Collection of contributions  Discussion No. 2 from 19 January to 9 February 2015
Examining the linkages between trade and food
security: What is your experience?
Collection of contributions
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
2
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Topic introduction........................................................................................................................................................... 3
Contributions received .................................................................................................................................................. 5
1.
Abdybek Asanaliev, Kyrgyz National Agrarian University, Kyrgyzstan ..................................... 5
2. Elena Zhiryaeva, North-West Institute of Management of the Russian academy of
stateservice, Russia .................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.
Moshfaqur Rahman, Bangladesh ................................................................................................................ 5
4.
Valeria Furmanova, Department of agricultural development, Ukraine ................................... 6
5.
Ekaterina Krivonos, FAO, Italy, Facilitator of the discussion .......................................................... 7
6.
Ekaterina Krivonos, FAO, Italy, Facilitator of the discussion .......................................................... 7
7.
Darya Ilina Institute of Forecasting and Macroeconomic research, Uzbekistan..................... 7
8.
Matraim Jusupov, FAO, Kyrgyzstan ........................................................................................................... 8
9.
Ovezdurdy Jumadurdyyev, Project of the Adaptation Fund, Turkmenistan ............................ 8
10.
Matraim Jusupov, FAO, Kyrgyzstan.................................................................................................... 10
11.
Ekaterina Krivonos, FAO, Italy, Facilitator of the discussion .................................................. 11
12.
Natalia Kirenko, Institute of System Studies in Agribusiness NASB, Belarus................... 12
13.
Klara Dzhakypbekova, Kyrgyzstan..................................................................................................... 14
14.
Nkwelle Nkede Flabert, Center for Communication and Sustainable Development for
All, Cameroon ............................................................................................................................................................ 15
15.
Volodymyr Matenchuk, Gide Loyrette Nouel, Ukraine .............................................................. 16
16.
Botir Dosov, Central Asia and the Caucasus Association of Agricultural Research
Institutions, Uzbekistan ........................................................................................................................................ 17
17.
Renata Yanbykh, All-Russian institute of agrarian problems and informatics
A.A.Nikonova, Russian Federation .................................................................................................................... 19
18.
Volodymyr Matenchuk, Gide Loyrette Nouel, Ukraine .............................................................. 21
19.
Ekaterina Krivonos, FAO, Italy ............................................................................................................. 22
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
3
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
Topic introduction
There are many ways that trade agreements and rules may influence food security positively or
negatively. The relationship is complex. Furthermore, agreements and rules governing trade are
one force among many having an impact on food security. It is not surprising then that views
about the effect of trade rules and agreements on food security vary depending on one’s personal
and professional experience and expertise, in addition to what is being measured and which
affected stakeholders are being examined.1 As the most recent State of Food Insecurity in the
World report has stated, the need for coordination among “compartmentalized” interests
“requires an enabling environment that allows and creates incentives for key sectors and
stakeholders to sharpen their policy focus, harmonize actions and improve their impact on
hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition.” 2
The dominant narrative put forward by advocates of trade liberalization is that food security is
enhanced under an open trade model. Specifically, pro-liberalization advocates make the case that
a more open trade regime promotes more efficient agricultural production, which results in an
increase in food supply and in turn lower food prices. In other words, they argue that more open
trade policies should make food both more available, and more affordable. 3
Others argue that trade agreements and rules have facilitated the spread of high-input, high-yield
agriculture and long-distance transport increasing the availability and affordability of refined
carbohydrates (wheat, rice, sugar) and edible oils. Some parts of the global population have
therefore been made more secure in terms of energy, but also more susceptible to the
malnourishment associated with dietary simplification and to growing over-consumption and
associated chronic diseases.4 In addition, it is argued that trade agreements and rules either leave
out or undermine small-scale farmers. Of specific concern are small-scale farmers working in
agro-biodiverse systems, because this group is particularly critical to food security both locally
and globally.5
Purpose:
The purpose of this online consultation is to share experience in order to unpack the linkages
between trade rules, food security6 and the measures taken to support it.
See for example, Clapp, Jennifer (2014) Trade Liberalization and Food Security: Examining the Linkages. Quaker United Nations Office,
Geneva.
2 FAO, IFAD and WFP. 2014. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014. Strengthening the enabling environment for food security
and nutrition. Rome, FAO
3 See Pascal Lamy, 2013. “The Geneva Consensus: Making Trade Work for Us All.” Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
4 See for example, De Schutter, Olivier (2011) Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter.
A/HRC/19/59
5 (for more on the importance of these producers see, Bragdon, Susan (2013), Small-scale farmers: The missing element in the WIOP-IGC
Draft Articles on Genetic Resources (p2&3) Quaker United Nations Office, Geneva and, Wise, Timothy (2014) Malawi`s paradox: Filled
with both corn and hunger, Global Post.
6 The 1996 World Food Summit defines food security as existing “when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to
sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” Four pillars of food
security are associated with this definition: availability, access, stability and utilization.
1
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
4
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
Small-scale producers in agro-biodiverse systems are critical to the stability dimension of food
security because of the resilience provided by a diversity of management practices and resources.
This is especially important in an era of increasing and unpredictable global change. Dietary
diversity is a critical health indicator flowing from a diversity of what is grown, again highlighting
the importance of this type of producer. One question will therefore focus specifically on the
relationship between trade agreements and rules and these producers.
Questions:
In order to learn from your experience I would like to invite you to reflect on the following
questions:
1. From your knowledge and experience how have trade agreements and rules
affected the four dimensions of food security (availability, access, utilization,
stability)?
2. What is your knowledge and experience with creating coherence between food
security measures and trade rules? Can rights-based approaches play a role?
3. How can a food security strategy, including components that explicitly support
small-scale farmers in agro-biodiverse settings, be implemented in ways that might
be compatible with a global market-based approach to food security?
We would like to thank you in advance for your participation in this online consultation. It will
greatly help QUNO and FAO in further developing a knowledge base to support our shared goal of
ensuring that global governance, and in particular trade agreements and rules, reinforces and
does not undermine food security.
Susan H. Bragdon
Representative, Food & Sustainability
Quaker United Nations Office
Avenue du Mervelet 13
1209 Genève
Ekaterina Krivonos
Economist - Trade and Markets Division
Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations
Rome
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
5
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
Contributions received
1. Abdybek Asanaliev, Kyrgyz National Agrarian University, Kyrgyzstan
Trade agreements have definitely affected the four dimensions of food security (FS): availability,
access, utilization (nutrition) and stability. This situation is due to the accession of the Kyrgyz
Republic to the WTO.
This impact on the four dimensions varies. In order to determine microeconomic and
macroeconomic aspects of this impact, it is necessary to conduct a special research. Increase in
imports of mineral fertilizers, plant protection products, new varieties of seeds and veterinary
preparations lead to an increase in crop productivity, i.e. availability. At the same time seed
intervention as a result of international agreements (between Kyrgyzstan and the Russian
Federation) destroys the current seed market, therefore seeds produced by seed-production
farms don’t reach the consumer. Contraband and infringing goods (animal breeds, fruit crop
plants) from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are threatening phytosanitary and epizootological
situation.
