Resources Research

Food inflation has hurt, but we have just the prescription for it. So says the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India. This group of the country’s seniormost macroeconomic planners is considered to be as heavyweight as they come, and have considerable influence on policy in India. The major ministries listen to the pronouncements of the EAC very attentively – finance, commerce and industry, power, steel, agriculture, infrastructure. India’s industry associations and business interest groups do the same – they are the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (Assocham) and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (Ficci).

But amongst the five members of the EAC (all ‘Drs’, naturally) there are no women. There is no trade union member, there is neither nurse nor teacher, there is no housewife and there is no bus driver, there is no municipal sweeper and no roadside food vendor, there is no-one from a ‘scheduled caste’ or a ‘scheduled tribe’, in fact there is no tribal at all, there is neither artist nor essayist, there is no-one to speak for the old folk of India and none to explain the dreams of India’s youth. Still they call it a council to which the country’s prime minister listens. What he and his ministerial colleagues learn from these five cosseted greybeards in their ivory tower I can hardly imagine.

The price of a kilo of rice, from 2006 to 2011, in 49 urban centres in India.

Let us see why it is so difficult to find utility (the word classical economists make much of) in the pronouncements of this cabal.

They said: “Very high rates of inflation have characterized the last two years. Much of the inflationary pressure came from primary foods, including cereals in the initial months.”

True.

They said: “While, open market intervention and large releases under the public distribution system (PDS) helped to stabilize the price of cereals, pressure continued to come from rising prices from other primary food items – especially pulses, milk, eggs, meat & fish.”

What does “open market intervention” mean? If it means the central government buying foodgrain to funnel into the public distribution system, this is a method riddled with corruption and crippled by speculation. There are no “large releases” different from the normal schedule of releases which in a country like India are large anyway. Cereal prices have not stabilised – not in 2011 and 2010 and not at any time in the last five years.

They said: “Greatly improved output of kharif pulses in 2010 combined with marketing of imported pulses at controlled prices, helped to curtail the inflation in pulses by July 2010. However, prices continued to rise for fruit, milk, eggs and meat & fish.”

Inflation in the prices of pulses has by no means been curtailed, controlled or even understood. Many kinds of pulses in India are consumed in many different ways, and there is demand not only from final household consumers but also from the dispersed and very varied small foods and snacks manufacturers for whom pulses are a necessary ingredient. Fruit, milk, eggs, meat and fish – all scarce items in the food basket of the poor but high-margin items for the food retail stores in urban India. The EAC has made no mention of why prices for these foods rose – homework not done.

They said: “The prices of vegetables took an unexpected turn in December 2010 and January 2011, resulting in an increase in the wholesale price index of vegetables by 34 and 67 per cent respectively in these two months. In consequence, primary food price inflation stayed in the double digits.”

Not only in December 2010 and January 2011. Several staple vegetables have been the actors in price volatility operas in all the 49 urban centres for which  India’s Food and Consumer Affairs Ministry monitors retail prices. To blame, in my view, is the steady ingress of the food logistics sector (itself part of the corporatisation of food and agriculture in India) into urban centres beyond the major metropolises. The “cold chain” and “value chain” evangelists work for the retail food and processed foods industry, and can exercise degrees of arbitrage which are wholly ignored by the EAC. Inside the market, there was no hint of the “unexpected”.

The price of a kilo of wheat, from 2006 to 2011, in 49 urban centres in India.

They said: “Such a lengthy period of sustained high food price inflation had its expected impact on money wage rates and other cash expenses, which in turn began to get passed into the price behaviour of manufactured goods. Year-on-year inflation for manufactured goods rose from around 5 per cent to 8 per cent in September and October 2011.”

Shouldn’t fossil fuel products and the prices we pay for them share the blame? I think a cursory study of the prices for OPEC and non-OPEC crude products will explain a lot. And besides, “wages” are wages to people who – being mostly in the informal sector and unorganised labour – cannot bargain collectively nor are represented in policy-making bodies (like the EAC), so their money wage rates have not risen in tandem with inflation. Quite the contrary, for rural labour (agricultural and non-farm both) the average household spends 65% of its income on food.

[You can get the EAC Review of the Indian Economy 2011-12 document (pdf) here] [You can get a plain text file of the paragraphs on food and agriculture, prices and inflation (txt) here]

They said: “The net effect was that the headline rate of inflation stayed close to 10 per cent for an extended period of twenty two months.”

True, even for whatever is meant by “headline rate”.

They said: “It should not be forgotten that throughout this period there has also been a suppression of the headline rate insofar as the prices of several refined petroleum products, especially diesel, continued to be restrained by policy – which has had an adverse impact on the subsidy bill and therefore on government finances and also on the finances of the public sector oil companies.”

