Скачать презентацию Global Food Security What Roles for Technology and Скачать презентацию Global Food Security What Roles for Technology and

aa94f1fee222775d5dbb87ee4b3176b7.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 55

Global Food Security: What Roles for Technology and Trade Policies? Kym Anderson Universities of Global Food Security: What Roles for Technology and Trade Policies? Kym Anderson Universities of Adelaide and Australian National University kym. [email protected] edu. au ICABR Conference on Political Economy of the Bio-economy, Ravello, Italy, 24 -27 June 2012

Food security/technology/ trade policies nexus Food security is about all people always having access Food security/technology/ trade policies nexus Food security is about all people always having access to enough nutritious food for a healthy life New agric technologies can raise the quantity and quality of available foods But trade can enable those without sufficient endowments or technologies to nonetheless be food secure Hong Kong, Monaco, Singapore aren’t food insecure

Food security/technology/ trade policies nexus (continued) What affects food security is spending capacity to Food security/technology/ trade policies nexus (continued) What affects food security is spending capacity to buy food, and its price Hence things that reduce global poverty or reduce int’l price of food are likely to boost global food security Example: public investment in ag R&D that leads to adoption of better agric technologies

Food security/technology/ trade policies nexus (continued) However, a nation’s trade policies can de-link its Food security/technology/ trade policies nexus (continued) However, a nation’s trade policies can de-link its domestic price from int’l price, and can reduce national econ welfare and its growth Biofuel subsidies & mandates raise demand for and hence int’l price of food Impact on national or global food security depends on effect on not only spending but also on earnings of households including unskilled non-farm laborers whose wage might be affected by, eg, a change in farmgate prices

Underscores value of using an empirical, economy-wide, global model, because: Theory can’t even reveal Underscores value of using an empirical, economy-wide, global model, because: Theory can’t even reveal sign of some effects, let alone magnitude Indirect effects of a shock within an economy may be more important than –and may even offset – the direct effects Int’l spillovers can cause food security benefits in one country group to be more or less offset by FS losses in ROW

Focus of present paper 20 th century saw real food price trend declining 21 Focus of present paper 20 th century saw real food price trend declining 21 st century (so far) has seen it rising Most projections suggest high int’l food prices for next decade or more (eg IFPRI, OECD/FAO) due to rapid growth in natural-resource-poor emerging economies, & thus adding to climate change and energy security concerns

Focus of present paper (cont. ) What roles can technology & trade policies play Focus of present paper (cont. ) What roles can technology & trade policies play in long run to improve global food security? • . . . leaving aside issues affecting short-run price fluctuations, even though they too can affect food security in important ways

Roadmap Technology policies in 20 th century Agric price and trade policies to 2010 Roadmap Technology policies in 20 th century Agric price and trade policies to 2010 Draws on World Bank agric distortions project Baseline global projections to 2030 Builds on our contrib’n to ADB’s 2011 flagship Impacts of altering baseline assumptions: TFP growth (via technology policies and CC) Agric price and trade (and CC) policies How best to deal with poverty & national food security consequences of market forces?

Technology policies in 20 th century Unprecedented public investment in agric R&D (Alston, Pardey Technology policies in 20 th century Unprecedented public investment in agric R&D (Alston, Pardey et al. ) Mainly in high-income countries Plus CG’s IARCs from 1960 s, boosting NARS and generating Green Revolution in Asia esp. But with int’l food prices at record-low level in mid-1980 s, Malthus was considered beaten and public and int’l ag R&D investment slowed True, private agric R&D grew from 1990 s, because of biotech profit opportunities But adoption confined to few crops in <30 countries because of anti-GMO attitudes and regulatory policies

Agric price and trade policies to 2010 Agric policies of developing countries lowered their Agric price and trade policies to 2010 Agric policies of developing countries lowered their domestic food prices but raised int’l price Agric policies of high-income countries raised their domestic food prices, lowered int’l price Net effect on mean int’l price by 1980 s close to zero (Tyers and Anderson 1992), but policies possibly worsened food security: in DCs (where many poor were food sellers) and in HICs (where most poor are net food buyers) Then major reforms in both country groups from mid-1980 s