As it may favourably affect food availability, it will have an adverse effect on utilization and
stability. Due to the accession to the Customs Union, food exports become rigid, since the Customs
Union has high technical regulations. Therefore farmers or processors must ensure compliance of
their products with ISO 22000 and HACCP. Compliance of their products with these standards
allows them to export and to get profit. Growth of profits at microeconomic level may improve
availability, access, utilization and stability.
The role of the government of the Kyrgyz Republic is to ensure certification of products in
accredited laboratories.
2. Elena Zhiryaeva, North-West Institute of Management of the Russian
academy of stateservice, Russia
I would like to give an example of one arrangement which made food more available from
economical point of view for the residents of Russia in the situation of food embargo in 2014. At
the request of the Russian authorities Brazil reduced the prices of pork deliveries to Russia. On
some commodity positions decrease made up to 50%.
3. Moshfaqur Rahman, Bangladesh
From your knowledge and experience how have trade agreements and rules affected the four
dimensions of food security (availability, access, utilization, stability)?
a: Rules & agreements are always have an We & They situation. But when disaster happen &
people ask for resolution these hardly factual. This moments most of LDCs are giving subsidies to
the agriculture. they are getting well return. Now if pongee-schemers try to do their old jobs-I
believe they will not be successful.
Availability-yes capital goods are available, also the disaster tools.
Access-the structure is shaping now.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
6
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
Utilization & stability-they do have problem, but it needs time. After 1990s-the globalization
wiped lots. Time must be given to recover.
2.
What is your knowledge and experience with creating coherence between food security
measures and trade rules? Can rights-based approaches play a role?
a: Might plays-not confirm, because a clever respondent could turn table to own side. This type of
skill is absent in LDCs- they might not perform well. FAO- could provide assistance.
Also any disaster happen, there is many organs work on but the recovery or disaster management
is not well manage to development curve. Like country A-has north & south. Now south have
disaster but north has not. Now development of north will be eaten by these south factors,
because the recovery give food but not helping the corps growing & many.
We stop-the right-based approaches could be an option. This could also help the patent free
movement. If food & corps patents are on UN hand & claim as the global right for all people! Hope
a better world.
3.
How can a food security strategy, including components that explicitly support small-scale
farmers in agro-biodiverse settings, be implemented in ways that might be compatible with a
global market-based approach to food security?
a: I have doubt, because most places we destroy the ecology itself for market based approaches.
We must think again.
Because the small entrepreneurs are easy hunt for big farms & natural reasons. The element of
social business could be remedy. If few of rich countries & bunch of LDCs just for agro-products
make a social business among them if it's successful then other can come. May be the factors of
global markets can be useable.
FAO- can be a leader with other UN entities. UNCTAD have experience in market, the social
business can be better tested with their diagram.
Rich country could be Scandinavian countries could lead with a bunch of LDCs, the LDCs also
operate agro-product among them in social business module.
LDCs are not coping with the cost, this is a potential move for FAO.
4. Valeria Furmanova, Department of agricultural development, Ukraine
It may definitely be noted that trade agreements and rules have affected the four dimensions of
food security: availability, access, utilization, and stability.
Let me make an actual example. Ukraine has been successfully developing the European poultry
meat market. So far, within the quota, annual exports have increased by 25 percent. Ukrainian
poultry meat producers are planning to increase exports. On their part it requires investments in
quality system development in accordance with agreements. In return it affects the final retail
price of poultry meat for consumers in Ukraine. Over a period of 6 months the price of poultry
meat has increased by 40 percent at the domestic retail market.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
7
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
Poultry meat has always been an affordable food for people in Ukraine. Precisely due to its
affordable price it accounted for 48.8 percent within the meat consumption pattern in 2013.
Currently there is a decrease in consumer demand for meat in general, and for poultry meat in
particular. Nowadays the population of Ukraine prefers cheaper varieties of fish and offal.
Therefore, there is every reason to state the decrease in two dimensions: AVAILABILITY and
STABILITY.
5. Ekaterina Krivonos, FAO, Italy, Facilitator of the discussion
Dear participants, I would like to welcome you to the discussion: “Examining the linkages
between trade and food security: What is your experience?”. I hope that we will have a very
fruitful and interesting debate. This is not an easy topic, and country experiences with trade in
relation to food security objectives vary a lot. But that is precisely why it is important to have the
different views heard and use the rich experience in the countries (both positive and negative) to
develop viable proposals that governments can take into consideration when designing public
policy.
Trade and trade policy affect the four pillars of food security in a very direct way as they affect
food availability and the relative prices of goods and factors of production. But trade in itself is
neither a threat nor a panacea when it comes to food security, but it certainly poses challenges
and even risks that need to be considered in a debate, supported by proper analysis.
Food security is high on the political agenda these days, not only at the national level, but also in
global processes, such as WTO negotiations, G-20, development of Sustainable Development
Goals. The moment is therefore ripe for having this discussion on the implications of trade and
trade policy for food security, and I am looking forward to hearing your views. As a facilitator, I
will do my best to provide relevant inputs and steer the discussion towards constructive
outcomes.
6. Ekaterina Krivonos, FAO, Italy, Facilitator of the discussion
Dear Valeria,
thank you for your example. Unfortunately, increase of prices on domestic market due to high
external demand is often one of the adverse effects of free trade (when speaking of export
products). (At the same time meat producers tend to increase revenues, which is beneficial to
food security). However, as far as I understand, one of the drivers of lower meat consumption was
decline in real income due to macroeconomic situation in Ukraine. Therefore it might be difficult
to separate effect of trade agreements (such as WTO) from other factors.
7. Darya Ilina Institute of Forecasting and Macroeconomic research, Uzbekistan
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
8
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
Trade agreements and trade liberalization certainly affect the food security situation in the
country. But the way it affects depends on the country’s status prior to their adoption. For
example, if the country is a net importer of food, it is more likely that it will benefit from trade
agreements as well as the level of food security will be increased. Thus removal or reduction of
duties on import will result in price drop in the domestic market.
If the country is an exporter of food and has ensured food security in the country, then the effect
may vary: it could be either positive or negative. It depends on competitiveness of food products.
As an example, I would like to add, that the possible effects of the signing of the agreement on free
trade zone between Uzbekistan and EEU has been recently evaluated. The following conclusions
have been made:
Positive effect:

A decrease in prices on imported agricultural equipment, technologies, seeds, fertilizers,
chemical crop protection products, medicines for livestock and other facilities required
for agricultural development;
 An increase in currency earnings from exports of fruits and vegetables to the EEU
countries;
 Improved logistics and reduction of delivery terms for agri-products will influence the
quality and condition of crop production that is delivered to the EEU market.
Negative effect:



Financial standing of domestic agricultural producers may weaken as a result of
elimination of duties. Agricultural export from three main EEU member countries
(Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia) showed a significant growth in 2014, especially for
dairy and confectionary products and wheat;
Events of re-export of agri-products from third countries through the EEU countries to
Uzbekistan, when import tax on such goods in the EEU is lower than in Uzbekistan;
Noncompliance with phytosanitary measures of the EEU may hamper growth in agriproducts export.
