-
The German agricultural production model is flexible and diverse.Author: zheng Hong People's Daily release time:2013-04-02 four employees can milk 60 cows at the same time through the automatic rotary milking table. In the cowshed, the cows can move freely, rest, eat and even enjoy massage. Less than 50 people are responsible for planting and operating more than 3000 hectares of land. Cow dung and grain are directly used to generate electricity and sold to the national power grid. This is what the reporter saw when he visited a modern farm in Brandenburg, Germany. Self-management, multi-family farms have obvious advantages the farm combines milk and farming. The head of the farm, Lothar Pavlovsky, told our reporter that his Kastert Agricultural Production Cooperative has been producing milk since the 1950 s. At present, more than 1200 cows on the farm produce 12000 tons of milk annually. This is the main source of income for the cooperative. On the farm, reporters rarely saw workers. "The degree of automation of agricultural production is getting higher and higher, and the labor force required is getting less and less." Pavlovsky explained, "The woman who drives the tractor you just saw has 30 hectares of land in her family, but she doesn't want to run it alone, but she is willing to work here, so she joined the cooperative and put the land. I rented it to us and came here to work." Pavlovsky said that this form of multi-family farm has many advantages over some family farms. "Single family farms are likely to work 365 days a year, but here, the working hours are fixed, and someone can replace them when they are sick. The farm also has many benefits, which makes people feel like they are in a team." the Castert Agricultural Production Cooperative is in good condition. Farmers work here and can get 10 euros per hour. In addition, the share holders also enjoy an annual dividend. When they retire and withdraw their shares, they can get a subsidy according to their length of service and position. The development decisions of cooperatives are made by the farmers themselves. "Our development and operation will not be a problem in the next 20 years." Pavlovsky said. At present, the German agricultural production model tends to be flexible. In 2010, more than 90% of Germany's nearly 300000 farms were family farms. Johannes Funk, a spokesman for the German Farmers' Federation, said that most of the German farms are run by families. Many farms no longer purchase large-scale equipment by themselves, but rent equipment and services from other companies. Their farming methods are becoming more and more flexible. Clear use, through policy regulation of land prices walking in the core area of Kastert Farm, the reporter saw many newly purchased agricultural farming equipment, as well as modern facilities such as newly-built cattle sheds, newly installed solar panels on the roof, automatic turntable milking platform, and the expansion plan of cattle sheds is also under preparation. Pavlovsky said that in the past three years, the company has invested a total of 5.5 million euros in production expansion and equipment upgrading, of which 1.5 million euros are its own capital, 3 million euros are from bank loans, and 1 million euros are from Federal state funding. Together with federal and state funding, the European Agricultural Fund is used to help farms become more competitive, improve the environment and increase the diversity of their produce. The federal states have a certain degree of autonomy in setting the conditions for funding. In addition, the German government regulates the price of agricultural land through policies. According to the statistics of the German Farmers' Federation, the price of agricultural land in Germany has increased rapidly in recent years. In 2011 alone, the price of land increased by 14% to 13500 euros per hectare, of which the price of land in the eastern federal states increased by 19%. German law guarantees that agricultural land cannot be used for non-agricultural purposes. In recent years, federal subsidies for renewable energy have led many companies to invest in growing grains and rapeseed for bioenergy, which currently accounts for 2.3 million hectares of agricultural land. Fengke believes that in the past few years, bioenergy has developed rapidly under the guidance of the government. With the government's discussion on reducing bioenergy subsidies, investment in the field of renewable energy has also been greatly reduced. At present, the proportion of German agricultural products used for food and energy is in a relatively balanced stage. Focus on environmental protection, government funding is not linked to production germany is the second largest agricultural producer in the EU and the largest producer of milk and pork in the EU. In 2011, Germany's agricultural output was 52.3 billion billion euros, or 13.6 percent of the EU's total, second only to France. Considering the price difference between the EU market and the world market for agricultural products, in order to ensure EU food safety and farmers' income, the EU provides direct subsidies to farms. Funk told reporters that in Germany, this allowance is no longer linked to the amount of output, but attaches importance to the farm's environmental protection and other concepts, such as considering the farm's compliance with animal, natural, environmental and consumer protection standards, which are important factors linked to agricultural subsidies. A few days ago, the EU Ministry of Agriculture decided to link 30% of subsidies to agriculture with the environment in the future. German farmers currently receive an average EU allowance of around € 320 per hectare of land. Funk said that decoupling subsidies from production would help prevent farmers from increasing production in pursuit of more subsidies and putting pressure on the market. The decoupling of subsidies from production allows farmers to think more about market demand. Pavlovsky told reporters that before 2015, the EU will implement milk quotas, and farmers must not exceed the quota production, otherwise they will face penalties. Fengke told reporters that the EU will conduct random checks on the compliance of farms with the guidelines from time to time, and unqualified farms will be punished by reducing subsidies. Man of Feeding
-
FAO: Cost-effective solutions to water scarcity in the Near East and North Africa03/06/2013- High rates of demographic growth, inadequate consumption patterns and rapid urbanization are putting unprecedented pressure on water resources, in the Near East and North Africa (NENA) region. Covering the 5.4% of the world population and accounting only for the 0.5% of the global water resources, the Near East and North Africa Region (NENA) faces the challenge of addressing a wide range of complex and intertwined issues associated with the management of natural resources, particularly to secure an adequate supply to a increasingly high rate of demand from all water-using sectors. The per capita availability of internal renewable water resources ranges from 0 for Kuwait to 1753 m3 for Iran with an average of 634 m3 per capita versus 6400 m3 worldwide. To help countries to address this challenge FAO is launching a regional “Initiative on Water Scarcity in the Near East and North Africa”. The overall goal of the initiative is to support Member Countries in streamlining priority areas of action in agriculture water management through an innovative approach that puts forward the maximization of cost effectiveness of food supply options. “The Water Scarcity Initiative will offer a multidisciplinary response to water scarcity which is by far a social construct. The Initiative will help developing innovative decision making tools aiming at reaching optimum costs for a given food supply option, thus contributing to improve food security in the region” said Ms. Chifa Tekaya, FAO Water Scarcity Initiative Coordinator. The Initiative will also offer Member Countries and key stakeholders a common platform to develop and implement a Regional Collaborative Strategy on sustainable agriculture water management in the region. “Although multi-dimensional, the many causes of water scarcity, if correctly identified, can be predicted, avoided or mitigated. An interdisciplinary approach prompting the cooperation of the many actors involved in water usage and management, would be a sustainable solution to face water scarcity and, through this, contribute to the improvement of food security in the region "said Mr. Ould Ahmed Abdessalam, FAO Assistant Director General and Regional Representative for the Near East and North Africa Region. http://www.fao.org/highlights/from-the-field/detail/zh/c/180253/ man of Feeding
