July 10, 2018 | By Craig Robinson

Next Generation 2018 - How Can Diplomacy Prevent Food Price Shocks?

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is pleased to present the 2018 Next Generation Delegates blog series. This year’s Delegation was comprised of 27 outstanding students from universities across the United States and around the world studying agriculture, food, and related disciplines. We were thrilled to feature these emerging leaders at the Global Food Security Symposium 2018, and look forward to sharing the exciting work of this extraordinary group.

It is easy to forget that 10 years has passed since the 2007-08 food price crisis, when over 130 million people were pushed into poverty (World Bank, 2009). In the absence of a full-blown international crisis, concerns linger that agriculture may yet again be slipping as an international priority. However, at a time in which world hunger is on the rise, with the estimated number of undernourished people increasing from 777 million in 2015 to 815 million in 2016, the world cannot afford another food price shock.

While food price shocks are typically rare events, they are beginning to occur on a regular, cyclical basis. The food price shocks seen between 1910 and 1980 occurred nearly every three decades (Gardner, 1979). Between the 1974 food price shock and 2007-08, thirty five years had passed. Timmer (2010) established that every time a shock occurs, there is an increased sentiment for governments to intervene in markets, as compared to leaving food security in the hands of market forces. These interventions however eventually come at a cost (Timmer, 1986) and donors and governments shift their priorities and financial resources to other more pressing priorities. Market forces, however, have resulted in a long-term trend of pushing food prices so low that further investment in agriculture, such as infrastructure, becomes unprofitable. Timmer (2010) found that the subsequent drop in investment results in supply falling behind demand, setting the pre-conditions for another food price shock. I see many echoes of these trends in today’s global agricultural outlook.

At the 2018 Global Food Security Symposium, I heard a lot about the importance of agricultural production and innovation to meet the projected food demand of 2050, with a particular focus on youth. This is undoubtedly a crucial area for global food security, particularly as we adapt to climate variability and surging food demand. However, one dimension this year’s symposium did not explore was the need for countries to cooperate on agricultural policy to avoid unintended and costly international consequences. Let me offer the view that diplomacy has a key role in this regard.

New frameworks for diplomatic practice are particularly apt to our consideration of food price shocks. Goh and Prantl’s (2017) Strategic Diplomacy framework offers a system perspective based on three key questions:

  • What are the entry points for strategic diplomacy?
  • What are the tipping points that may either maintain or change the system?
  • What are the endpoints of strategic diplomacy in addressing the issues?
     

In considering the issue of food price shocks, we need to consider when a crisis actually starts and the tipping points that led to this occurring. In the 2007-08 food price crisis, the first warning of the crisis emerged as far back as 2003, when the signs of pressure on agricultural commodity prices started to emerge. Fan and Hedley (2008) established three key long-run factors that contributed to this pressure: rising oil prices, particularly in the United States whose agriculture industry is particularly oil sensitive; excessive food stockpiles in the 1990’s that delayed global price transmission and acted as a barrier to agricultural investment; and biofuel production which significantly increased in the five years leading up to 2007-08.

These slow burn issues did not immediately result in the crisis, but they were given enough time to conflate with other short term factors. States missed opportunities for diplomacy to achieve crisis prevention by addressing these factors before they acted as tipping points. Two strategic endpoints remain elusive still today: a global agreement to shift away from food-based biofuel production and a global agreement regulating the size of domestic food stockpiles.

Under the perception that the global agricultural system was under pressure, the crisis took an abrupt turn in November 2007 when India imposed the first major export restriction in the global rice market. Export restrictions were soon implemented by Vietnam, Cambodia, and Egypt (Headey and Fan, 2008). Further instability emerged when countries caught in the middle of these decisions responded through panic buying (Headey, 2011). The Philippines, for example, imported 1.3 million metric tons of rice in the first four months of 2008 as precautionary purchases, exceeding their entire rice imports for 2007. Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Nigeria imported an extra million metric tons of rice in 2007-08 (Headey, 2011). Suddenly, rice prices increased 140 percent from November 2007 to May 2008 (Headey and Fan, 2008). This happened despite rice production reaching an all-time high in 2007, and no major surge in demand and no significant changes in rice stockpiles.

Diplomats did not effectively manage the crisis as it quickly accelerated. A global agreement to not enact export restrictions or panic hoarding during agricultural market uncertainty would have played a pivotal role at this stage of the crisis. This is a key diplomatic agreement that remains elusive still today.