8. Matraim Jusupov, FAO, Kyrgyzstan
In the first place the governments in Central Asia should address the issue of frontiers. It is
necessary to ensure efficiency of intergovernmental agreements on trade relations. It is also
important to provide villages, rural counties and districts with opportunities to establish ”bottomup” trade relations with their neighbours. Therefore the governments will only have to
consolidate this relationships with joint legal documents.
9. Ovezdurdy Jumadurdyyev, Project of the Adaptation Fund, Turkmenistan
1. From your knowledge and experience how have trade agreements and rules affected
the four dimensions of food security (availability, access, utilization, stability)?
Trade agreements and rules alone are inefficient, unless they are implemented. Therefore
agreement doesn’t mean trust. When there is no trust, each country takes measures to ensure
food security on its own. Trust is built when parties have repeatedly implemented agreements.
Even if an agreement is implemented within a certain period, there will always be a party, which
finds this agreement advantageous or disadvantageous. This country also follows its’ own rules.
Since each trade agreement implies restrictions, sometimes prohibitions, subsidies, excise taxes,
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
9
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
etc., generally they are based on economic efficiency, and usually don’t have systematic approach.
That’s why social and economic dimensions are not involved. Therefore trade agreements are not
always efficient and often inhibit growth of domestic agricultural production.
Trade agreements and rules affect the four dimensions of food security as follows:
1.
Increasing regional disproportion. Exporting countries expand the market and get all the
benefits of agreements. Conditions for importers become worse, since development and
introduction of a fundamentally new technology (the one that exporters have) is above their
strength, due to their limited financial and material resources, and severe shortage of academic
personnel. Therefore exporters disregard interests and needs of local agricultural producers, who
are unable to establish sufficiently receptive internal market for their products. Then in order to
cut production costs small agricultural producers try their best to increase the harvest “now and
by all means”, rather than to invest in soil conservation. Water resources are misused. Land
degradation increases and ecological problems arise eventually. From this perspective it is
impossible to ensure stability by means of trade agreements. Thus ecological wellbeing is the key
factor of stability.
2.
Food self-sufficiency decreases due to the limitedness of local markets and therefore
imports increase. It leads to stagnation in local agriculture. Stagnation reduces capacity of
agricultural producers, and traditional skills and knowledge disappear. It all leads to an increase
in unemployment. When for some reason an agreement was not kept, then firstly there would be
a risk of malnutrition, and secondly it would be difficult to regain food production, since the
potential of agricultural producers had been lost. Therefore trade agreements do not ensure
stability.
3.
Hunger issues cannot be settled by means of an increase in output. Purchasing power of all
levels of population and equal distribution of natural resources (land, water, etc.) are the
determinants. Trade agreements do not take into account social factors such as long-term impact
of the agreement. In case of a decline in production, it will be difficult to maintain the purchasing
power of a growing population. From this point of view, agreements don’t insure access and
utilization.
2 . What is your knowledge and experience with creating coherence between food security
measures and trade rules? Can rights-based approaches play a role?
Natural and climatic conditions vary, not all products can be produced in every region, and
therefore it is necessary to have trade agreements in order to ensure provision of food that
cannot be produced domestically. It is important to develop a system that would take into account
economic, social and environmental aspects, in order to insure consistency between the measures
of food security and trade rules. There is no need for limitation of exports and imports of food, but
it is important to impose relevant excise taxes, and to convey accumulated funds for small farmers
support. The support aims to improve technological capacity, to provide information, to assist in
sales of agri-products, and in provision of high-quality seeds and fertilizers, etc. In other words, it
is important to develop and expand rural advisory services (Extension Service). Through
widespread awareness it would be possible to form public opinion that local products have many
advantages over imported ones. Communication will promote the development of small-scale
projects and thus reduce unemployment. Small projects will provide a more rational use of
natural, climatic and human resources.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
10
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
In my opinion, rights-based approaches alone will not give an expected result. It is due to the fact
that the system has multiple components. Natural, climatic, social, economic and environmental
conditions in countries vary, and factor combinations to be taken into account are numerous.
Right to food exists. In real life, this right is violated. Therefore, it is impossible to find a general
rule, which would satisfy all countries.
3. How can a food security strategy, including components that explicitly support smallscale farmers in agro-biodiverse settings, be implemented in ways that might be
compatible with a global market-based approach to food security?
First of all, a food security strategy should drop economic blockade and sanctions policies, unless
they are not directly recommended by the world community. The basic principles of the strategy
should be developed on the basis of a positive and negative experience in food security that have
been identified by FAO over years. Some practices are worth looking at while developing the
principles of strategy. For example:
1. Weak food domestic production incentive remains the main downside of trade policy in many
countries due to the low farm-level prices. At the same time the production of exported crops is
stimulated, and often it happens to the detriment of basic food crop production.
2. Agricultural and food market policies of some countries include fixing of purchasing price for
agri-products, subsidizing some of the cost items of farms, and subsidizing urban poor. However,
in terms of the technological backwardness of agriculture, such policy brings little success.
Many similar examples can be found. A special research project to assess the impact of food policy
in the world can be conducted, if necessary. Project results should be promoted throughout the
world. Feedback propaganda will allow formulating the basic ideas, goals and principles of
international agreement on food production and trade.
The adoption of the basic principles of food security is an internal matter of each country. It
depends on the goodwill of the governments of all countries, both large and small, and on the
willingness to compromise for the sake of ending hunger and malnutrition for hundreds of
millions of people.
International organizations are those to show and prove the advantages of such an approach, and
to encourage countries to adopt it.
Ovezdurdy Jumadurdyyev
10. Matraim Jusupov, FAO, Kyrgyzstan
Agriculture in Kyrgyzstan has low investment attractiveness. Firstly, agriculture of Kyrgyzstan is
highly dependent on environmental and climatic conditions. Good years alternate with lean years
caused by drought, frost, abundant rainfall, etc. Secondly, since agricultural production is an
activity with relatively low and unstable income, it has a permanent dependence on external
concessionary financing. Thirdly, small size of land allotments causes small commodity
production. (Average size of arable land in Kyrgyz farms is 2.7 ha, including 1.9 ha of irrigated
arable land).
Fourthly, if agricultural production is not under the influence of regulatory and licensing system,
then processing and sales of products (including export and import operations) fall within the
scope of inefficient, excessive and quite often corrupt governmental regulation.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
11
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
Fifthly, Kyrgyzstan doesn’t have the system of certification that is in compliance with
international standards. It keeps exports and, therefore revenues, down.
All these factors together reduce investment attractiveness of agricultural production.
Therefore, public sector should provide assistance to farmers on a national basis, even by means
of indirect subsidies through introduction of product pricing, taxation, etc.
11. Ekaterina Krivonos, FAO, Italy, Facilitator of the discussion
Dear participants,
I would like to thank everyone for expressing your views, for your interesting contributions and
your active stand. There are many different opinions, and countries’ experiences differ in many
respects, but at the same time all opinions are interesting and help to understand these complex
issues.
