Measures to increase food production
Home-based food production is a self-evident focus or objective for rural household food security programmes, and, to a lesser extent, also for urban programmes. Projects can seek to strengthen the resource base of producers through the provision of subsidised inputs or by making inputs more readily available where access was previously limited.
Alternatively, or additionally, the focus can be on improved resource access in the form of credit or, in the case of the displaced, land.
In many respects, the components of household food security projects designed to increase food production are similar to those of agricultural development projects. The intended beneficiaries, however, may be very different, since the focus of the former will be on poverty reduction and the objective to improve the household food security of the poorest, rather than to raise production per se, increase export earnings, or some other agricultural policy objective. In addition, skill formation through improved extension services and/or the provision of technical assistance is often a component of production-related projects.
As noted, the potential importance of measures to improve incentives for small-scale food producers, and the constraints imposed on the use of these measures by the AoA are discussed elsewhere. It is important to emphasise here, however, that such policies play a significant role in food security programmes. Given that the majority of target groups are rural in location and occupation, and that agricultural production is one of the principal sources of income of such groups, it is axiomatic that policies to enhance the resource base, both directly through the provision of resources, or indirectly through the price mechanism, will also enhance food security. However, the effects are often medium-term rather than short-term, particularly for net food consumers.
A recent comparison of the welfare effects of agricultural production subsidies and direct food subsidies, found that the welfare gains stemming from production subsidies were positive for both rural and urban consumers providing that both producer and consumer prices were flexible and responded in a downward direction to increased output. In fact, in these circumstances, the welfare advantage for rural consumers was greater than that stemming from consumer price subsidies (Praveen, 1994). In both cases, the targeting of subsidies increased the net welfare gain.
Marketing parastatals Changes in the role and significance of food marketing parastatals can have important consequences for rural food security. Typically, there have been three main food security dimensions of parastatal activities: (i) at the national level regarding maintenance of strategic food reserves: (ii) the provision of price stability at the level of domestic markets; and (iii) at the household level, providing access to subsidised food staples, especially in remote and marginal locations through pan-territonal pricing. The curtailment of grain agencies' role in implementing consumer subsidies presents few problems even where the government considers it desirable to continue an element of subsidy in consumer prices. This can be achieved using private sector subsidies (e.g. direct payments to millers), although the administrative costs may increase. The elimination of pan-territorial pricing, on the other hand, while sometimes desirable on the grounds of efficiency, may cause substantial food insecurity if implemented too rapidly. Farm households in such areas may be unable to adjust rapidly to changed market conditions, particularly where there are few cropping alternatives. In some cases, rationalisation may entail the closing of buying points in remote or less profitable locations. As it may not be profitable for private traders to operate in such locations, food security may decrease, and households may be forced to retreat into quasi-subsistence production or migrate to the towns. In Malawi, marketing activities declined in the remote areas following the temporary withdrawal of ADMARC and the failure of the private sector to fully fill the vacuum created (WB, 1995e). In Zambia. food security of the poorest farmers was, in some ways, adversely affected by parastatal withdrawal, and the emergence of buying oligopolies (WB, 1994). An important outcome of liberalisation, as evidenced in both Zambia and Zimbabwe, however, has been the proliferation of independent, small-scale hammer mills. This has facilitated the local processing of maize and (relatively) lower consumer prices in rural areas, as well as providing the opportunity in some urban areas to purchase a less refined, and cheaper form of maize-meal.5 Also, in Zimbabwe the opening of a substantial number of loss-making parastatal buying points during the 1980s encouraged a significant expansion in maize output among small-scale farmers, although a commercial rationalisation of parastatal activities saw many of these temporarily closed down (WB, 1995b). 5 Although maize-meal produced by hammer mills, being less refined, is often regarded as of lower quality. it is also more nutritious. having a higher fibre and oil content. |