-
"Ten years of worries" haunt Japanese agricultureGrain and Oil Market News Zhang Jianbo 2013-05-18 "In ten years, agriculture will disappear from Japan!" for a period of time, Japan's mainstream media and many scholars have said so. This is certainly a hype, but Japan's agriculture does encounter profound problems. One is the aging of agricultural workers, which was about 14.54 million in 1960 and decreased to 2.89 million in 2009, with an average age of 66. In a simple calculation, the average age of these people will be 76 years old in ten years, and it is obviously difficult to continue to engage in agricultural labor that requires heavy physical strength. The second is that the agricultural income is too low. According to statistics, if a farmer manages less than 15 acres of farmland, he will lose nearly one million yen a year; the scale of operation is more than 45 acres, and a farmer works hard all year round. 100 acres of land, from dawn to late at night, almost no rest days a year, the income is not as good as temporary workers who work 20 hours a week in the city. Japan has been an agricultural country since ancient times and has a long history of farming. But since the 1950 s, Japan's rapid economic growth has dramatically changed this situation. A large number of farmers went to work in cities, and the countryside was rapidly urbanized. A large number of mountain forest arable land became factory roads, and the children of farmers went to college one after another to become employees of enterprises. At present, Japan's total agricultural production accounts for only 1% of GDP, and Japan's food self-sufficiency rate (calculated by calories) is less than 40%, that is, most of the food consumed by Japanese people is imported. Since agricultural labor is not only too onerous, but also generally earns less than other industry young people often choose to leave the countryside and cultivate no one. In addition, most of the few young people who stay in the countryside are men with low academic qualifications, which has caused a serious "insufficient marriage" phenomenon in the countryside since more than 40 years ago. "Marry" means wife in Japanese, that is, young people in the countryside. Can't find a wife. The author has visited a large number of towns and villages in Japan, where there is a general lack of young adults, and most of the men left behind are single, and there are many people over the age of 40 who cannot find a spouse. In the face of this situation in the countryside, the long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party has adopted comprehensive protection measures. because rural areas and peasants have always been staunch supporters of the ldp. After the war, the Liberal Democratic Party was not popular among citizens and intellectuals, so it was ridiculed as the "Peasant Party". In order to maintain its ruling position, the Liberal Democratic Party pays special attention to rural votes, protects rural areas and subsidizes agriculture in many ways. Operating agriculture can receive various subsidies, low-interest and even interest-free loans from the state and governments at all levels. The Japanese government also provides special funds for agricultural infrastructure. Once, the author was invited to visit the Japanese countryside. One of the farmers had a modern mushroom production factory that had just been built, worth hundreds of millions of yen, which was very beautiful and spectacular. The author asked about the source of funds for the purchase of this equipment. The farmers replied that 70% was provided by the state free of charge, 20% by the local government free of charge, and 10% by self-raised funds, but this 10% was also a bank loan with almost no interest. In addition, the Japanese government also strictly restricts the import of foreign agricultural products into Japan to protect Japanese agriculture and maintain high prices of agricultural products. For example, the import tariff on rice is 778 per cent, starch is 583 per cent, and the import tariff on sweet potato, a popular health food for women, even reaches 1706 per cent. Although these measures have protected Japanese agriculture to a certain extent, due to the small scale of Japanese agriculture and other reasons, they still cannot change the plight of low agricultural income and no successors. Especially in the past ten years due to the impact of globalization, Japan has to partially reduce the protection of agriculture. Japanese agriculture has been strongly hit by international competition, and a large number of farmers have gone bankrupt or been forced to engage in other industries. However, the disappearance of agriculture from Japan ten years later is still an exaggeration, although it reflects the Japanese concern and anxiety about the agricultural crisis. First, in any case, some farmers will still exist. The average age does not mean that everyone is this age, and there are still some young farmers in Japan. Second, Japan's agricultural technology level is very high. Famous rice varieties such as "Yueguang" and "Akita Xiaoding", "Aomori" apples, "Jufeng" grapes, and "Kobe" cattle are all loved by consumers all over the world. Such high-tech and highly intensive products like this The vitality of industrialized agriculture is undoubtedly relatively strong. In addition, as the number of farmers decreases, the degree of agricultural intensification will increase, and large farmers will increase. It is a general law that the scale of operation is large and the income is relatively increased. Therefore, the increase in the degree of agricultural intensification will also improve the income of farmers. status. Many farmers also introduce cheap young labor from third world countries in various ways to reduce costs and improve production efficiency. Generally speaking, there are fewer farmers and fewer agricultural workers in Japan, and the trend of agricultural shrinkage may be inevitable, but agriculture will continue, and Japanese agriculture will accelerate intensification, try to maintain technological advantages, and open up new agricultural fields. (The author is a lecturer at Waseda University, Japan) man of Feeding
-