Many of you noticed that trade certainly affects the four dimensions of food security. For trade to
have a positive effect on the solution of food security issues, some important conditions must be
observed. Thus, Abdylbek from Kyrgyzstan noted, that farmers and processors have to ensure
compliance with food security standards and other standards in order to benefit from
opportunities in export markets. And it is often beyond the strength of small and medium
producers. The problem often resides in the lack of a proper system of certification. Moreover,
small size of land plots in Kyrgyzstan (according to Matraim) don’t allow to take full advantage of
trade opportunities, as minimum sales volumes are required for development of the necessary
infrastructure and obtaining access to markets (not only international, but regional and national
as well).
Ovezdurdy from Turkmenistan noted that severe import competition might force local producers
to use production methods, which lead to soil degradation and loss of water resources. Thus trade
agreements may negatively affect the environmental sustainability of agriculture, and therefore
the stability of food security.
Darya from Uzbekistan wrote, that the impact of trade on food security depends on the country
specifics, such as whether a country is a net importer or a net exporter, and on the
competitiveness of manufacturers. She quoted both positive and negative effects of the agreement
on food trade between Uzbekistan and EEU. I fully agree with her, and would like to add that
changes in trade policies have different impact not only on countries but on different population
groups in the country as well. For example, embargo on export of a product may result in growth
of its domestic supplies and decline in its price in short term period. It is advantageous to both
consumers and domestic processors, but it has a negative impact on producers and exporters. On
the other hand, lowering of import duties helps to reduce prices on food paid by consumers, but
increases risks to household incomes (that compete with imports), and to food security.
Valeria gave the example of Ukraine. She noted that investments that were required in order to
increase exports of poultry meat from Ukraine affected the domestic consumer prices on poultry.
In this case, prices have increased, and it had a negative impact on food security. In this case, it is
a question of balancing of interests of producers and consumers, although, in general,
development of trade may have a positive impact on economy and incomes.
Uneven or unequal distribution of benefits of trade might be the topic that has affected the
majority of the participants. Many of you expressed the view that benefits of trade are usually
obtained by large enterprises and investors, but not by farmers. It leads us to think what state
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
12
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
policies are required for mitigation of negative effects of trade, reducing inequality and solving
social problems, which can be aggravated by the more open trade.
In conclusion I’d like to specify the fact that has been mentioned by many of you, that a state
should play the most active role in order to overcome the barriers that we are discussing. With a
lack of appropriate measures to address logistics and certification issues, problems of product
quality, scattered farmers, unsustainable use of resources and so on, it is impossible to achieve
the benefits of expanding market opportunities. Long-term and strategic support to small farmers
as, for example, in Asia (China, Japan and others), becomes a crucial factor for the benefits of trade
(according to Matraim). Ovezdurdy gives the following examples of such support: provision of
information, enhancing technical capacity of farmers, assistance in sales of products, supply of
high quality seeds.
I wish to add, that coordination of actions of different state institutions plays an important role in
this process (e.g., ministries of economy, trade and agriculture, customs; and sanitary and
phytosanitary services). Unfortunately, economies in transition usually have a lack of human and
financial resources to carry out reforms, which are required to maximize trading opportunities.
But first of all, it is important to understand what the optimal measures have to be taken in this
particular case. This will require in-depth analysis, discussion of measures with the community of
experts and with broad population, as well as coordination of appropriate government agencies
to implement these recommendations.
12. Natalia Kirenko, Institute of System Studies in Agribusiness NASB, Belarus
1. From your knowledge and experience how have trade agreements and rules affected the four
dimensions of food security (availability, access, utilization, stability)?
I fully agree with the participants of the forum that trade agreements definitely affect the four
dimensions of food security. Since 2005 the Republic of Belarus has been consistently providing a
sufficient level of food security through its own production, and is an export-oriented country. At
the same time, with 0.18% of world's agricultural land and 0.13% of the world population,
Belarus occupies a significant place in the world production output and export of agricultural and
food products - 3rd place in the exports of flax fibre and 7th place in the exports of dairy products;
it is one of 20 leading countries for export of sugar, rapeseed oil, and beef. Agricultural
organizations, farms (peasant) and subsidiary farms are engaged in agri-products production.
Large agricultural organizations account for 70% of production; their average harvested area is
5,000 ha; 7.0 million ha is used by organizations.
Due to the introduction of the food embargo in Russia, Belarus got a chance to significantly
strengthen its position in the Russian food market, and therefore to carry out the agreements
adopted within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union and the Union State (Russia and
Belarus). However, the reality is that currently due to disagreements between the countries,
national experts compute losses of a minimum of 100 million USD.
Despite the fact, that the Republic of Belarus is rapidly developing mutual trade with Russia,
Belarusian agri-products have an insignificant share in the food market of the Russian Federation.
Thus over the past three years the share of Belarusian agri-products and food in the imports of
Russia come within the range of 8-10%; as for the share of imported Belarusian products in the
dietary structure of Russian consumers, it accounts for as follows: meat products – 3.7%, dairy
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
13
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
products – 10%, confectionery and sugar – about 3.9%. As for other products, their share come
within the range of 0.1-0.3%.
In its turn, the share of the Russian Federation in the total imports of agri-products, raw materials
and food of Belarus is about 25%. Belarus imports final products of grain (11% of the imports),
vegetable (sunflower) oil (9%), alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages (8%), fish and fish
products (8%), etc. from Russia.
According to our estimates, both Belarus and Russia have the potential to increase the volume of
bilateral agricultural trade, as well as to improve the balance of trade. Belarus can increase the
share of imports from Russia up to 35-40% instead of the current 25% by reducing procurement
of products such as grain, oilseed meal (cake), sunflower oil, fish, pet food, and chocolate from
third countries.
2. What is your knowledge and experience with creating coherence between food security
measures and trade rules? Can rights-based approaches play a role?
Global food security trends determine the guidelines to the solution of this problem in each
country, but the impact of this problem is manifested in different ways. Belarus consistently
provides a sufficient level of food security through its own production. Cumulative domestic
agricultural production index is 1.94 times as much as the amount required by the domestic
market. When assessing the level of food security as sufficient, it should be noted that it is
ensured by the general economic situation and by the development of agro-industrial complex.
In order to build consumers trust, Belarusian manufacturers tend to introduce quality assurance
systems. The following enterprises have an ISO 9001 certificate of conformity: 21 meatprocessing factories and 55 dairy plants, 6 poultry plants, 86 baked goods factories. Another 23
meat-processing enterprises and 67 dairy plants introduced the Hazard Analysis and Critical
Control Point system (HACCP). 26 organizations (8 meat-processing and 17 dairy plants)
introduced food safety management system “Requirements for any organization in the food
chain”, which is in full compliance with the international standard ISO 22000.
Country’s marketing and logistics infrastructures are rapidly developing in order to address this
problem. Currently there are potato, fruits and vegetables storages, refrigerated warehouses, and
12 transport and logistics hubs operating in the country’s territory. There is an agri-products
section working on the Belarusian Universal Commodity Exchange. The foreign commodity
distribution network of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food of the Republic of Belarus includes
155 institutions (food companies, trading houses, representative offices, distributors and
dealers).
Agro-industrial complex development strategy in the long-term will be focused on balancing of
the domestic agri-products market, as well as on increasing volumes and improving efficiency of
food and agricultural exports, especially for advanced industrial processing products with high
added value. Broader and more active participation in the regional trade and economic
communities should remain the major priority development field.
