The focus of the UN summit in Johannesburg in September 2002 was ‘people, planet and prosperity’, yet at the same time, Johannesburg is the staging post for millions of tonnes of UN food aid. About 13 million people in southern Africa face severe food shortages and famine. What are the causes of this crisis and who is responsible?
The food crisis in southern Africa has many causes, which vary in magnitude from country to country. Climate, bad governance, HIV/AIDS, unsustainable debt and collapsing services have all contributed. A study by Oxfam suggests that one major cause of the critical food insecurity is the failure of agricultural reforms designed by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). This paper asks why, after years of World Bank and IMF-designed agricultural sector reforms, do Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique face chronic food insecurity?
The study suggests that agricultural reforms for these countries were designed without first carrying out a serious assessment of their likely impact. Far from improving food security, World Bank and IMF-inspired policies have left poor farmers more vulnerable than ever.
The policies promoted by the World Bank and IMF aimed to replace inefficient and corrupt state intervention in agriculture with private sector provision. There is no doubt that agricultural reform was needed. However, the way in which it was done has given rise to a number of problems:
- The ‘one size fits all’ liberalisation policies have failed to lead to economic growth.
- Instead, they have exacerbated the exclusion of the poorest from the market while further undermining their food security.
- Leaders of the north have recommended agricultural liberalisation for countries of the south while maintaining massive subsidies for their own farmers.
- The ability of governments to tackle the crisis is further undermined by crippling debt repayments to the World Bank, IMF and rich countries.
A new approach to agriculture policy is required. Governments should take the lead in designing agricultural policies in the context of wider national development and poverty reduction strategies, and with the full participation of parliaments, small farmers’ representatives and civil society groups. Moreover:
- Donors should end all lending conditions that promote further liberalisation of agriculture in Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia pending thorough Poverty and Social Impact Assessments of agricultural policy reform in these countries.
- Donors should support transparent, state-supported systems for ensuring food security and preventing future famine.
- Governments need to play an active role in developing market reforms that support rural development.
- Rich countries must deliver immediate food aid to avert the threat of starvation for millions of people across southern Africa.
- Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia should be granted an immediate suspension of their respective debt repayments.
- Industrialised regions, particularly the US and the EU, should (1) allow poor countries to protect key staple crops through tariffs and subsidies and (2) end agricultural export dumping and phase out export subsidies and credits.
Source(s):
‘Death on the Doorstep of the Summit’, Oxfam, by Max Lawson, August 2002 Full document.
id21 Research Highlight: 17 February 2003
Further Information:
Oxfam International Advocacy Office
1112 16th St. NW
Ste 600
Washington DC 20036
USA
Tel:
+1 202 496 1170
Contact the contributor: advocacy@oxfaminternational.org
Oxfam International
Max Lawson
Oxfam GB Policy Department
Oxfam House
274 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7DZ
UK
Tel:
+44 (0)1865 312610
Contact the contributor: mlawson@oxfam.org.uk
Oxfam GB Policy Department
Other related links:
'IMF/World Bank Poverty Reduction Strategy: effective, participatory and
locally owned?'
'The IMF and World Bank: undermining democracy and rolling back the state?'
'Structural adjustment - pro or anti-poor?'
The Bretton Woods Project acts as the critical voice on the World Bank and
IMF