This year, OECD agricultural subsidies have climbed to 19% of total agricultural income in 2012.OECD Agriculture Support Climbed to 19% of Farm Receipts in 2012 By Rudy Ruitenberg September 18, 2013 OECD countries provided more aid to agriculture last year, with producer support accounting for 19 percent of gross farm receipts from 18 percent in 2011, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said. Producer support in its 34 member states rose to $258.6 billion in 2012 from $257.2 billion a year earlier, the Paris-based group wrote in a report today. Support as a portion of gross receipts reached the lowest level in 2011 since the organization started tracking the data in the mid-1980s. The world food price index of 55 food items tracked by the United Nations' Food & Agriculture Organization fell to an average 211.8 last year from a record 227.6 in 2011, still more than double the level a decade ago. Eight of the world's 10 biggest farm exporters are OECD members, led by the U.S., based on World Trade Organization data “In the OECD area, there is a long-term downward trend in support to agriculture," the group wrote. “OECD countries are increasingly delinking support from production ." The level of producer support in OECD countries dropped from 37 percent of gross farm receipts in the 1986-88 period and 30 percent in 1995-97, the report showed. In the European Union, producer support rose to an estimated $107 billion last year from $106.4 billion in 2011, while in Japan the amount gained to $64.8 billion from $60.5 billion, the report showed. U.S. producer support fell to $30.2 billion from $31.6 billion, the OECD reported. China, Russia In 47 countries that jointly account for close to 80 percent of global agricultural output, including China and Russia, producer support increased to 17 percent of gross farm receipts in 2012 from 15 percent a year earlier, according to the OECD. China's producer support jumped to an estimated $165.6 billion from $118.5 billion in 2011, while in Indonesia the amount climbed to $28 billion from $18.9 billion, based on the report. Russia's support fell to $13.2 billion from $15.7 billion, the OECD said. For countries where support for agriculture is falling only slowly or rising, those developments are often linked to self-sufficiency targets for farming and food products, the organization said. “In China, Indonesia, Japan, Norway, Russia and Turkey, the reliance on import protection, market price support and production-linked payments remains high," the OECD said. “Narrow self-sufficiency targets often push countries toward high border protection and market-price support, effectively taxing consumers and decreasing food affordability, at least in the short term ." To contact the reporter on this story: Rudy Ruitenberg in Paris at rruitenberg@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Claudia Carpenter at ccarpenter2@bloomberg.net http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-18/oecd-agriculture-support-climbed-to-19-percent-of-farm-receipts-in-2012 contributions by Zhang Hongzhou
-
Disease-resistant wheat varieties debut in KenyaDisease-resistant wheat varieties debut in Kenya New seeds are resistant to wheat stem rust (Ug99) - Multinational programme supported by FAO and IAEA Wheat rusts are a major threat to food security. 6 September 2013, Vienna/Rome-A multinational effort supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency and FAO marked a key milestone this week when a Kenyan university debuted two new varieties of disease-resistant wheat to the nation's farmers. Over the past two days, thousands of Kenyan farmers have visited Eldoret University in western Kenya for a two-day agriculture fair highlighting the latest farming technologies. Supporting the development of the new varieties were the IAEA's Technical Cooperation Department and the Joint FAO/IAEA Programme of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture. They manage an interregional technical cooperation project to develop varieties of wheat that are resistant to a devastating type of fungus, causing a disease known as wheat stem rust. Wheat stem rust was under control for over 30 years, but a resurgence of the disease was discovered in 1999 in Uganda that swiftly spread to neighbouring Kenya. Ug 99 The wheat stem rust, caused by the strain of the fungus known as Ug99 named after its place and year of origin, has since spread to Iran, Yemen and South Africa and threatens crops as far away as India as spores are carried by wind. Parasitic rusts threaten global wheat production, reducing plant growth and crop yields. The disease can destroy up to 70-100 percent of the yield of wheat crop if not prevented. "Improving food security in developing countries through the use of nuclear techniques is an important priority of the IAEA," said IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano. "I am pleased that we have been able to make an important contribution to fighting wheat stem rust ." "Wheat rusts, particularly the Ug99 strain, are a major threat to food security because rust epidemics can result in devastating yield losses. This international project involving affected countries, plant scientists and breeders and international organizations is a major breakthrough. It clearly shows the benefits of FAO/IAEA collaboration and that working together we can overcome the challenges we face," said FAO Director-General Jose Graziano da Silva. The rust-resistant wheat varieties were developed with the support of an IAEA technical cooperation project Responding to the Transboundary Threat of Wheat Black Stem Rust (Ug99), which involved more than 20 nations and international organizations. The varieties were developed using a nuclear technique for crop improvement known as mutation breeding. By exposing seeds, or plant tissue, to radiation, scientists accelerate the natural process of mutation, and then breeders are able to select and develop new varieties. In 2009, Miriam Kinyua, a Kenyan plant breeder, sent 10 kilograms of five varieties of wheat seed to the FAO/IAEA laboratories in Seibersdorf, south of Vienna, where they were irradiated for mutation breeding. These seeds were returned to Kenya where they were planted in a hot spot for the disease for screening and selection. Kinyua and her colleagues at the University of Eldoret's Biotechnology Department identified eight lines resistant to Ug99. Four of these lines were submitted to Kenyan national performance trials, and two were officially approved as varieties by the national committee of the Ministry of Agriculture. About six tonnes of seeds of the new varieties will be made available this month for the next planting season in Kenya. http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/196127/icode/ man of Feeding
-
Chinese demand drives record soybean production in South AmericaChina's demand fuels record soy crops in South America 17 Sep 2013 Soy fields stretch as far as the eye can see in South America's fertile plains, boosted by a jump in demand from China and Europe. Combine harvesters crop soybeans in Brazil during a demonstration for the press on March 27, 2012. AFP/Yasuyoshi Chiba BUENOS AIRES - Soy fields stretch as far as the eye can see in South America's fertile plains, boosted by a jump in demand from China and Europe. With more than 82 million tonnes harvested this year, Brazil is jostling for first place as a producer with the United States, hit by a drought, according to US Department of Agriculture figures. "Soy brings in the money. It has the nutritional value of meat but it's vegetarian. And it's the cheapest protein in the world to produce by mass," explained soy expert Marc-Henry Andre. "Up until now, the supply has increased sharply. But the demand has grown even more, which explains why the price for a tonne of soy exceeded $100 in the early 2000s and is now above $500," said Argentine economist Luciano Cohan. China imports soy beans at the rate of 60 million tonnes for 2012-2013 and an expected 70 million for 2013-2014. It then transforms the soybeans into oil or flour, while European countries tend to purchase soybean meal to feed industrially-raised chickens, pigs and cattle. South American soy is mostly genetically modified but Cohan insisted that was not cause for controversy. "This is not the subject of much debate. The benefits to the government are so great that it is considered a net benefit," he said. The soy boom owes much to US seed giant Monsanto, which marketed in 1996 a GMO soy variety resistant to glyphosate, a powerful, broad-spectrum herbicide. "Soy plays a major role in current farming practices," said French agronomist Marcel Mazoyer. "A cow fed soybean meal produces significantly more milk than a hay-fed cow ." Environmental groups condemn the focus on the crop at the expense of livestock farming and wheat, deforestation, the aerial spraying of pesticides and water pollution. Brazil has matched US production because new lands have been cultivated for soy crops, sometimes encroaching on forests, namely in the cerrado plateau region home to the country's soy powerhouse Mato Grosso state. But converting to all-soy