Oh we are so distressed by the hurt caused to government finances, especially coming on top of the enormous tax write-offs (called “forgone tax revenue” in India’s quaint public accounts jargon) given to the esteemed members of CII, Assocham and Ficci, many of whom are direct beneficiaries of the measures that led to a high “headline rate” of inflation in the first place. Money for jam, I would call it.

They said: “The effort of public policy, especially monetary policy, seems to have had its desired effect. The headline rate dropped to 9.1 per cent in November and further to 7.5 per cent in December and has dropped further in January 2012.”

Now I know that the spreadsheet program supplied to the EAC for such calculations is provided by Messers Alice in Wonderland GmBH.

They said: “The welcome developments in the easing of inflationary pressures will enable the RBI to adjust its monetary stance over the next several months. However, the continued pressure from the fiscal side will continue to impose some limitations. Hopefully the extent of the fiscal burden may ease in 2012-13 and create conditions that are more conducive to investment and economic growth.”

Ah yes, in case we were momentarily misled, this is to remind us that the purpose of high-level panels of greybeards is to prove circuitously to the proletariat that conditions conducive to investment and economic growth matter (so very much) more than our shrinking wages and the spiralling prices we pay for our daily bowl of rice and scraps of vegetables. We stand educated.

Although Hosni Mubarak was forced to step down in February 2011, the uprisings in Egypt continue. While the uniting rallying cry may have been against dictatorship, the struggle in Egypt that took headlines across the world in early 2011 reflected deeper social, political, and economic problems. The key demands of the revolution have still not been met. The continuation of military rule and the promise of more neoliberal economic policies lead many to believe it will be a long battle.

Protesters in Egypt are hopeful, however, as people all over the world revolt against an economic system that benefits the few at the expense of the many. This short documentary looks at the economic factors that led to the revolution, the reality of living under military rule, and brings up questions over the legitimacy of the current elections.

Rising prices and inflation in Kenya prompted the creation of a movement led by a grassroots civil society group, Bunge la Mwananchi, or The People’s Parliament. It staged demonstrations throughout the year to pressurise the Kenyan government to bring down the price of unga, or maize flour. IRIN’s latest film, ‘Kenya’s Unga Revolution’, follows one of Bunge la Mwananchi’s activists, Emily Kwamboka, as she takes to the streets to demand change in the lives of ordinary Kenyans.

Throughout 2011, Kenyans have faced the strain of rising food and fuel prices. According to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, late and erratic rainfall led to an estimated 3.75 million people across the country becoming food-insecure. The World Bank’s Food Price Watch report states that the price of maize rose by 43 percent globally between September 2010 and September 2011.

IRIN’s latest film, ‘Kenya’s Unga Revolution‘, follows one of Bunge la Mwananchi’s activists, Emily Kwamboka, as she takes to the streets to demand change in the lives of ordinary Kenyans. “It’s high time people wake up. We need masses in this struggle. This is a fight that can’t be fought by just one or two people,” she told IRIN. Particularly affected were those living in Kenya’s urban areas, especially slum-dwellers. “Things have become so expensive, people are not even able to buy vegetables,” said Joash Otieno, a resident of Mathare, one of Nairobi’s slums. “Those who live in Mathare and other slums earn very low incomes,” he added.

The rising prices and inflation prompted the creation of a movement led by a grassroots civil society group, Bunge la Mwananchi, or The People’s Parliament. It staged demonstrations throughout the year to pressurize the Kenyan government to bring down the price of unga, or maize flour, from Ksh120 (US$1.40) a kilo, to KSh30 ($0.34).

The report, ‘Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007′, by the Congressional Budget Office (October 2011) on income inequality underscores the total disengagement between the Obama administration and the entire political system on the one hand and the interests and desires of the vast majority of Americans on the other. In the USA, the political and media establishment is presently occupying itself instead with a debate over how much further taxes for the corporations and the rich should be cut and how much more deeply social programs for workers and poor people should be slashed.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report stated: “To assess trends in the distribution of household income, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) examined the span from 1979 to 2007 because those endpoints allow comparisons between periods of similar overall economic activity (they were both years before recessions). The growth in average income for different groups over the 1979–2007 period reflects a comparison of average income for those groups at different points in time; it does not reflect the experience of particular households. Individual households may have moved up or down the income scale if their income rose or fell more than the average for their initial group. Thus, the population with income in the lowest 20 percent in 2007 was not necessarily the same as the population in that category in 1979.”

