How WTO fuels hunger

poor countries from other nations’ export restrictions.
The WTO allows countries to impose export restrictions and bans as a temporary measure to address critical food shortages. But these restrictions affect poor countries, which buy most of their food supply, in two ways: They push food prices up globally, making it more expensive for poor countries to buy food, and they force food-importing countries to shop for deals long distances away.
The WTO can help poor countries by ensuring that other nations’ export restrictions do not apply to them, explained Alberto Valdés, research associate at the Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, and the lead author of the study, which was conducted for the Geneva-based International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.
During the 2008 food crisis, Least Developed Countries saw their food import bills triple to US$24 billion from US$9 billion in 2000, according to a study by the UN Conference on Trade and Development. A 2011 World Bank study said 44 million people in low and middle-income countries fell into poverty as a result of food price spikes in mid-2010 and early 2011.
Today, global maize prices are again rising, prompted by a drought in the US, the world’s largest maize exporter.
Sounding alarm bells
“Tragically, only 4 percent of sub-Saharan African countries’ grain imports are produced by farmers in other African countries,” said Thomas Jayne, who is a professor of international development at Michigan State University and currently based at Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute in Zambia.
“The other 96 percent comes from international markets. There has been little progress over the past decade in persuading governments to desist from using trade bans that impede countries’ ability to rely more on each other for their residual grain requirements.”
In Southern Africa, Malawi, which has not had a particularly good harvest, has imposed a ban on maize exports. Zambia, a major maize producer in the region, has informal export restrictions in place.
“Many countries that are a bit short are worried that if prices continue to rise, they might have to spend more to buy later, as is the case with Zambia,” said an aid official in the region.
Jayne said Zambia’s “Ministry of Agriculture rang the alarm bell that the state marketing board, the Food Reserve Agency, might not be able to acquire the one million tonnes it had advocated buying for the national strategic reserve”.
The government instituted a process in which the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture must review every application for licences to export maize grain, restricting the volume of legal maize exports.
“But the alarm bell was sounded too soon,” Jayne continued.
“The Food Reserve Agency has already purchased almost 700 000 tonnes, which will last till the next harvest in May (2013). So, it is unclear why the country wants to impede exports at a time when it is already holding sufficient maize for its own national consumption and when it can generate needed revenue for its farmers. The move reveals the country to be an unreliable source of food supply for the rest of the region.”
The issue is also problematic for aid agencies that need to buy non-genetically modified maize for food aid in the region. Most countries in the region that are in need of food assistance do not allow GM Food aid.
“Zambia and Malawi are our biggest suppliers and a much cheaper option for non-GM maize in the region,” said an aid worker.
Since the 2007/8 crisis, food and trade experts have asked for more clarity on the WTO position on export bans and restrictions, especially on the scope and duration of such measures. — Irin News.