crops, which require little manual labor, also bears an important social cost. Small farmers have fled the fields for the already overpopulated big city favelas. In Brazil, soy is the third biggest export product (11 percent), behind minerals and oil. Thanks to a push from "Brasiguayos" Brazilian farmers in Paraguay, soybean meal and oil production there has quadrupled in a single year. This tiny country of just seven million people, niched between Brazil and Argentina, is now the world's sixth largest producer and fourth biggest exporter after Brazil, the United States and Argentina. In Argentina, this year's harvest was not a record but soy already accounts for a quarter of exports and is a major driver of the economy. Next year's harvest is set to be the greatest ever, with a projected 53.5 million tonnes. Argentina's farmers, often millionaires, protest the government's big tax burden -- 35 percent on soy exports -- and as a result did not plant as much as they could. They retort that Argentina emerged out of its economic crisis in 2001 thanks in large part to soy's jump in the markets. South America is seeing record harvests and 2013-2014 forecasts say the region's production will increase even further, according to UN Food and Agriculture Organization soy expert Peter Thoeness. Argentina's "soybean king" Gustavo Grobocopatel expects soy to continue its growth over the next 10 to 15 years before leveling off. Mazoyer said soy production will double over the next half-century. "For sure, demand for meat will increase. Soy production must increase even faster than the population in order to meet this demand for meat. The more people eat meat, the more we need corn and soy to feed the animals ." At this pace, "we will have to clear out part of the Amazon forest ." -AFP/sf contributions by Zhang Hongzhou
-
Food Savings Campaign in Asia-Pacific RegionSave food campaign Asia-Pacific kicked off Initiative aims to reduce post-harvest and consumer food waste Food losses are high and the problem of food waste is growing in Asia and the Pacific region. Bangkok, Thailand, 27 Aug 2013-Denouncing the huge amount of food that goes to waste, FAO Assistant Director-General and Regional Representative for Asia and the Pacific, Hiroyuki Konuma, announced a new initiative aimed at stopping post-harvest food losses and market-to-consumer food waste. "The Save Food Asia-Pacific Campaign seeks to raise awareness about the high levels of food losses - particularly post-harvest losses - and the growing problem of food waste in the region," Konuma said. "FAO estimates that if the food wasted or lost globally could be reduced by just one quarter, this would be sufficient to feed the 870 million people suffering from chronic hunger in the world," said Konuma. The announcement came as Konuma opened the two-day High-Level Multi-Stakeholder Consultation on Food Losses and Food Waste in Asia and the Pacific Region in collaboration with the Asian Institute of Technology and other partners. More than 130 participants from 20 countries attended the Consultation, including four Agriculture Ministers. The Consultation will study ways to reduce food loss and waste and is expected to issue a communiqué outlining actions that can save food from farm to table. According to Konuma, "The world produces more or less sufficient food to meet the demand of its current population of 7 billion. However, 12.5 percent of the global population, or 868 million people, equivalent to one in eight people, go hungry every day. In 2012, the Asia-Pacific region was home to 536 million hungry people, or 62 percent of the world's undernourished ." The Asia-Pacific region benefitted from rapid economic growth in the first decade of the 21 st century. But, successful economic growth did not alleviate hunger and poverty, because the benefits of economic growth were unevenly distributed, resulting in a widening income gap in many countries in the region. According to statistics from the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, an estimated 653 million people across the region, lived below the national poverty line in 2010. Inefficient food systems Yukol Limlamthong, Thailand's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture and Cooperatives, speaking at the Consultation's opening session, said: "Within the context of Asia and the Pacific Region, more effort is needed to raise global awareness of the critical issue of food losses and particularly post-harvest losses as well as food waste, which is a is increasing nowadays ." Limlamthoung added: "The Government of Thailand is deeply committed to working with FAO and with other partners and stakeholders in the region to promote the security of the region and also of the world ." Indian geneticist M. S. Swaminathan, who played a leading role in India's Green Revolution, said in his keynote address on reducing post-harvest losses for food security:"Food waste is also a waste of natural resources like land and water. To a great extent, food losses and waste are symbolic of the inefficiencies of food systems" and this explains "why food losses and waste are becoming so central to discussions on both food security and sustainable development ." Worsak Kanok-Nukulchai, Interim President and Professor at the Asian Institute of Technology, said in his remarks: "The issue of food loss and waste is important to our agenda at AIT." It is cross-cutting and multi-disciplinary and is being scientifically targeted by several fields of study at AIT including the recently opened Asian Center of Innovation for Sustainable Agriculture Intensification (ACISAI). The Save Food Campaign Asia-Pacific will be an on-going advocacy initiative that will appeal to consumers to have more respect for food and to stop wasting this precious commodity. http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/195565/icode/ man of Feeding
-
Global food prices continue to fallGlobal food prices continue to drop Prices of cereals and oils decrease - FAO expects bumper cereal harvest this year Good news for shoppers 5 September 2013, Rome-The FAO Food Price Index dropped for the fourth month in a row in August reaching its lowest level since June 2012. The index, which measures the monthly change in the international prices of a basket of food commodities, averaged 201.8 points in August 2013, nearly 4 points (1.9 percent) below its July value and 11 points (or 5.1 percent) less than in August 2012. Last month's decline was mainly driven by continued falls in the international prices of cereals and oils. Dairy, meat and sugar prices rose slightly. Steep decline in cereal prices The FAO Cereal Price Index averaged 210.9 points in August, down 16.4 points (7.2 percent) from July and 49.4 points (or 19 percent) from August 2012. The steep decline reflects expectations for a strong growth in world cereal production this year and, especially, a sharp recovery in maize supplies. Oils, dairy and meat The FAO Oils/Fats Price Index averaged 185.5 points in August, 5.7 points (or 3.0 percent) below the July value and the third consecutive monthly decline. The FAO Dairy Price Index averaged 239.1 points in August, 2.8 points (1.2 percent) more than in July and 37 percent above its level in August last year. Prices increased last month for all the dairy products that make up the index, except butter, as export supplies remain limited in major trading countries. The FAO Meat Price Index averaged 175.0 points in August, an increase of 2.2 points (1.3 percent). Bumper harvest expected Together with the Food Price Index, FAO released a new forecast of world cereal production in 2013. This is expected to rise to 2 492 million tonnes. The forecast has been revised upwards by 14 million tonnes (or 0.5 percent) from the July forecast as a result of higher maize crops officially reported in Argentina and improved prospects in the EU and Ukraine. At the latest forecast level, global cereal production would be 179 million tonnes (7.7 percent) higher than in 2012 and a new record. The recovery is predicted