Reform of Asia’s price-distorting policies supplemented Green Rev. New agric technologies, esp. Green Revolution Reform of Asia’s price-distorting policies supplemented Green Rev. New agric technologies, esp. Green Revolution in Asia, often given credit for maintaining agric self-sufficiency in Asia. . . especially in 1960 s and 1970 s But also important from 1980 s were agric price, trade & exchange rate policy reforms

E. Asian agric self-sufficiency, % 1960 s 1970 s 1980 s China 100 100 E. Asian agric self-sufficiency, % 1960 s 1970 s 1980 s China 100 100 98 India 98 99 99 100 Indonesia na 105 103 102 113 112 103 100 99 na 120 133 131 137 Philippines Thailand 1990 s 2000 -04

Rates of agric & nonag assistance (%) INDIA CHINA Rates of agric & nonag assistance (%) INDIA CHINA

Relative rate of assistance (%), HIC & DC Relative rate of assistance (%), HIC & DC

Key policy modeling questions: What counterfactual trade policy regime to assume in projecting forward? Key policy modeling questions: What counterfactual trade policy regime to assume in projecting forward? Status quo? Or will DCs follow HICs in providing agric protectionism growth as their incomes grow? What agric TFP growth rates to expect? Depends largely on govt’s public agric R&D investment policies

East Asia’s RRAs, 1955 -2010 East Asia’s RRAs, 1955 -2010

Projecting markets to 2030, using a global economy-wide model (GTAP) Need to make assumptions Projecting markets to 2030, using a global economy-wide model (GTAP) Need to make assumptions also about: Growth in endowments Preference changes as incomes grow Pop’n and per capita income growth rates Then TFP growth can be calculated endogenously and we assume for baseline, as in past (Martin and Mitra, EDCC, 2001), that TFP grows faster in primary than other sectors

Model details (joint with Anna Strutt) We use a modified version of GTAP’s global Model details (joint with Anna Strutt) We use a modified version of GTAP’s global comparative static model to project world economy in 2007 to 2030 Aggregated to 35 regions and 26 sectors Core sim. calibrated to project 10% rise in prices of primary relative to other products

Summary of GDP & endowment growth rates, 2007 -2030 (% p. a. ) GDP Summary of GDP & endowment growth rates, 2007 -2030 (% p. a. ) GDP growth Population Unskilled labor Skilled labor Capital Agric. land Oil Gas Coal Other minerals Highincome Developing of which Asia Total 1. 6 0. 3 -0. 6 1. 4 1. 2 -0. 3 2. 1 0. 3 -0. 3 2. 1 5. 1 1. 0 0. 4 3. 2 5. 7 -0. 1 1. 5 2. 5 6. 0 2. 1 6. 2 0. 8 0. 1 3. 0 5. 4 -0. 2 0. 9 1. 1 6. 3 2. 1 2. 5 0. 9 -0. 4 1. 8 2. 3 -0. 2 1. 7 1. 4 2. 9 2. 1 19

Core 2030 baseline scenario: Projected shares of HICs and DCs World GDP share (%) Core 2030 baseline scenario: Projected shares of HICs and DCs World GDP share (%) 2007 2030 World population share (%) 2007 2030 Relative GDP per cap (% of world) 2007 2030 High-income 74 54 20 17 376 320 Developing 26 46 80 83 33 56 of which Asia: 15 32 54 53 27 60 100 100 World 100

Structural changes: HIC & DC shares of global exports, by sector(%) Primary goods (%) Structural changes: HIC & DC shares of global exports, by sector(%) Primary goods (%) 2007 2030 Manuf. Goods (%) 2007 2030 Services (%) 2007 2030 High-income 7 9 43 25 13 8 Developing 9 12 23 38 5 8 1. 9 2. 5 17 32 3 5 16 21 66 63 of which Asia: World 18 16

Implications for agric imports by Dev. Asia’s share of global ag and food imports Implications for agric imports by Dev. Asia’s share of global ag and food imports rises from 14% in 2007 to 42% in 2030 mainly due to China (goes from 4% to 28%) Dev. Asia’s agric self-sufficiency falls from 96% to 89% => Unlikely to be tolerated politically?

Implications for agric SS ratio Developing Asia’s agric selfsufficiency falls from 96% to 89% Implications for agric SS ratio Developing Asia’s agric selfsufficiency falls from 96% to 89% despite higher TFP growth in agric than manuf and services => Unlikely to be tolerated politically?