3. How can a food security strategy, including components that explicitly support small-scale
farmers in agro-biodiverse settings, be implemented in ways that might be compatible with a
global market-based approach to food security?
As I’ve already mentioned in the first question, large agricultural organizations of Belarus account
for more than 70.0% of production, the average area of farmland in use by organization is almost
7.0 million ha. The share of farms (peasant) is negligible.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
14
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
State support of the agro-industrial complex of Belarus is provided within the framework of
“green” and “yellow” box measures and includes direct and indirect measures. According to the
official announcements the level of state support per 1 ha of arable land in Belarus in 2012 was
434 USD; and 5.5 thousand USD per person employed in agriculture. Belarus has state regulation
of prices.
Our country is often criticized for excessive subsidizing of the agro-industrial complex. However,
practical data shows that direct budget subsidies per unit of cultivated land area in EU28 are
more than two times as much as in Belarus. Agricultural subsidy-value of production ratio in the
EU and Belarus is at the same level. At the same time, agrarian policy of Belarus is constantly
being improved; a number of fundamental changes are introduced. For example, at the EEU level
our country already has obligations for phased reduction of our budget support to the agroindustrial complex, which are being fulfilled.
Moreover, the process of international economic integration has set new tasks for Belarus. Thus,
during the process of developing a negotiating position on Belarus' accession to the WTO,
calculations of the agricultural domestic support have been made, and it showed non-conformity
of the procedure with the international requirements. Most of the agricultural support in Belarus
is provided through measures that have to be abandoned in accordance with the WTO
requirements. Therefore, in order to reduce the negative effects of Belarus' accession to the WTO
and to prevent aggregated agricultural support from decreasing, Belarusian scientists in
collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture are working on developing of the new support
mechanisms. In particular, the procedure for the provision of support to agricultural producers,
domestic food aid, as well as for the provision of support to areas that are unfavourable for
agricultural production have been developed.
13. Klara Dzhakypbekova, Kyrgyzstan
As it has already been noticed in the previous comments, the political decision of the country’s
accession to the WTO is the key point of mutual interaction of trade and food security.
There’ve been many discussions on this issue, but the country obtained unfavorable conditions
for the participation in the trade union (as a result of an accelerated process of accession to the
WTO and the lack of attention to the possible consequences for some fields). For example, there is
a lack of capacity for subsidizing and measures aimed to protect the domestic market.
Considering that some WTO members have such advantages, which were gained during
protracted negotiations, therefore, the position of Kyrgyzstan is quite unequal against other WTO
members.
Current situation is: the country depends on imports of agri-products from the CIS countries (e.g.
Russia and Kazakhstan that are in the final stages of negotiations on accession to the WTO). For
example, any changes in the volume of wheat exports from Kazakhstan and Russia have a direct
impact on domestic prices of flour and bakery products in Kyrgyzstan.
2) Nowadays, special means and stuff for negotiations on the WTO level are required in order to
obtain permits to use support measures for this industry. For developing countries it is a crucial
obstacle to an adequate protection of their interests on the international stage. Therefore I
endorse the expressed opinion that international organizations can provide assistance in this case
(on the basis of bilateral agreements). The negotiations on mitigation and adaptation to climate
changes, in which countries such as Uzbekistan and Tajikistan were able to win the support of
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
15
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
international organizations in lobbying of their interests, could be an example (in particular, it
refers to experts and consultants).
3) In general the expansion of the world agricultural trade (wheat, rice and corn market, etc.) can
present risk to the future of the global food security.
It is reflected in a variety of factors:
a) agricultural intensification, which led to a large-scale cost-effective monoculture plantations,
and which is profitable for large-volume exporting countries;
b) “dietary globalization” is the result – when rice, wheat, corn, potatoes, soybeans, etc. due to
their physical and economic accessibility have become the basic food in the most countries of the
world. This situation leads to the “erosion of agro-biodiversity”;
c) the population growth and a raising meat demand lead to an increase of the role of grain as
fodder, therefore reducing availability of these products for food consumption and affecting
prices;
d) developed countries focus their policies on intensification of biofuels, which leads to the
situation when food products are used in other production that increase prices.
Due to the aforesaid FAO member-countries should consider these factors that in a resourceconstrained environment worsen the situation every year (oil, land, oil reserves, fertilizers phosphorus, etc. are limited). All these facts have been repeatedly mentioned during FAO
meetings, and certain work aimed to enhance food security is being conducted. It is important to
pursue negotiations with individual parties in order to raise awareness among member countries
and to identify possible compromises.
Given the global market mechanism the international community could make a collective
deliberate step for creating various preferences to gradual reduction of the negative impact of
these factors on the future food security:
For example, the agreement on plant genetic resources and the Nagoya Protocol on
increasing the capacity of plant genetic resources, at the same time, strengthening the role of
small-scale farmers are the latest innovation;
Considering that 80% of all agricultural lands constitute of natural hayfields and pastures,
various support mechanisms for products produced with a higher proportion of feed of natural
origin will help to control prices on meat and gradually reduce the demand for it to a certain norm
(and to improve the position of developing countries on the world market);
Given the weak capacity of small farms it leads to the loss of their productive capacity.
Improvement of planting techniques, crop tending, harvesting and storage of crops, etc. will
significantly increase volume and quality of crops that will strengthen self-sufficiency of the
country and improve food security situation.
The current systems of trade, food security, processing of agricultural production in the long
term, have a tendency to self-destruction. Sooner or later, the next generations will have
repercussions of today's actions. However, all the solutions listed above are extremely difficult to
implement, since they meet with a resounding rebuff from existing large producers whose
economic success depends on the prevailing market conditions. Non the less step by step actions
and gradual reform will allow to align the current course to a more sustainable development.
14. Nkwelle Nkede Flabert, Center for Communication and Sustainable
Development for All, Cameroon
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
16
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
Food security is a major concern, especially for developing countries where a large percentage of
the population lives in rural areas and the agricultural sector represents a substantial weight in
the economy.
During CECOSDA field work, we met Clarckson CHE, a student in the Bamenda Teachers Training
College (ENS Bambili) who has been growing food crops like maize, cassava, sweet potatoes,
plantains, Irish potatoes, and beans with her mother since 1980 as 6 years old boy. He sells the
food stuff in the Nkwen local market to make a living, raise income for tuition fees in school and for
household use. They depend entirely on their farming product as a source of income and food for
home consumption.
Clarckson explains that they have experienced a huge increase in their sales between 2001 to
present 2015 and most of their food crops are sold to middlemen who transport them to other
neighbouring countries like Congo, Gabon, DR Congo, Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea. This is
because they sell at very high prices considering the fact that the food stuff are more expensive in
these countries, as such the prices of food in the local market increases. Dried cassava starch
(locally known as Garri) was sold at the cost of 12 cups for 200 frs CFA in 2002, but it is now sold
at of 1 cup for 50 frs CFA making 4 cups for 200 frs and sometimes 3 cups for 200 frs CFA. Some of
these businessmen and women do not just buy the farm products from farmers but they go as far as
buying an entire farm which is almost ready for harvest at an agreed price with the farmer; at time
leaving the farmers themselves to go hungry.