to be driven by a 10.5 percent expansion in coarse grain output to 1 285 million tonnes as well as a 7.6 percent rise in wheat production to 710 million tonnes. World rice production is set to increase by 1.3 percent, reaching a new high of 497 million tonnes, in milled equivalent. US maize production bounces back The sharp increase in global production of coarse grains in 2013 would be largely on account of a strong rebound in maize output (to 983 million tonnes), the bulk of which would originate from the United States, where maize production is forecast to reach 343 million tonnes this year, some 25 percent (69 million tonnes) higher than the 2012 drought-reduced level. Cereal utilization Global cereal utilization in 2013/14 is projected at 2 413 million tonnes, down marginally from the previous forecast, but still 3.2 percent higher than in 2012/13. Based on the latest forecasts, total use of cereals for direct human consumption is set to expand by 1.2 percent to 1 094 million tonnes. This would result in global per capita cereal consumption remaining steady at just over 152 kg, with wheat at 67kg and rice at close to 57kg. Cereal stocks The forecast of world cereal stocks at the close of seasons in 2014 has been raised slightly since July, to 569 million tonnes, primarily on expectations of higher maize inventories. The revised forecast puts world cereal stocks 13 percent (65.5 million tonnes) above their low opening levels and at their highest since 2001/02 Based on the current projections of overall demand, the increase in stocks would drive up the global stock-to-use ratio to 23.3 percent, the highest since 2002/03. "The overall supply-demand situation for cereal markets is much improved over this time last year when drought-hit production and low stock-to-use ratios, especially for maize, raised serious concerns," said David Hallam, Director of FAO's Trade and Markets Division. "Production is expected to rebound sharply and higher stock-to-use ratios should bring greater stability to world markets ." http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/195887/icode/ man of Feeding
-
US and India truce over food security fightIndia and US retreat from battle over food security By Shawn Donnan in London ©Reuters Maize production in India India and the US are backing away from a fight over food security and a new Indian food distribution programme for the poor that had been seen as a big stumbling block to reaching a global trade deal this year. Roberto Azevêdo, the new head of the World Trade Organisation called on member countries last week to break a deadlock in negotiations towards a three-pronged “Doha lite” agreement due to be signed at the trade body's biennial ministerial meeting in Bali in December. A stalemate on food security had been seen as one of the main threats to such a deal, which is also due to tackle removing customs red tape around the world and increasing development assistance to poor countries. India had been accused by others of holding the Bali package “hostage” to the food security negotiations. But a series of high-stakes meetings of ambassadors launched late last week by Mr Azevêdo have generated at least initial wins for the Brazilian. Rather than both sides shaping up for a fight over how big government food-buying and distribution programmes for the poor are administered, the consensus has moved towards negotiating the terms of a “peace clause”. This would see negotiations continue for a set time, during which critics of the Indian and other programmes agree not to file a case challenging them to the WTO. The compromise was first proposed by China at a meeting this month. “The past 10 months felt like ritual dance. The last two days felt like we were really trying constructively to reach a deal," one participant said on Friday. “It is a real substantive negotiation now ." India and fellow members of the G33 group of developing nations have made securing a WTO deal to allow government food-buying and distribution programmes for the poor a priority this year. They argue that developing countries need greater flexibility than allowed under WTO rules in setting the prices they can pay to poor farmers and what governments can do with any surplus grains. The issue is particularly sensitive in India. Facing elections next year, the Congress party-led government made a big push this summer to get parliamentary approval for new food security legislation that will see the country's food subsidy bill jump to $22bn annually, and the number of Indians entitled to subsidised food increase to two-thirds of its 1.2bn population. But the programme - and others like it in places such as Thailand, where the government has increased substantially the amount of rice it buys from poor farmers - has become one of the biggest areas of contention in the WTO negotiations in Geneva. In the negotiations, the US and other rich countries have argued that government food security programmes can distort commodity markets when the surplus from government stockpiles is exported, or sold on the open market. They have also questioned how transparently prices are set for those programmes. Participants stressed that key terms of a “peace clause” still had to be negotiated, including how long it would apply for, and how it would be monitored. But the shift in rhetoric was at the very least a signal of the new tone in Geneva since Mr Azevêdo took over as WTO director-general this month. “The tempo of the discussions is different; the essence of the discussions is different," one participant told the Financial Times. Another person familiar with the meetings said: “People are reasonable and seemingly keen to find common ground . . . [It is] a very, very different kind of conversation from what we have seen in the last five years ." In an interview with the FT before last week's meetings, Mr Azevêdo said he hoped to conclude a first round of negotiations by Wednesday and a second round before the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting of Pacific-rim leaders takes place in Bali in early October. After that meeting - and the International Monetary Fund/World Bank annual meetings that follow - there will be only six weeks left to finalise a deal to take to the December 3-6 WTO ministerial meeting in Bali. “Technically, we do not have much time, which means we cannot be doing things that are extremely complex from a technical standpoint," Mr Azevêdo told the FT. “It has to be very straightforward ." The Brazilian has said that failure to reach a deal in Bali would be a significant blow to the credibility of the WTO, which critics argue may have outlived its usefulness as a forum for trade negotiations. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2013. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web. Contributions by Zhang Hongzhou
-