Alternative 2030 TFP growth scenarios Two alternative TFP scenarios considered: 1. Slower global primary Alternative 2030 TFP growth scenarios Two alternative TFP scenarios considered: 1. Slower global primary sector TFP growth causes primary product prices to rise 17% instead of 10% 2. Faster grain TFP growth in China and India does little to aggregate int’l price of agric goods, but it causes int’l grain prices to rise by 5 -7 percentage points less than in core baseline

Cumulative changes in international prices of grain to 2030 (%): 3 different baselines 2030 Cumulative changes in international prices of grain to 2030 (%): 3 different baselines 2030 core 2030 slower prim TFP 2030 faster Ch/In grain TFP Rice 13 18 6 Wheat 12 25 7 Maize 15 32 10 All agric 10 17 9

Food self-sufficiency higher, and greater food cons’n, from faster grain TFP in Ch & Food self-sufficiency higher, and greater food cons’n, from faster grain TFP in Ch & In Rice and wheat self sufficiency in Ch & India 4 -7% higher in 2030 if grain TFP growth is 1 percentage point higher p. a. Household consumption of all agric products in China & India would be 2 percentage points higher in 2030 than otherwise More food security for them; less for ROW?

Alternative scenarios in our related papers Impacts of trade policy changes: Regional or multilateral Alternative scenarios in our related papers Impacts of trade policy changes: Regional or multilateral reform, versus agric protection growth in DCs? Changes to restrictions on trade in products that may contain GMOs? (presented at an earlier ICABR conference) Impacts of climate change, & of policy responses to it, such as carbon tax?

Trade reforms Free-trade area in Asia (ASEAN+6) would alter national ag & food self Trade reforms Free-trade area in Asia (ASEAN+6) would alter national ag & food self sufficiency by only 1 -2 percentage points As would global free trade, except for China where it would drop 4 percentage points But it would boost household cons’n of agric products by 2 to 4 percent

Trade reforms (continued) However, if the counterfactual trade policy was not status quo but Trade reforms (continued) However, if the counterfactual trade policy was not status quo but rather agric protection growth in DCs, freeing trade would cause household cons’n of agric products in Developing Asia to be 3% higher than in core scenario for 2030

Climate change Need first to convert projected biophysical effects of CC into economic shocks Climate change Need first to convert projected biophysical effects of CC into economic shocks (e. g. , into future impacts on factor productivity) land productivity is expected by CC scientists to: • rise in high latitudes, fall in tropics (hence mixed for Australia), with a slight net reduction globally [Again, let’s leave aside volatility issues, and Alan Olmstead’s point that ag. scientists will innovate and farmers will adopt and adapt] A fall in global crop and pasture land productivity would raise farm output prices globally Hence gross farm incomes may rise, even in regions/sectors with falling land productivity

Projected effects on land productivity of CC by 2030 (%) (Hertel, Burke and Lobell, Projected effects on land productivity of CC by 2030 (%) (Hertel, Burke and Lobell, 2010) Wt Wheat Australia United States W. Europe Japan China Other DCs Coarse grains Rice Oilseeds 7 2 7 4 2 -3 -5 0 -10 -3 -3 7 9 0 -3 2 2 7 9 0 -3

Direct effects of CC on agric, 2030 (% deviation from baseline due to land Direct effects of CC on agric, 2030 (% deviation from baseline due to land productivity change) Farmer Prod’n Value of price volume added exports Value of imports Australia 0. 5 0. 7 -1. 7 2. 2 1. 0 USA 0. 3 0. 4 -1. 2 2. 5 -0. 6 -0. 3 1. 1 -0. 5 3. 3 -0. 7 Brazil 0. 5 -0. 7 0. 0 -1. 7 0. 6 China 4. 3 -1. 8 -4. 4 -21. 1 6. 2 India 3. 2 -1. 7 -2. 0 -6. 7 12. 7 SSAfrica-RSA 2. 5 -1. 7 -1. 3 -6. 6 2. 6 WORLD 1. 2 -0. 2 -1. 6 0. 9 1. 5 W. Europe

Direct agricultural effects (continued) Two other factors affect overall national economic welfare of direct Direct agricultural effects (continued) Two other factors affect overall national economic welfare of direct agric effects: Terms of trade change: temperate agricexporting countries are likely to be better off, and food-importing countries to be worse off, other things equal But presence of price-distorting policies can cause adverse second-best welfare effects from international re-location of farm production (e. g. , in Japan)