Considering the fact that about 80 percent of farmers in Cameroon and the North West and
Northern Regions in particular prefer trading their farm product to exporters for money, most
families now go hungry which was not the case many years back. An average home can barely
afford enough food to feed a family due to trade and export at higher prices.
Thus owing to FAO definition of food security, and with specific to regions; it is clear that trade has
increased and it is gradually increasing the level of food insecurity in Cameroon generally and these
areas in particular.
15. Volodymyr Matenchuk, Gide Loyrette Nouel, Ukraine
Integration processes at the regional and global level play an important role in ensuring food
security in the CIS countries, including Ukraine. The peculiarity of these countries is that they are
de facto developing countries (countries with economies in transition), though de jure, as a matter
of the WTO law, they cannot claim such status (with a few exceptions). Large share of the rural
population in the total population of Ukraine, the pattern of agricultural production and trade, low
official employment in the agricultural sector, insufficient budget funds to support production,
high proportion of the poor and limited proportion of the middle-class consumers, economic crises
including those that are a result of changes in the regional integration processes; all these factors
affect the formulation of national policies in the field of food security.
At the national level the government shall seek a balance between differing interests of the agents
of the agricultural sector (producers, processors, traders), however very often and not necessarily
in times of crisis, this balance is not that obvious in the light of the structure of state support. The
classic example is a preferential VAT regime, which by definition is discriminatory, since the very
nature of the VAT suggests that there are participants in the chain of production and delivery of
products who will defray costs of the VAT. Agricultural receipts is another example; they were used
when a default risk was put at the level of the law on traders, who were protesting against this
order of things, up to the risk of blocking the whole financing scheme.
At the same time, very often "winners" and "losers" are defined based on who managed to lobby for
their interests and bring them to life. Some players have created rather strong associations, which
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
17
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
have the possibility of lobbying financing. Therefore, it is important that there is a balanced
dialogue between different stakeholders in order to avoid the preponderance of parties.
Integration processes in the CIS also require a proper dialogue, in particular in regard to the
technical regulation. For the CIS countries, which are integrated into the European area, the
technical regulation reform implies deregulation, traceability of products, reduction of state control
(i.e., corruption) through the entire production chain. At the same time, the system of technical
regulation of the CIS countries is described by the Soviet-style system of quality control, i.e., total
control by the state bodies, which often didn’t guarantee quality of products. On the other hand,
the European quality control approach implies additional investment on the part of manufacturers
on a tight schedule.
The WTO commitments also affect policymaking and the way the state can effectively stimulate
development of certain industries and ensuring food security.
In accordance with the latest report on supportive measures for Ukraine (2011) to the Agriculture
Committee of the WTO, more than 2/3 of the agro-processing support in Ukraine is used to
support the sugar industry (minimum price support). Of course, one can speak of a conditional
success of such a policy, since, for example, in 2014 the production of sugar beet and sugar
increased by 30%. In addition, other support measures were on the verge of de minimis. For
example, if a subsidized regime (by means of a VAT refund) for the dairy industry has exceeded the
limit of de minimis, then Ukraine would have violated its obligations under the agro-processing
support.
At the same time, today support of individual industries is an important issue due to the signs of a
crisis, such as the hryvnia devaluation by 150 per cent against key currencies (with the exception of
the ruble), inflation and nominal impoverishment of the population, closure of some markets, and
reforms required to access new markets. For example, introduction of a minimum price for milk
was brought up again in the dairy industry. Milk is included in the list of social products, and
increase of prices on milk (for consumers) is subject to administrative measures. Last year’s spring
there has been a reduction in purchasing prices for raw milk due to the Russian embargo on
imports of milk. It can be said that the country has effectively managed this problem and by means
of interventional procurement it equalized purchasing prices. Later in September due to the
hryvnia devaluation, prices for milk have fallen by 30 per cent (in foreign currency equivalent),
compared with the world prices. The subsidy regime in the form of VAT on milk has come to an
end in 2014, therefore such a policy measure as a minimum price will not violate the WTO
obligations, but at the same time will affect the processing industry.
At the same time, more than 40 per cent of raw milk is purchased from private farms. One
alternative to discriminatory supportive measures could be to support co-operatives in order to
improve quality of milk (appropriate conditions for milk collecting stations), and, accordingly, the
profit of personal peasant farms.
16. Botir Dosov, Central Asia and the Caucasus Association of Agricultural
Research Institutions, Uzbekistan
Linking Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) to Extension and Advisory
Services (EAS) to support food security and access to agricultural markets
The consequences of climate change have a negative impact on agriculture and rural and
vulnerable population, which has already been affected by the severe outcomes of the recent
global economic crisis. Since the recent food and financial crises, the prices of nearly every
agricultural commodity have risen sharply, in a process which does not seem to have peaked yet.
Several factors contributed to these price increases: increasing frequency and severity of droughts,
rising energy prices and subsidized bio-fuel production, income and population growth, and
market and trade policies that had a distorting effect. Poor people spend 50–70 percent of their
income on food. Because wages for unskilled labor tend not to rise in line with food inflation, the
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
18
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
poor have little capacity to adapt as prices rise. Moreover, even before the recent food crisis, the
poorest of the poor were being left behind. Relevant coordinated interventions are needed to
address production and productivity through policy and institutional innovations, improved
markets and market linkages for smallholder agriculture.
Considering these challenges, CGIAR[1] Research Programs together with National Agricultural
Research Systems and Rural Advisory Services joined efforts and set as primary objectives
addressing the issues in order to improve agricultural productivity, increase the quality and
quantity of food through intensification and diversification of sustainable agriculture and to
develop the knowledge for the efficient use of natural resources, mitigating the negative impact of
the consequences of climate change. A priority cross-cutting issue is addressing the needs of
vulnerable and low income groups minimising projected adverse effects of the above mentioned
threats.
Joint efforts of Agricultural Research Systems and Rural Advisory Services are focused on four
main goals of regional development:
1.
Improving the well-being of the rural population, particularly vulnerable groups and those
dependent on agriculture;
2. Guaranteed improvement of the quality and quantity of nutritious food through the
intensification and diversification of agriculture;
3. Rational use of natural resources;
4. Mitigating adverse effects of climate change.
The Strategies of agricultural research and innovation for future with food security stipulate an
integrated approach based on (i) need for an integrated regional agricultural policies aimed at
achieving the above goals; (ii) the opportunities for bigger impact by strengthening cooperation
between national research institutions and multi-stakeholder regional centers and institutions in
the field of agricultural research, innovation and education to facilitate actions for development
along agricultural production and food chains; (iii) the implementation of collective actions to
overcome the common problems at the regional level, such as trans-boundary diseases, use of
natural (water, land) resources, and (iv) the further improvement of food security policy,
providing for the development and integration of regional markets, enhancement in trade and
commercial relations and modernization of communication infrastructure, and others.
Currently the CGIAR has developed strong research competencies in:
5.
6.
7.
Improvement of crop and animal production for commodities of importance to the poor;
natural resource management for sustainable agriculture, including conservation and
improved use of water, soils and forests; and
social sciences and policy research which benefit the poor through improving access to
agricultural resources, food and markets.