French agricultural policy escorts food securityGrain and Oil Market News Zhu xing Yin Bijian 2013-08-24 france has always attached great importance to food security and food security. In recent years, with the reform of the EU's common agricultural policy and the rise of production costs, French agricultural production has increased production but not income, and its development has encountered bottlenecks. However, in order to improve the competitiveness of agricultural products, France has given priority to the modernization of agricultural energy and ecological agriculture, and the export income of agricultural products such as grain has maintained a growth trend. French agriculture and food production hit a bottleneck france is a traditional European agricultural country, but it is also facing the situation of declining number of farmers and sluggish agricultural development. This is mainly due to the reduction of EU subsidies to farmers after the implementation of the reform of the common agricultural policy (it has been reduced from 400 euro per hectare before the reform to 300 euro, and the subsidy per hectare of planting area will be reduced to 100 euro by 2013). Second, the rise in the price of energy and raw materials has led to the rise of production costs, and the profit of agricultural production is more meager. The French Ministry of Agriculture has pointed out that globalization, aging, climate change and energy are the four major challenges facing European agriculture. France is Europe's largest grain exporter, and 1/2 of the grain produced is sold to countries in Europe and other continents. France is also the world's largest exporter of flour and beer malt. France is very rich in cereal varieties, including soft wheat, hard wheat, corn, barley, oats, sorghum, rye and rice. Since the summer of 2009, there has been a serious crisis in many areas of French agriculture. First, the price of fresh milk fell sharply under the pressure of insufficient demand, and many dairy farmers were forced to pour milk into rivers, leaving the dairy industry in trouble. Subsequently, the fruit and vegetable industry also encountered a crisis, and its picking cost was twice as high as that of Spain and other countries. In addition, the financial crisis reduced the demand for vegetables and fruits by the French people, and the French fruit and vegetable industry had a high yield but not a good harvest. According to data from the French National Bureau of Statistics, the income of French farmers in 2009 fell 1/3 from the previous year. 2009 became the year with the largest decline in agricultural income in France in 50 years. In 2008, agricultural earnings fell by 20% from the previous year. French grain prices fell 25% in 2009. Since 2000, the agricultural population in France has been declining, decreasing by 2% to 3% every year, and the average income of farmers in 2009 and the income of farmers in the mid-1980s remained at the same level, but from 1980 to 2009, agricultural productivity has doubled. It is obvious that French agriculture has increased production but not income. Agricultural Policy and Institutional Maintenance Food Production in France 1. French agriculture is highly dependent on subsidies. As a member of the European Union, France adheres to the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union. The common agricultural policy of the European Union maintains the price of agricultural products through huge subsidies at home and implements trade protection to safeguard the agriculture of EU member states. Data show that agricultural subsidies have always been the EU's most "money-burning" budget expenditure. In the EU's total budget of 106.6 billion euros in 2006, the common agricultural policy expenditure was as high as 49.8 billion euros, of which agricultural subsidies accounted for a large proportion. In recent years, the EU has begun to limit the growth of common agricultural policy expenditure in order to make agricultural products more market-oriented and sustainable development. At the end of 2009, EU agriculture ministers reached a compromise on the reform of EU agricultural subsidies and other agricultural policies, the most important of which is that the amount of subsidies received by farmers is no longer determined by the amount of production. As a major agricultural country in the EU, France has always been the largest beneficiary of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy. It receives subsidies of nearly 10 billion euros per year, accounting for more than 1/5 of the EU's agricultural subsidies and nearly 10% of the EU's total fiscal expenditure. France has also been in favor of retaining the hefty EU farm subsidies. Nearly 80% of the income of French farmers comes from the agricultural subsidies provided by the state to farmers. The French government has always believed that the EU Common Agricultural Policy plays an important role in protecting the food security and diversity of the country and Europe. At the same time, it does not believe that the Common Agricultural Policy is trade protectionism. It believes that the current subsidies are decoupled from the output of agricultural products by 70% and belong to the World Trade Organization. In the category of green box policy, these subsidies will not affect trade and disrupt world markets. 2. Use of Agricultural Cooperative System to Promote Grain Circulation agricultural cooperatives are operating cooperative organizations formed under the principle of voluntary and mutual benefit. Agricultural cooperatives are not enterprises in legal form and enjoy the government's preferential policies of exempting corporate tax (income tax) and providing low-interest loans. Due to the complete functions and services of agricultural cooperatives, farmers (including non-members) are more willing to sell grain to cooperatives in order to resolve market risks, obtain preferential prices and convenience, so agricultural cooperatives purchase most of the grain. At present, there are more than 1000 units engaged in grain management in France, including more than 200 agricultural cooperatives and more than 800 grain merchants. Commercial grain accounts for the majority of France's annual grain output, about 5000 million tons per year, of which 62% is purchased by agricultural cooperatives and 34% by grain merchants. 3. Grain Export Association Helps Grain Exports the French Food Export Association was established in 1997 by the French Food Industry Federation to promote the use of French food in the international market. It now has four offices outside France, including the Beijing office of the French Grain Export Association, which is responsible for China contacts. The first task of the association is to promote the quality of French food and meet the needs of consumers. The main operational activities include seminars in countries importing French food, inviting customers, flour mill leaders and technicians to visit France, inviting foreign journalists to visit France, organizing technical training and dissemination of processing techniques, market research on the processing of wheat from French and other sources, experiments in the production of local food using French food, and establishing a cooperative network between the French food industry and the food industries of other countries. For example, the Beijing office publishes a twice-monthly China Letter, which collects statistics on China's grain production performance. From 2008 to 2009, the association mainly targeted China for the export promotion of French malting barley. Government attaches importance to agricultural science and technology research and development in 2009, the French Ministry of Agriculture announced ten core research priorities for agricultural research and development: promoting food supply and production beneficial to health and happiness; New livestock feeding food supply; Phytochemistry: replacing petrochemical synthetic molecules with plant molecules; Green energy: developing bioenergy; Natural and herbal fertilizer innovation; Diversified plants adapted to climate change; Double the value-added of seafood; Consumer agricultural products suitable for fast cooking; growing new products for sustainable grapes, trees and vegetables; packaging adapted to food safety. First, France is currently making every effort to promote the modernization of agricultural energy. France believes that energy issues are the core of the new ecological and productive agricultural planting model in the future. In 2009, France launched an energy performance plan with the goal of reducing energy dependence on agricultural cultivation to 30% by 2013. France has also launched an "agricultural energy 2030 action" for agricultural development in the next 20 years ". The current French Minister of Agriculture Le Maire said in May this year that the government will invest 30 million million euros to help promote the modernization of agricultural energy in 2010. In 2005, the French agricultural sector consumed 9.2 million tons of oil equivalent, accounting for 5.7 per cent of France's final energy consumption. The French Academy of Agricultural Sciences believes that when oil prices reach $150, agricultural earnings will fall by at least 20%. Second, vigorously promote the development of ecological crops. The "Ecological Plant Plan" launched by the French Ministry of Agriculture in 2007 has the goal of reducing the use of crop pesticides by half by 2018. At the end of 2006, the French government asked the French Academy of Agricultural Sciences to carry out a study to evaluate the model and actual effect of reducing the use of pesticides in crops by 50%. In 2010, the French Academy of Agricultural Sciences completed the study. The results of the study suggest that reducing pesticides by half is feasible, but it means a change in the agricultural production system. Man of Feeding
