|
The rising use of biofuels, financial market turmoil, export bans, changing diets, climate change and skyrocketing oil prices have all been blamed for the current food price rises. Of course, it is important to try to determine the cause of the crisis. At least one thing is clear: unlike the last international food crisis in the early 1970s and others, which were mainly triggered by crop failure, the root of the current problem is more complicated. Identifying only a single factor and focusing our attention and criticism on it alone, may distract us from finding the right solution to the problem.
Let us consider the positive aspects, if any, of the current food crisis. For example, the world is beginning to regret the long-sustained neglect of the agricultural sector, and consequently, keener attention will now be paid to its development. International organizations have committed themselves to dealing with food problems. The Asian Development Bank announced massive financial support for the food crisis, including US$ 500 million in immediate budgetary support and doubling its lending to US$ 2 billion for agriculture in 2009 (ADB, 2008). The World Bank is calling for a ‘New Deal for Global Food Policy’, which focuses on energy, climate change, and investment as well as access to food and its supply (World Bank, 2008).
The next question would be whether farmers can successfully respond to the world's expectations of increased food production? One of the features of the post-Green Revolution period in Asian rural society is the comprehensive diversification of rural societies (Kitahara, 2004). While farmers diversified their cropping patterns to seek more profitable commodities besides rice, expanding non-agricultural job opportunities diversified their income sources and decreased their households' reliance on agriculture. In fact, a diversified job pattern helps facilitate an escape from poverty. We should not take a pessimistic view of the decreasing importance of agriculture as an income source in rural areas, as long as it occurs in parallel with increasing productivity and efficiency of farming systems. However, if the lowering of the perceived importance of agriculture results in the neglect of agriculture and farmers' reluctance to invest in their farming, then the current price hike will not fully stimulate expanding crop production.
According to the attitude survey conducted by the author in a rural village in West Java, Indonesia (Sugino et al., 2008), although non-farm income plays an important role in the household economy (making up approximately 70 per cent of the total household income) in the study village, the farmers who continued rice and vegetable production in addition to their side-businesses, have strong hopes for developing their agricultural production and getting more income from agriculture. These farmers showed their interest in technological improvement, such as application of new varieties, as a measurement for farm development. Interestingly, the survey results showed that the farmers who get less income from agriculture have a higher preference for expanding rice production through land procurement. However, it is questionable whether this tendency would result in increased productivity since the major purpose of rice farm expansion was acquiring the rice fields as assets.
The coverage of the survey is very limited and it is difficult to draw a general conclusion from its data. However, we can conclude that the farmers still have plans to develop their agricultural practice despite attractive job options outside their villages, even at times when the commodity prices are low (the survey was conducted before the current major price hike had been observed in the area). How about land accumulation by wealthier farmers, thanks to the abundant cash from side-businesses? This aspect should be carefully monitored. It may not be a problem as long as the land consolidation works as a trigger for improved labour productivity due to scale merit, and the excess labour is absorbed by non-agricultural sectors, rather than simply increasing the number of landless farm labourers.
In the previous food crisis, government interventions to encourage supply and increase productivity through new technologies were the two major possible options. But the scope to do the same this time may be limited (Beattie and Blas, 2008). More analysis will be necessary to formulate a medium to long-term prescription for the current crisis while providing urgent aid to those in need of daily food. It is not too late to invest in agriculture as long as farmers still have a strong will to develop their farms and can respond to the expectations of the rest of the world. Human will is the best enhancer of economic development. ˇ
Written by Tomohide Sugino, Senior Researcher, Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences.
(References available upon request) |