Agricultural growth through improved productivity, markets and incomes has shown to be a
particularly effective contributor to reducing poverty especially in the initial stages of
development. Good practices and research are critical for fostering the positive change in policies,
governance arrangement and market systems to allow agriculture fully contributing to poverty
reduction and development. As society and environment are constantly changing and
interconnected a reconsideration of formerly proven principles are required. For instance, climate
change shifts the parameters for crop yield improvement, policies promote socio-political
dynamics, institutions and markets promote greater equity and environmental protection, and
increasing agricultural productivity is critical to meet the needs of rising populations.
Reducing rural poverty and improving food security are conjunctive and require studies to
develop and validate specific agricultural investments appropriate to different agrarian
economies. Such research would involve a range of integrated components, including improving
varieties of crops and livestock, restoration of degraded natural resources and improved value
chains and markets. Outcomes of such interventions would be applicable for out-scaling the
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
19
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
capacity for sustainable intensification of production with improved stability of yield and
resilience to shocks, as well as improved household food security, increased stability of production
and resilience to shocks and increased income from farm and non-farm activities, permitting
investment in health, education and other poverty-reducing activities.
Improving food security and nutrition requires studies to develop and validate agricultural
investments appropriate to high potential areas, including studies on improvement of crop and
livestock productivity, a sustainable provision of natural resources which anticipates climate
change, and improvements in policies on markets and trade which help to reduce and stabilize
prices. Changing levels of production, price and access to affordable food by the urban and rural
poor are considered as proper indicators of those interventions.
Creating effective mechanisms of delivering nutrient-rich foods to vulnerable groups, particularly
those nutrients essential to growth and development of children is critical as well to cost-effective
targeting of multi-stakeholders interventions. These may range from increasing the nutritional
value and safety of relatively more available, staple foods, to increasing production and
consumption of foods rich in micronutrients, particularly animal products, vegetables and fruit,
through local agricultural diversification and improved market chains. There is a need for more
evidence on where and how local improvements in agriculture lead to reduced undernutrition. For
today, many programs on food supplementation and fortification have evidences of addressing
undernutrition, but are rarely linked to local agricultural production which could present
opportunities for agricultural improvement and sustained access to nutritional foods. Because of
the critical importance of women in child nutrition, understanding and enhancing their role in the
production and distribution of food at the household level must be an essential part of any
strategy to reduce undernutrition.
Market driven changes, particularly in food security, should involve different institutional
arrangements in generating outcomes of coordinated interventions, especially with the private
sector, which play critical role in the supply of genetic technologies and seeds, agrochemicals,
veterinary products, agricultural machinery and implements, and even human nutrition. This role
will continue to grow as the cost of biotechnology applications continues to fall, intellectual
protection instruments become more standard and input and service markets consolidate.
Multinational and national input supply firms are focused mostly on the commercial agriculture
sector where the market and institutional conditions are present to ensure suitable rates of return
for their investments, and this will continue to be so for quite some time. However, their upstream domains will have an increasingly wider application scope and this will open up important
partnering opportunities with public entities –both national and international – that have
downstream capacities across different crops and agro-ecological environments.
[1] Consultative Group of International Agricultural ReSearch
17. Renata Yanbykh, All-Russian institute of agrarian problems and informatics
A.A.Nikonova, Russian Federation
Questions 1 and 2
In August of 2014 in response to the sanctions imposed by the EU, the USA, Australia, Canada, and
Norway, Russia introduced the so-called anti-sanctions, that involved export bans of a number of
key products to Russia, such as: beef, pork, poultry, fish, cheese, milk, fruits and vegetables
(Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No.560 on the application of certain special
economic measures to ensure the security of the Russian Federation). What has changed in terms
of food security?
It should be noted that in accordance with the Food Security Doctrine of the Russian Federation,
food security is understood differently than by FAO (i.e. availability, access, utilization and
stability), it primarily means a certain level of food independence. “Food independence of the
Russian Federation is sustainable domestic production of foodstuffs in quantities no less than the
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
20
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
established thresholds of their share in relevant domestic commodities”. Threshold values of food
independence are set for 8 products or food groups. Nowadays threshold values are reached in
production of grain, vegetable oil, poultry, potatoes and sugar. As for the production of beef, pork,
vegetables and fruits threshold values have not yet been reached. The situation in milk and dairy
products industry is much less encouraging, since the share of domestic milk and dairy products in
the domestic market is 76.6%, while the target is 90%. But even when the threshold values are
reached we can only speak of a physical access to food for the population (stable production).
Economic access to food under import substitution conditions often declines since the prices
increase and the population cannot afford to buy a diverse range of high quality products as they
used to do. Moreover, import substitution is not a one-time occurrence. How did anti-sanctions
affect the official state agricultural support? State program has been seriously adjusted. One new
point has been added as a number 2 in order of importance to the following five traditional goals of
the agro-food policy: (1) ensure food independence within the requirements, stipulated in the Food
Security Doctrine of the Russian Federation which was approved by the Decree of the President of
the Russian Federation No.120 of January 30th, 2010; (2) increase the competitiveness of Russian
agri-products in domestic and foreign markets as a part of Russia's accession to the WTO; (3)
improving financial sustainability of agricultural enterprises; (4) sustainable development of rural
areas; (5) land and other resources reproduction and utilization efficiency improvement in
agriculture, as well as ecologization of production. This is an accelerated import substitution of
meat, milk, and field and greenhouse vegetables, planting potatoes and fruit production.
How has import geography changed after the introduction of anti-sanctions? Supplies from
Belarus, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Israel, Pakistan and other 40 countries have replaced food
supplies from the USA, Europe, and Australia. However the EEU and the Customs Union partners
have not even been consulted with, as well as they have not even been notified of the future
changes in food policy. When introducing anti-sanctions has not received a formal consent of the
EEU partners, they didn’t introduce the similar sanctions. It is not surprising that Belarus and
Kazakhstan continued to import products from countries against which Russia has imposed
sanctions. For sure businessmen of these countries are tempted to re-export the imported products
to Russia. Legal documents of the Customs Union and the EEU didn’t forbid re-export and even if
the government of the Russian Federation was against it, it didn’t affect the business. Slight
modification of products, changing codes, and changing the packaging is all that is needed to
supply the prohibited products to the Russian market.
The EEU member countries should harmonize their custom duties, quotas, and tariffs; revise
standards of food safety; as well as conduct a reform of certification procedures and conformity
assessment. Special focus should be made on the building of common ground among the EEU
member countries in regard to the ongoing negotiations in the WTO, in particular in regard to the
forming of state reserves for food security.
So far, all post-Soviet countries use different measures of agricultural support: measures of
budgetary support vary greatly by countries not only per se but also in terms of volumes and
mechanisms of implementation. For example in accordance with the OECD approach, producer
support estimated for Russia is 17% of the output, for Kazakhstan – is 12%, and for Ukraine – is
1%. This figure has not been calculated for Belarus, however the study of the Center of agricultural
policy of RANEPA showed, that the extent of the budgetary support is in large excess over the same
in Russia and Kazakhstan. In this situation Russian agricultural producers confidently lose out to
their colleagues from Belarus, and therefore it is difficult to speak of a common agricultural policy.