-
EU's attitude towards GM crops remains negativeJuly 25, 2013 08:48 source: china Science Journal in response to the EU's existing review system for the cultivation of genetically modified crops, Monsanto recently issued a statement: Abandon continuing to promote genetically modified crops in Europe. EU researchers deeply regret this. While opponents of GM crops hailed the victory, supporters of GM crops warned that the increasing adoption of GM technology around the world and Europe's long-standing negative attitude towards GM crops could make Europe a region where technological development in the field is stagnant. Jonathan Jones of Sainsbury's Laboratories in Norwich, UK, said: "This is bad news for Europe as a whole, for European farmers and for global food security. Europe must be active in this area." Jones has used both transgenic technology and traditional methods to study disease resistance in plants. Despite the clear regulatory path, the EU's approval of GM crops has stalled after a slowdown. First, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the Italian city of Parma must confirm that the crop is safe. After that, within three months, the European Commission must submit a draft resolution to be voted on by representatives of EU member states. After this complicated process, it is possible for the crop to be approved. Since 2005, EFSA has recognized the safety of eight crops. However, due to political considerations for the cultivation of genetically modified crops and bans in some EU countries, the EU has been hesitant to plant genetically modified crops. Maurice Moloney of the Lausanne Institute (an agricultural research center in Hapton, UK) said: "Considering the current political environment, Monsanto's move is a very reasonable business decision." Although he hopes that the EU will eventually "change its mind", for now, even some small-scale field tests will attract fierce protests. Denis Murphy, a biotechnology expert at the University of South Wales, also said that more and more European researchers are looking to countries with more tolerant policies, such as looking for opportunities in the Far East. "I have also done a lot of research overseas and have almost given up on research in Europe." (Duan Xinwei) china Science News (2013-07-25 3rd Edition International) man of Feeding
-
China's growing demand for imported cornSeptember 11, 2013 4:11 pm China sees rising appetite for corn imports By Emiko Terazono More money to spend and a growing taste for meat on the dinner table are transforming China's appetite for corn imports. The effect on global food markets could be profound. Under Beijing's policy of “self-sufficiency”, corn imports, along with rice and wheat, have been kept to a minimum since China lowered its import barriers in 2001. The soyabean market, in contrast, was opened up to imports to release land for the key staples, and China has become the world's largest importer of the oilseed. But the world's corn traders are feeling more upbeat as growing demand for livestock feed has brought a steady rise in corn imports. In the long term, “China, currently representing over 75 per cent of global seaborne trade in soyabeans, will also become a major importer of corn," says Chris Mahoney, head of agriculture at Glencore Xstrata. A change in tone from Beijing is supportive of this view. Last year, Chinese agriculture minister Han Changfu wrote in an article that China would not allow itself to become dependent on foreign supplies and corn “should not become the second soyabean”. More recently, Mr Han said corn imports would have to rise gradually in order to meet feed demand. Although the 95 per cent threshold for self-sufficiency has not changed, “the rising volume of grain and soyabean imports has stimulated a lot of discussion this year among Chinese officials and analysts about how to rethink the concept of self-sufficiency," says Fred Gale, senior economist at the US Department of Agriculture. Xu Xiaoqing, the head of the rural department at the State Council's Development and Research Centre, a government think tank, last week told a conference in Beijing that China could import 20m-30m tonnes of corn a year to cover growing supply shortages. “Our corn needs are up, which means in the future we will see some imports but not to the same extent as soya," Mr Xu told the Financial Times. “Importing 20m tonnes would not be a big deal, because it would only be about 10 per cent of our total consumption ." Any small shift in China's purchases could have profound implications for global food markets. The corn imported by China is mainly for livestock feed, and demand is growing as the rise in average incomes leads to dietary changes and higher meat consumption. China's own grain output is at record levels, but demand growth is adding to the strain on its agricultural sector, already grappling with limits on farmland acreage and water supplies. China's corn imports are projected to more than double from 3m tonnes in the 2012-13 crop year to 7m tonnes in 2013-14, according to the USDA. By 2022, the country is forecast to become the leading corn importer, buying 19.6m tonnes from world markets. China's limited corn imports have mainly come from the US, but amid the rise in overseas purchases, there are indications that Beijing is looking for other sources of the commodity. Earlier this year, Argentina shipped corn to China for the first time, and Ukraine is set to send its first shipments later this year. Although there is no explicit policy of diversifying sources of imports the relatively speedy approval of Ukraine and Argentina as suppliers suggests Chinese officials are eager to have more options, say analysts. Jean-Yves Chow, associate director at Rabobank's trade commodity finance in Hong Kong, says: “China does not want to be caught solely dependent on the US. The US 2012 drought was a good reminder ." Martin Fraguio, head of Argentine's corn industry association Maizar, believes China's purchases are price-based and any decision on their part depends on the market, but says “Argentina could have another two or three cargoes [to China] in the remaining part of the year ”. Ukraine too is setting its sights on China. Says one Kiev-based corn trader: “Ukraine is really starting to chip away at the American domination in this market ." Additional reporting by Roman Olearchyk in Kiev Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2013. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
-