The massive growth of social inequality over the past three decades has been the result of an unrelenting ruling class offensive against the working class. That assault has been carried out under Democratic as well as Republican administrations.

The CBO report stated: “Real (inflation-adjusted) mean household income, measured after government transfers and federal taxes, grew by 62 percent between 1979 and 2007. Over the same period, real median after-tax household income (half of all households have income below the median, and half have income above it) grew by 35 percent. Because the mean (or average) can be heavily influenced by very high or very low incomes, the large gap between mean and median income growth signals a pattern of growth that was heavily weighted toward households with income well above the median.”

The offensive against American labour and the working class was launched in earnest during the Ronald Reagan presidency, as early as 1981. That was the signal for more than a decade of wage-cutting, strike-breaking, union-busting and labor frame-ups, made possible by the complicity of the trade union bureaucracy. It deliberately isolated and betrayed scores of bitter struggles in order to break the militant resistance of the working class.

The CBO report stated: “The distribution of after-tax income (including government transfer payments) became substantially more unequal from 1979 to 2007 as a result of a rapid rise in income for the highest-income households, sluggish income growth for the middle 60 percent of the population, and an even smaller increase in after-tax income for the 20 percent of the population with the lowest income.”

The spread of social misery in the midst of soaring corporate profits and CEO pay is starkly shown in the growth of poverty in US suburbs. The New York Times recently reported that the ranks of the poor living in the suburbs of US cities rose by more than half between 2000 and 2010. Two thirds of these new suburban poor dropped below the official poverty line between 2007 and 2010. The Times article, reporting analyses of US Census data by the Brookings Institution, said the increase in poverty in the suburbs was 53 percent, compared with 26 percent in the cities.

In fact, average real after-tax household income for the 1 percent of the population with the highest income grew by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007. Average real after-tax income for that group has been quite volatile: It spiked in 1986 and fell in 1987, reflecting an acceleration of capital gains realizations into 1986 in anticipation of the scheduled increase in tax rates the following year.

Income growth for the top 1 percent of the population rebounded in 1988 but fell again with the onset of the 1990–1991 recession. By 1994, after-tax household income was 50 percent higher than it had been in 1979. Income growth surged in 1995, averaging more than 11 percent per year through 2000. After falling sharply in 2001 because of the recession and stock market drop, average real after-tax income for the top 1 percent of the population rose by more than 85 percent between 2002 and 2007.

Update – The real nature of the neoliberal economy of India has become clearer with the decision – against the run of public opinion and against the evidence from the agricultural and food sectors – to permit opening up the retail sector.

Since the decision was taken, the central government has spared no effort in a cynical and devious campaign to claim that permitting foreign direct investment in retail will benefit farmers and consumers. On Sunday, 27 November 2011, large advertisements were released in newspapers proclaiming the benefits of this decision. Nothing is further from the truth. India’s urban households, those eking out livelihoods from informal work and precarious manufacturing sector jobs, recognise the untruth and see the evidence in the 10%-15% annual food inflation. Our trade unions know this and our left parties know this.

Ranged against this population, rural and urban, are the ministries and industries who see in the permission a new means to control access to food and the provisioning of food. That is why I support the opposition represented by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), whose concerns reflect those of this broad majority.

The CPI(M) has said correctly that this decision “will destroy the livelihoods of crores of small retailers and lead to monopolisation of the retail sector by the MNCs”. The party’s statement said: “Coming in the backdrop of persistent high inflation, growing joblessness and agrarian distress, this decision shows the utterly callous and anti-people character of the UPA Government. The Government seems to be more eager to meet the demands of the US and other Western governments and serve the interests of the MNCs like Walmart, Tesco and Carrefour, rather than protect those of its own people.”

India’s central ministries – now even further disrobed to reveal their predatory nature as instruments of the country’s business satraps – have held up the flimsy excuse that conditions imposed will safeguard the farmer, consumer and small retailer. This is lies.

The restriction that foreign retail outlets are limited to operating in cities of over 1 million population is meaningless because those are precisely the places where the MNCs want to go, to tap the lucrative segment of the market. It is in these cities – there are 53 cities with populations of over a million – that small retailers are mostly concentrated. India has the highest shopping density in the world, with 11 shops per 1,000 persons – these have evolved as neighbourhood suppliers and represent a cultural integration of small supplier and household familiarity.

The result is a rich density of trusted small retail – India has over 12 million such shops and these employ directly over 40 million persons. Well over 95% of these shops are run by self-employed persons in floor areas of under 500 square feet (about 48 square metres). It is these small shopkeepers in urban areas who fear for their future with the now-sanctioned entry of the MNC retailers. International experience shows that supermarkets everywhere invariably displace small retailers. Small retail has been virtually wiped out in the developed countries like the US and Europe. South East Asian countries had to also impose stringent zoning and licensing regulations in order to restrict the growth of supermarkets, after small retailers were getting displaced.