Effects on annual econ welfare of crop productivity changes, by 2030 (2004 US$ bill. Effects on annual econ welfare of crop productivity changes, by 2030 (2004 US$ bill. ) Decomposition of welfare effects, due to change in: Product- Terms of ivity trade Efficiency TOTAL Australia USA 0. 0 0. 3 0. 9 -0. 0 -0. 3 0. 7 W. Europe 0. 8 0. 5 -1. 6 -0. 3 Japan 0. 2 -0. 1 -0. 3 -0. 2 China -7. 7 -1. 8 -0. 2 -9. 6 Other DCs -9. 9 0. 2 -0. 3 -10. 0 -15. 5 0. 0 -2. 7 -18. 1 WORLD

Indirect effects of CC on agriculture CC has many other effects, whose impact on Indirect effects of CC on agriculture CC has many other effects, whose impact on other sectors may indirectly (as well as directly) affect agriculture even more: Lower labour productivity, esp. in tropics • higher temperatures, humidity; more diseases – Economically far more damaging than yield losses? Altered energy demand • less in temperate areas? more aircon in tropics? Altered tourism (shift away from tropics) Sea-level rise (hurts S. & S. E. Asia, island DCs)

eg, effects on econ welfare of crop & labor productivity changes, by 2030(2004 US$ eg, effects on econ welfare of crop & labor productivity changes, by 2030(2004 US$ bill. ) Wt Crop only Crop + Labor 0. 3 0. 7 -1. 2 -0. 9 W. Europe -0. 3 -3. 7 Japan -0. 2 -0. 0 China -9. 6 -46. 7 Other DCs -10. 0 WORLD -18. 1 -164. 2 Australia USA

Carbon taxes: a policy response to CC Direct effect on agric would be small, Carbon taxes: a policy response to CC Direct effect on agric would be small, except if biofuel policies (which link food & fossil fuel prices) continue Indirect effect could be much larger, via altered terms of trade and hence exchange rates

Carbon taxes (continued) Not a new issue Globally, taxing (or otherwise restricting) fossil fuel Carbon taxes (continued) Not a new issue Globally, taxing (or otherwise restricting) fossil fuel production has similar global priceraising and pollution-reducing effects to taxing consumption of carbon-emitting goods Blunter than a more-focused carbon emission tax, but nonetheless OPEC’s decision to restrict prod’n in 1973 -74 and 1979 -80, which raised the int’l price of petroleum 8 -fold, was the world’s first major carbon-related tax

International market for petroleum before OPEC formed (equil. at Pw and Q) Excess Demand International market for petroleum before OPEC formed (equil. at Pw and Q) Excess Demand (net importers of oil) Pw Q Excess Supply. OPEC

International market for petroleum after OPEC restricts supply to Q’) ES’ Pw’ ES Pw International market for petroleum after OPEC restricts supply to Q’) ES’ Pw’ ES Pw ED Q’ Q

International market for petroleum after OPEC restricts supply to Q’) ES’ Pw’ f Pw International market for petroleum after OPEC restricts supply to Q’) ES’ Pw’ f Pw e d ES b a g c ED Q’ Q abc = global welfare cost (to be compared with perceived benefit of carbon reduction) aefb = welfare loss to non-OPEC countries (net importers of petroluem) bgef-acg = net welfare effect on OPEC economies

International market for petroleum if instead non-OPEC countries tax cons’m ES’ Pw’ f Pw International market for petroleum if instead non-OPEC countries tax cons’m ES’ Pw’ f Pw e Pp d ES b a g c ED Q’ Q abc = global welfare cost (to be compared with perceived benefit of carbon reduction) acde = welfare loss to OPEC economies aefb = welfare loss to non-OPEC consumers, offset by bcdf gain to their Treasury

Carbon emission taxes: summary A tax on carbon emissions would hurt fossil fuel consumers Carbon emission taxes: summary A tax on carbon emissions would hurt fossil fuel consumers in the taxing countries It would also: generate govt revenue in taxing countries, so allow their other taxes to be reduced lower the seller price of fossil fuels in int’l markets, and so strengthen (weaken) the terms of trade and currency for fuel-importing (-exporting) countries raise the buyer price of fossil fuels, hence also of substitutes such as biofuels, hence also food prices But it would also induce innovation in alt. energy prod’n and cons’n technologies, including biofuels