China becoming the world's largest rice importer: implications for regional food securityNo. 166/2013 dated 12 September 2013 China as the World's Largest Rice Importer: Regional Implications By J. Jackson Ewing and Zhang Hongzhou Synopsis After decades of near self-sufficiency, China is becoming the world's largest importer of rice. What does this mean for greater Asia? Commentary CHINA IS on track to overtake Nigeria as the world's largest rice importer by late 2013. Once a major rice exporter, China is now taking a position in the rice market that many have predicted and some lamented: that of an importing behemoth with a voracious appetite. This shift will likely impact regional food security calculations for decades to come. China's growing rice imports are not easily explained. Per-capita rice consumption is declining, the country's rice production has expanded for nine years running and 2013 is projected to be a record production year. Import growth is thus attributable to a number of less intuitive factors. Why rice imports have jumped First, China's domestic rice production might be over-reported. There are both domestic and international voices that challenge official rice production figures in China. For example, over-reporting may happen when officials exaggerate rice output levels because their performance assessments are tied directly to local rice production. Second, China's agricultural sector is declining in competitiveness. Like some other Asian countries, China has implemented state-funded strategies that encourage rice cultivation by guaranteeing minimum purchase prices. After almost a decade of government increases to these prices, they are now well over international market levels. Third, poor off-farm logistics erode China's food sector efficiency. Rapid urbanisation and industrialisation has seen China's rice producing centre shift from south to north. The fledgling northeastern rice bowl is far away from China's major rice-consuming provinces, and the country's grain transportation system is not up to the challenge. Rice transportation costs from the northeast to major consuming markets now makes up around 30% of retail rice prices, and in peak season transport capacity struggles to meet rice demands. This creates incentives for companies in the south to source rice from neighbouring exporters such as Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. Fourth, rising concerns over the safety of domestically-produced rice make imported rice more attractive. A 2011 study argued that as much as 10% of rice sold in China is contaminated and unfit for consumption. Other reports indicate that due to fears of cadmium-tainted rice, growing numbers of mainland Chinese citizens are crossing into Hong Kong to purchase imported rice. These factors combine to accelerate rice imports in China, and as the largest consumer of rice in the world, these imports have ripple effects: The market context china's emergence as a major rice importer is occurring alongside steadily climbing international rice prices. After more than three decades of decline, prices have more than doubled since 2000. These increases result in part from the policy decisions of key Asian countries. Thailand's support scheme, which sees government purchases of rice at prices above market levels, has weakened the country's export competitiveness and led to a domestic storage glut. It is not alone. Since the rice price spikes of 2007-2008, other Asian players have also increased government support for the rice sector while storing greater amounts of grain that could otherwise supply markets. These policies reflect the desire to safeguard domestic rice markets from external shocks, but they have the corresponding effect of driving rice prices higher. Large stockpiles are not impeding production in the wider region, however. Record production highs are projected across much of Asia, in large part as a result of increased planted areas. The Philippines, long among the largest rice importers in the world, claims to be nearing complete self-sufficiency after another year of strong yield improvements. Malaysia is likewise reducing its import dependence by growing more rice at home and Indonesia, while advancing more slowly, has similar ambitions. Regional mid-level rice exporters - Myanmar and Cambodia - are also significantly expanding production in hopes of joining Thailand and Vietnam as major source countries. Outside Asia, production is increasing in Africa and South America and total global rice production for 2013-2014 is likely to reach its highest level ever. Against the grain So with silos full of rice and record harvests coming in, are China's rising imports a cause for concern? There are some reasons to think so. Rice sector support schemes in Asia have long come in the form of guaranteed minimum prices, price controls, price and input subsidies, and opaque government-to-government deals. Such interventions appear increasingly unmanageable. They incur high budgetary burdens, contribute to the misallocation of resources, and run counter to the liberalisation goals of much of the region as well as the WTO. Despite these problems, the scale of China's growing import market may perpetuate such government interventions, as other Asian countries protect their domestic sectors out of fear that their access to affordable rice will otherwise be compromised. Moreover, international and domestic rice prices are rising not only because of direct policy interventions, but also because of input shocks such as increasing costs of fuel, fertiliser, land and labour. The ecological limits of responsibly expanding rice cultivation areas are being quickly exhausted, and it is no longer environmentally tenable to clear large swathes of land for rice production throughout much of Asia. Cheap farming labour can likewise no longer be taken for granted - particularly in areas in which urban industrialisation is driving up prices and wages. As such, the economic and environmental cost of producing rice is increasing significantly. Despite these rising costs, China's growing imports may encourage more rice production in places where it makes little economic, social or environmental sense to do so. Countries wary of China's growing market presence may reduce or abandon their imports and bring more land under cultivation - including lands with poor rice-growing characteristics. While such moves may be defended as self-reliance, they come at a steep price. This domestically-produced rice may be more expensive, have poorer quality than imported varieties, and take up land that could be used more productively in other ways. More stable trade ties? The news is not all bad. China's growing imports may lead in some cases to greater capital inflows, higher farmer incomes and better access to technology for exporting countries. This may in turn contribute to more efficient and higher-yielding production strategies, which provides one pathway for addressing regional rice challenges. While no panacea, higher yields will reduce environmental footprints by requiring less land for rice cultivation, and help to manage the movement of labour, reduce the costs of production and lower consumer prices through greater efficiency. They may, however, also gradually lead to more stable trade relationships, as Asian price takers gain confidence that quality regional rice will be dependably available and affordable on the market. China can contribute to such a scenario through encouraging transparent rice market transactions instead of relying on opaque government-to-government deals. While uncertainties persist, it is clear that China's days of rice self-sufficiency are over. This emerging reality will have a significant impact on Asia's food future. J. Jackson Ewing is a Research Fellow with the Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS) Studies and Zhang Hongzhou is an Associate Research Follow with the China Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. Contributions by Zhang Hongzhou
-
UN: World's 1/3 food goes to wasteUN: One-third of food worldwide gets wasted 10 hours ago , 12 Sep 2013 ROME (AP) - The U.N. food agency says one-third of all food produced in the world gets wasted, amounting to a loss of $750 billion a year. The Rome-based Food and Agricultural Organization said in a report Wednesday that food in developing countries is wasted mostly due to poor harvesting techniques, while in high-income areas the primary cause of waste is careless consumer behavior. The report said food waste hurts the environment by causing unnecessary carbon emissions, extra water consumption and the reduction of biodiversity as farming takes over more land. The most serious areas of waste are of cereals in Asia and meat in wealthy regions and Latin America. FAO stressed the importance of raising awareness among consumers. Contributions by Zhang Hongzhou