6
food. The volume of market demand for food of household h is
(
)
h
h
Qfsc
Qf
−
, while total food
demand is equal to
(
)
h
h
h
Qfsc
Qf
−
∑
.
Such ‘micro’ framework, includes all immediate determinants of the control over food, and
can help understanding variations in
h
Qf
over (i) the long term, (ii) the seasonal cycle and (iii)
on occasion of famines/food crisis. However, the right-hand-side (RHS)
variables in (2) are
most likely to change at different speeds over time, while their underlying determinants are
obviously very different. Hereafter, we attempt to identify which RHS variables of (2) are more
likely to influence control over food and the extent of malnutrition during the three different
time dimensions illustrated above.
Determinants of long term food security
In this framework, the long term food security and malnutrition are affected by the following
variables:
•
Long term changes ‘supply side conditions and policies’, i.e.
-
h
Qfsc
is the amount of food production/capita for self-consumption of household h.
As noted by Boserup (1965), this depends – inter alia – on the growth of the
household size, land availability (which allows to expand the ‘extensive land frontier’
without increasing land yields) and its distribution, and agricultural policies aiming at
expanding the ‘intensive land frontier’ (i.e. intensifying the use of land by increasing
the application of complementary inputs such as high-yielding varieties, fertilizers and
irrigation), by means of land reform (in countries with high land concentration), inputs
support policies and subsidies, price support, and other policies. In several SSA
countries,
h
Qfsc
and land yields stagnated as public policy hardly focused on
agricultural research, input subsidies, rural infrastructure and rural development. For
example in the COMESA (Common Market for Eastern and Sothern Africa) countries,
food supply has grown at 2.5 percent while the population increased at percent,
resulting in a gradual erosion of
h
Qfsc
for many households in this region (Karugia et
al. 2009)
6
.
- Changes in imports and exports, which after the adoption of the SAPs have become
– for better or for worse - a more important determinant of the overall food supply
than in the past
7
. Food imports and exports vary according to changes in domestic
production, domestic and international prices, transport costs, foreign exchange
availability and policy choices.
•
Long term changes in ‘demand side conditions and policies’, i.e.
6
By 2008 only a fifth of the African countries had allocated more than 10 per cent of total public expenditure to
agricultural development, as agreed in the Maputo Declaration on Food Security (2003), and many countries
barely reached 4 per cent of GDP. In turn, the share of ODA allocated to agriculture has fallen from 18 percent in
1979 to just 3.5 percent in 2004, while in 2008 spending on agricultural R&D was 0.61 of the agricultural GDP, far
below NEPAD’s national investment target of at least one percent of GDP (for more details see Beintema & Stads
2011)
7
Dorosh et al. (2007) estimated that without the moderating impact of private imports, Zambia’s maize price
would have increases by over 160 percent and the maize consumption of poor household would have fallen by 25
percent below the actual level.
7
- An increase in market demand of food due to a rise in the incomes of non-food producers
(
)
Pj
Qj
h
, rises of (rural and urban) wages
Pw
, incomes in manufacturing and services, the
discovery of primary commodities or an increase in their price, and an increase in social
transfers
h
T
;
- A decline in
h
Qfsc
, the amount of food production/ capita for self-consumption
,
due to the
rising commercialization of agriculture;
•
Changes in the domestic price of food
Pf
which depends on the interaction of domestic
demand/supply conditions (which reflect also the policy measures adopted, see above),
as
well as in international food prices (and their impact on the domestic prices through
growing/declining import dependence, for any given price transmission mechanism).
If not accompanied by a proportional increase in nominal cash income, rising
Pf
translates
into lower purchasing power of the household and in a reduction (both in quantity and
quality) of the bundles of goods and services that the household can control. The income
elasticity of demand for major staples of poor households tends to be very high (Karugia et
al., 2009). Moreover, several studies have shown that the consumption habits are very rigid
and that the diet of the poor is already based on the cheapest staples (Kelly et al, 2008; Brown
et al. 2009, Blein & Longo, 2009). This means that in response to an increase in the price of a
particular staple food, poor households cannot easily find cheaper and nutritious substitutes
and will end up reducing the resources allocated to key non-food items, such as health care
and water and sanitation, a decision which also affect nutritional status over the long run.
Seasonal price volatility and food security
The literature describes recurrent and marked changes in food prices, poverty, body weight,
malnutrition, and mortality during the annual ‘hunger season’ of about 4 months in the build
up to the harvest period. Dostie et al. (2002), for instance, estimate that the number of people
living below the national poverty-line in Madagascar increases each year from nine million to
almost ten million during the hunger season. Similarly, child mortality doubles between
May/June and the peak of the hunger season in December/January, with 26 percent of child
deaths due to diarrhea and 22 percent to malnutrition (ibid.). Devereux (1992) provides
evidence of how prevalence of malnutrition follows the price increases recorded during the
hunger season in Ghana in 1988/89. The same has been shown for Niger by Mousseau and
Mittal (2006).
This phenomenon is practically absent in the developed economies. In contrast, in most of
SSA, small farmers sell part of their food output right after the harvest (when prices are at
their lowest) to cover expenses for taxes and religious ceremonies and repay debts
contracted during the lean season. After exhausting their food stocks, they start buying food
(i.e. 6-8 months later, when food prices are their highest) with cash obtained by selling small
animals, doing casual work, migrating, borrowing, or getting enrolled in food aid programs.
Seen from this perspective, seasonal food security depends mainly – even in normal years -
on:
•
The strong seasonality of
Pf ,
Pj and
Pw
. In particular,
Pf rises while
Pj
and
Pw
drop.