Some take-away messages Food self sufficiency will decline substantially in China under current policies, Some take-away messages Food self sufficiency will decline substantially in China under current policies, and is likely to be arrested only if there is much faster agric TFP growth. . . adding political pressure for agric supports/higher tariffs Trade liberalization by ASEAN+6, if done unilaterally on an MFN basis, could generate 3 x the global gains of doing it only preferentially, and would provide Developing Asia with nearly half the gains they would get from full global MFN free trade And it boosts food cons’m, hence food security in Asia ANZ’s export focus on Developing Asia will continue to strengthen Shares treble between 2004 and 2030

Some take-away messages Continued rapid growth of resource-poor emerging economies could push up int’l Some take-away messages Continued rapid growth of resource-poor emerging economies could push up int’l food & fuel prices and thus threaten FS in other DCs Made worse by HICs’ biofuel policies that link food & fuel prices Int’l food price rise would be less if those DCs chose ag protection path, but that would ‘thin’ int’l food markets In ROW, FS might improve in food-exporting countries and worsen in food-importing countries But effects of h’holds differ even within countries

Some take-away messages (cont. ) Actual FS effects on individual h’holds depend on impact Some take-away messages (cont. ) Actual FS effects on individual h’holds depend on impact of product and factor prices on both their earning and their spending Very complex to model, requires detailed recent (and ideally prospective) h’hold survey data Expanded public investment in ag R&D would help, as would GMO regulatory reform and further trade reform (WTO’s Doha Agenda) Meanwhile, ICT revolution has provided a new social protection pathway to improve FS: conditional cash transfers to worst-affected households

Thanks! kym. anderson@adelaide. edu. au Thanks! kym. [email protected] edu. au

Agric NRAs (%) of HICs and DCs approaching zero since 1980 s. . . Agric NRAs (%) of HICs and DCs approaching zero since 1980 s. . . 60 HIC & ECA, incl. Decoupled payments 50 Developing countries 40 percent 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 1955 -59 1960 -64 1965 -69 1970 -74 1975 -79 1980 -84 1985 -89 1990 -94 1995 -99 2000 -04 2005 -10

. . . but, in DCs, phasing out of export taxes was accompanied by . . . but, in DCs, phasing out of export taxes was accompanied by rising agric import protection

HIC & DC shares of global ag. trade World export share (%) 2007 2030 HIC & DC shares of global ag. trade World export share (%) 2007 2030 High-income Developing of which China: Other Asia: World import share (%) 2007 2030 65 63 35 37 4 0 11 12 100 68 42 32 58 4 28 10 14 100

Agric self sufficiency (%) 2007 2030 slow 2030 faster base core prim TFP Ch/In Agric self sufficiency (%) 2007 2030 slow 2030 faster base core prim TFP Ch/In grain growth TFP growth All Dev. Asia 96 89 93 90 China 97 87 92 87 102 97 103 98 India

Grain self sufficiency higher with faster ACI grain TFP (%) Rice Wheat 2030 fast Grain self sufficiency higher with faster ACI grain TFP (%) Rice Wheat 2030 fast base grain. TFP China India 94 104 98 109 94 89 98 96

Ag NRAs are on rising trend for DCs, but still below ag NRA for Ag NRAs are on rising trend for DCs, but still below ag NRA for HICs High-income countries 70 20 60 10 50 NRA (%) Developing countries 0 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 40 -10 30 -20 20 -30 10 -40 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Trade reform does little to ag self-suff (%) 2030 ASEAN Global core +6, no Trade reform does little to ag self-suff (%) 2030 ASEAN Global core +6, no +6, MFN libn vs agric with ag prot agric All Dev. Asia ASEAN 87 87 87 85 85 85 84 87 86 86 China 83 82 82 80 79 100 102 99 100 India

. . . but it boosts household cons’m of agric products (% different from . . . but it boosts household cons’m of agric products (% different from core sim in 2030) All Dev. Asia ASEAN China India ASEAN+6 ASEAN without +6, MFN agric with ag 0. 0 0. 7 1. 6 0. 9 0. 0 -0. 3 1. 7 0. 2 0. 4 3. 4 0. 9 1. 3 Global libn vs ag prot 2. 7 4. 4 2. 1 1. 4