In my upcoming PhD thesis, I will be presenting an entire new crisis diplomacy framework for non-traditional security issues, applied to the 2007-08 food price crisis. This framework will incorporate a systems perspective based on advances in strategic diplomacy. These frameworks, which sit alongside the notable research already undertaken into the causes of food price shocks, can help illuminate the crucial diplomatic agreements necessary to strike a balance between national interest and global public good.

 

References

  • Gardner, B. L. 1979. Optimal Stockpiling of Grain. Lexington, Lexington Books.
  • Headey, D. 2011. Rethinking the Global Food Crisis: The Role of Trade Shocks. Food Policy, 36:2, 136-146.
  • Headey, D. & Fan, S. 2008. Anatomy of a Crisis: the Causes and Consequences of Surging Food Prices. Agricultural Economics, 39:1, 375-391.
  • Prantl, J. & GOH, E. 2016. Strategic Diplomacy in Northeast Asia. Global Asia, 11:4, 8-13.
  • Timmer, C. P. 1986. Getting Prices Right: The Scope and Limits of Agricultural Price Policy. Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
  • Timmer, C. P. 2010. Reflections on Food Crises Past. Food Policy, 35:1, 1-11.
  • World Bank, The. 2009. The World Bank Annual Report 2009. Washington, World Bank Publishing.

About

The Global Food and Agriculture Program aims to inform the development of US policy on global agricultural development and food security by raising awareness and providing resources, information, and policy analysis to the US Administration, Congress, and interested experts and organizations.

The Global Food and Agriculture Program is housed within the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, an independent, nonpartisan organization that provides insight – and influences the public discourse – on critical global issues. The Council on Global Affairs convenes leading global voices and conducts independent research to bring clarity and offer solutions to challenges and opportunities across the globe. The Council is committed to engaging the public and raising global awareness of issues that transcend borders and transform how people, business, and governments engage the world.

Support for the Global Food and Agriculture Program is generously provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Blogroll

1,000 Days Blog, 1,000 Days

Africa Can End Poverty, World Bank

Agrilinks Blog

Bread Blog, Bread for the World

Can We Feed the World Blog, Agriculture for Impact

Concern Blogs, Concern Worldwide

Institute Insights, Bread for the World Institute

End Poverty in South Asia, World Bank

Global Development Blog, Center for Global Development

The Global Food Banking Network

Harvest 2050, Global Harvest Initiative

The Hunger and Undernutrition Blog, Humanitas Global Development

International Food Policy Research Institute News, IFPRI

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center Blog, CIMMYT

ONE Blog, ONE Campaign

One Acre Fund Blog, One Acre Fund

Overseas Development Institute Blog, Overseas Development Institute

Oxfam America Blog, Oxfam America

Preventing Postharvest Loss, ADM Institute

Sense & Sustainability Blog, Sense & Sustainability

WFP USA Blog, World Food Program USA

Archive

| By Lisa Moon

Guest Commentary - Reduce Food Loss & Waste, Feed Millions

Studies show that one-third of all food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted, enough to feed 1.9 billion people-almost the same amount as are experiencing food insecurity. Food banks are uniquely positioned to address the paradox of global hunger and food loss and waste. 


| By Colin Christensen , Eva Koehler

Guest Commentary - The Plague You’ve Never Heard About Could be as Destructive as COVID-19: How the Threat from Desert Locusts Shows the Need for Innovations in how Organizations Scale

The international community needs to mobilize to combat the plague of locusts devouring East Africa. At the same time however, we should also consider the long-term investments we must make to build lasting resilience to climate change among smallholder populations.




| By Sarah Bingaman Schwartz, Maria Jones

Guest Commentary - Reducing Food Loss and Waste by Improving Smallholder Storage

Reducing postharvest losses by half would result in enough food to feed a billion people, increase smallholder income levels and minimize pressure on natural resources. The ADM Institute for the Prevention of Postharvest Loss works with smallholders in Bihar to improve storage and reduce loss. 








| By Mark Titterington

Guest Commentary - A European perspective on the journey to a regenerative agriculture system…

Regenerative farming practices can lead to improved soil health and farm productivity and profitability, boosting crop quality and yields, improving the resilience of farms to extreme weather events and reducing the propensity for soil degradation and run-off, but most excitingly, creates the opportunity to actually draw down and store carbon from the atmosphere in agriculture soils.


| By Peter Carberry

Field Notes - Brokering Research Crucial for Climate-Proofing Drylands

9 out of 12 interventions identified for agriculture by the Global Commission on Adaptation involve research and development. For smallholder farmers in drylands, some of the most vulnerable to climate change, the role of innovation brokers may prove just as important as doing the science itself.