Many years of formation of a mutually beneficial policy, which will be common in relation to third
countries, are still ahead.
Question 3. In regard to the smallholders I agree with those, who find that their ways of integration
into market and trade have not yet been depleted; it can primarily be done through agricultural
cooperatives. Smallholders in Russia are represented by 223 thousand peasant farms and
individual entrepreneurs in rural areas (there is almost no difference between them, except for the
fact, that peasant farms more often have a form of a legal entity, while individual entrepreneurs
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
21
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
don’t), and by 16 million rural private subsidiary farms. Only 3-4 million out of the 16 million
households can be qualified as a commercial farm, i.e. those that market their products. However
their role in ensuring food security of the population of Russia should not be underestimated,
especially during recession years and in terms of access to food. At the moment of a crisis, the
share of agricultural production of smallholders increases, especially for potatoes, vegetables, and
seasonal fruits (about 80% of total production). Households are able to ramp up in-house
production of milk and meat really fast. The main problem here is a lack of domestically produced
quality seeds and breeding stock. The old system of strain-trial stations, seed centers, and breeding
enterprises is almost destroyed, thus seeds and breeding stock are purchased abroad. Many experts
fairly associate sustainable development of agri-food sector with big business (especially in regard
to grain, meat, and milk). However smallholders’ production is vital in order to meet the demands
in the domestic markets and ensure access to food in rural areas. So far peasant farms and private
subsidiary farms (i.e., farming population) in Russia produce more than half of the agricultural
products, while in the country there are agroholdings that have some of the largest land areas and
production volumes. Hence agricultural cooperation is very important. Nowadays there are 6,913
registered agricultural consumer co-operative. 1,595 of these are supply and marketing cooperatives; 1,043 – are processing co-operatives, 1,846 – are credit co-operatives. The most serious
problems of agricultural co-operatives are due to undercapitalization and weak co-operative
infrastructure. Over the recent years the Russian Ministry of Agriculture have finally paid its’
attention to them: the concept of rural cooperation development for the period till 2020 was
adopted; departmental special-purpose programme “Agricultural Consumer Cooperation
Development for the Period Till 2020” became a part of the State Program for Development of
Agriculture and Regulation of Agricultural Commodities Markets in 2013-2020”. 20 supply and
marketing and processing co-operatives will be granted with up to 40 million rubles each. In
general it is not enough for Russia.
18. Volodymyr Matenchuk, Gide Loyrette Nouel, Ukraine
Renata, thank you for your post!
A different approach is used in Ukraine; it bears similarities to the approach used in the Russian
Federation, but at the same time it is in line with the FAO approaches. Food security in Ukraine is
officially defined as “the protection of the vital interest of a person, which consists in an
unimpaired economic access of a person to food guaranteed by the government, in order to
maintain its normal life activities” (Law on Support of Agriculture of Ukraine), or as “the state of
food production in the country that is able to fully cover the needs of every member of the society
for food of good quality, providing that it is balanced and accessible to every member of the
society” (Order of the Ministry of Economic Affairs “On Approval of the recommendations for the
calculation of the level of economic security of Ukraine", 2013).
At the same time there is no import substitution and food self-sufficiency policy at the domestic
level.
Food security is a component of economic security, and is estimated in accordance with the
aforementioned guidelines (hereinafter - the Methodology); it is an information and analytical
document, which is used for executive decision-making on the analysis, prevention and warning of
real and potential threats to national interests in the relevant field. The methodology was changed
in 2013 (the previous version was issued in 2007). At the same time, the 2007 Methodology used
per capita consumption of key food groups (10 groups), daily caloric intake (min. 2,500 kcal) and
annual grain production per capita to calculate the thresholds of food security. The optimal rate of
food imports in domestic consumption of the country has been specified as 25%, but this indicator
was taken into account in the calculation of foreign economic security, but not food security. For
example, in 2011 threshold value of food security showed a positive trend and became a
“satisfactory” level (80%).
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
22
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
Unlike the 2007 methodology, the current methodology reduced the number of product groups
from 10 to 8 (for example, it had fish and fish products) in order to calculate the index of food
security; at the same time instead of the amount of consumption it takes into account the ratio of
production/consumption of products (kg/1 person). Optimal threshold level of year’s supply of
grain (per cent for consumption) has been increased from 17 to 50 per cent. Furthermore,
nowadays the sale of imported food products through retail network is taken into account when
calculating the food security indicator: the value of more than 12% is considered to be negative. In
addition, in accordance with the 2013 methodology the new indicator of economic security Industrial Safety – is calculated; it takes into account the yield (dt/ha) of basic grains and legumes
and the average yearly milk production per cow.
19. Ekaterina Krivonos, FAO, Italy
Dear friends,
I would like to thank you for the participation in the discussion. I think many of you have raised
very important issues that will undoubtedly require a more detailed analysis and further
discussion. I learned a lot from your responses. Probably the most valuable for me was to learn
about the experiences of different countries in deepening of trade and about the impact on
agriculture and food security. I noted the following points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
There are significant differences in the methods of food security assessment. In turn, this
means that there are a variety of policy measures aimed to achieve food related objectives.
Trade is crucial for food security, since any action in this environment - e.g.: opening of new
markets or vice-versa imposition of restrictions - instantly affects the availability of products.
Many experts identify food security with the level of self-sufficiency and import substitution.
In this context state support aimed to achieve these goals is a critical issue. I would like to
specify that while self-sufficiency can be a legitimate and an entirely understandable national
policy objective, it shall be noted, that it is a mere dimension of food security, and that the
linkage between these two concepts is not automatic. Provision of food of required quality
and quantity primarily depends on the purchasing power of the population and, in addition,
on the focus of social programs. Even in times of a crisis, characterized by high food prices,
there has been no disruption of supplies, and the problem resided in the fact that some social
groups were affected by high prices; at the same time whether the country was a producer of
basic foodstuffs was not a determinative factor, since price increase was observed
countrywide.
Any measure of national policy will have a different effect on different social groups.
Volodymyr Matenchuk was very precise: “Governments shall seek a balance between
differing interests of economic agents… Some players have created rather strong
associations, which have the possibility of financing for lobbying. Therefore, it is important
to have a balanced dialogue between different stakeholders in order to avoid the
preponderance of parties”.
All these issues require an in-depth research, especially in the context of the dynamics of
trade negotiations in the region, both within the WTO and in the Eurasian integration. It is
worth noting that negotiations require not only proper analytics, but also an adequate level
of competence for defending the national interests. As Klara Dzhakypbekova wrote:
“…special means and stuff for negotiations on the WTO level are required in order to obtain
permits to use support measures for this industry. For developing countries it is a crucial
obstacle to an adequate protection of their interests on the international stage”.
I believe these issues will be raised at different levels and under different circumstances more than
once. Involvement of experts, government officials, private sector, and international organizations
in this dialogue is very important. Once again I would like to thank the participants and the team of
the FSN Forum, which prepared, conducted and provided full support to this discussion.
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en
23
What Future for Irrigated Agriculture in Central Asia
Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition in Europe and Central Asia
http://www.fao.org/fsnforum/eca/en