Then there is the cunning untruth that the condition for making at least 50% of the investment in ‘backend’ infrastructure will benefit rural populations, as this is said to lead to more cold chains and other logistics, benefiting the farmers. International experience has, however, shown that procurement by MNC retailers do not benefit the small farmers – we have seen this in India despite the specious and manufactured ‘case studies’ produced by India’s management schools (the several worthless and compradorist Indian Institutes of Management and their similarly worthless competitors). Over time, smallholder farmers receive depressed prices and find it difficult to meet the arbitrary quality standards. Allowing procurement by MNCs will also allow the central government to reduce its own procurement responsibilities, and this will directly affect the food security of those millions of rural and urban households which depend India’s public food distribution system.

2011/11/25 – This is a turning point for India’s economy. The central government has allowed foreign investment up to 51% in the retail sector for ‘multi-brand’ ventures, and has allowed 100% foreign investment for single brand retailers.

With this permission, the ruling United Progressive Alliance has ignored utterly the concerns of hundreds of representations made over the last year by small traders and wholesalers, and by grocery shops’ assocations all over India, against the entre of foreign direct invetment in the retail sector. The ruling United Progressive Alliance has also ignored the needs and conditions of hundreds of thousands of smallholder farming families, who will from now on be steadily exposed to increasing levels of coercion to submit to corporate and industrial farming pressures, or to quit cultivation and join the masses of informal labour in urbanising towns and cities.

India’s powerful business and indutries associations – the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) – have vigorously for the last two years been manoeuvring the ruling political alliance towards this position. They have been aided substantially by representations from the countries and regions who have the most to gain from this permission being given – the USA and the European Union.

The so-called economists and analysts who are regularly polled by the business media and whose pronouncements are used to justify the progression of policy towards such permission, are making a variety of claims about the effects the expected foreign investment will have on India. They are saying that this “much delayed reform” will help unclog supply bottlenecks and help ease food inflation, that it will benefit farmers who can get better prices for their produce and will bring in international expertise to streamline supply chains in India.

This is rubbish meant to distract. The big retail corporations have for years been demanding entry into a country which is estimated to have a retail sector whose annual sales are said to be around US$450 billion. But this is a sector populated by tens of thousands of tiny family-run shops that account for 90% of this enormous volume of sales. This is a turning point for India’s economy, for it signals the start of yet another struggle to first block, and then throw out the retail conglomerates.

Here are some of the many news stories on this important matter:

Moneycontrol.com – ‘Don’t expect investments to flow instantly: Bharti Walmart’ – After a long wait, the government has finally allowed 51% foreign direct investment (FDI) in the multi-brand retail. It has also decided to raise the cap on foreign investment in single-brand retailing to 100% from the current 51%. …

The Hindu – ‘Cabinet approves 51 per cent FDI in multi-brand retail’ – In a bid to remove the impression that UPA II was suffering from “decision making paralysis” and kicking off the second generation reforms, the Union Cabinet on Thursday gave its approval to allowing 51 per cent foreign direct investment (FDI) in …

Shanghai Daily (subscription) – ‘India to allow global chains to open multi-brand retail stores’ - MUMBAI, Nov. 24 (Xinhua) — India’s cabinet has given the green light to foreign investors to take up to 51 percent stakes in multi-brand retail stores later Thursday after a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, said a report by the …

MarketWatch (press release) – ‘Government of India Unleashes Potent Phase II Reforms’ – WASHINGTON, Nov 24, 2011 (BUSINESS WIRE) — The US-India Business Council (USIBC) today hailed India’s steady progress in advancing major economic reforms with the Cabinet’s approval of opening India’s vast multi-brand retail sector to foreign direct …

Reuters India – ‘India opens supermarket sector to foreign players’ - India threw open its $450 billion retail market to global supermarket giants on Thursday, approving its biggest reform in years that may boost sorely needed investment in Asia’s third-largest economy …

Wall Street Journal – ‘Carrefour Welcomes India’s Decision To Open Multi-Brand Retail Market‘ – PARIS (Dow Jones)–French retail giant Carrefour SA (CA.FR) said Thursday it welcomed the Indian government’s decision to open the country’s multi-brand retail market to foreign investment. “Carrefour will follow with attention the finalization of the …

Voice of America – ‘India Opens Retail Sector to Foreign Supermarkets’ - November 24, 2011 India Opens Retail Sector to Foreign Supermarkets VOA News India’s Cabinet has approved a plan to open up the country’s $450 billion retail sector to foreign supermarkets, a reform that could unclog supply bottlenecks that have kept …

Wall Street Journal – ‘India Unlocks Door for Global Retailers’ - MUMBAI—India paved the way for international supermarkets and department stores to establish joint ventures, a major step in opening one of the last great consumer markets that has been off-limits to many of the world’s biggest …

Hindustan Times – ‘Left and Right sharpen knives for FDI battle’ - The Cabinet’s approval of 51% FDI in multi-brand retail is likely to flare up into a major political controversy with the main opposition parties gearing up to oppose it. While BJP leaders Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley jointly condemned any such move …

Namnews – ‘Government Opens Up Country’s Retail Market’ - It’s official – the Indian retail market is now open to international chains, setting the stage for a major change of the local industry. Earlier today, the Indian government approved Foreign Direct Investment of up to 51% in multi-brand retail, …

Bloomberg – ‘India Allows Foreign Investment in Retail, Paving Wal-Mart Entry’ – India approved allowing overseas companies to own as much as 51 percent of retail chains that sell more than one brand, paving the way for global retailers such as Wal-Mart Stores …

indiablooms – ‘India opens retail to foreign players’ – New Delhi, Nov 24 (IBNS): India on Thursday decided to allow foreign direct investment (FDI) in its closely-guarded multi brand retail market, paving the way for global supermarket giants to step into the $450 billion sector that was widely seen as one …

Tehelka – ‘Cabinet approves 51% FDI in multi-brand retail’ - The Cabinet cleared 51 per cent foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail on Thursday paving the way for global retail giants like Wal-Mart and Carrefour to enter India. The Cabinet also cleared 100 per cent FDI in single-brand retail. …

Newser – ‘India to allow more foreign retail investment, likely paving way for Wal-Mart’ – India’s Cabinet decided Thursday to allow more direct foreign investment in the nation’s huge retail industry, a move that could strengthen the country’s food supply chain and open India to giant global …

NetIndian – ‘Cabinet clears 51% FDI in multi-brand retail’ - After dithering for a long time, the Union Cabinet today cleared a proposal to allow 51 per cent Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail and raised the cap to 100 per cent in single brand retail. This will allow global retail giants like …

Boston.com – ‘India opens more to foreign multibrand retailers’ - AP / November 24, 2011 NEW DELHI—India’s Cabinet decided Thursday to allow more direct foreign investment in the nation’s huge retail industry, a move that could strengthen the country’s food supply chain and open India to giant global …

Retail Week – ‘Indian cabinet approves foreign investment in retail‘ – The Indian government has cleared the way to allow multinational retailers including Tesco, Carrefour and Walmart to enter its retail market. We provide a range of advertising opportunities. By advertising with us, you are guaranteed to reach the …

Atlanta Journal Constitution – ‘India opens more to foreign multibrand retailers’ – AP NEW DELHI — India’s Cabinet decided Thursday to allow more direct foreign investment in the nation’s huge retail industry, a move that could strengthen the country’s food supply chain and open India to giant global retailers such as …

Houston Chronicle – ‘India opens more to foreign multibrand retailers’ – NEW DELHI (AP) — India’s Cabinet decided Thursday to allow more direct foreign investment in the nation’s huge retail industry, a move that could strengthen the country’s food supply chain and open India to giant global retailers such …

IBNLive – ‘FDI in retail cleared; multi brand 50 pc, single brand 100 pc’ – The Union Cabinet FDI in multi-brand retail and single brand retail despite division within the UPA on the issue.

Moneycontrol.com – ‘Cabinet approves 51% FDI in multi-brand retail’ – Indian retailers finally get a chance to rejoice as the Cabinet today cleared the bill to increase foreign direct investment to 51% in multi-brand retail and 100% in single brand. Commerce and industry minister Anand Sharma said that he would give a …

Business Standard – ‘Too early to celebrate for Pantaloon retail’ – Valuations may prove to be a hurdle, while real gains will take time to yield. Stocks of organised retail companies like Pantaloon Retail and Shoppers Stop have been in action in the recent past on hopes that foreign direct investment (FDI) in the …

BusinessWeek – ‘India Allows Foreign Investment in Retail, Paving Wal-Mart Entry’ – Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) — India approved allowing overseas companies to own as much as 51 percent of retail chains that sell more than one brand, paving the way for global retailers such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. …

Washington Post – ‘India to allow more foreign retail investment, likely paving way for Wal-Mart’ – NEW DELHI — India’s Cabinet decided Thursday to allow more direct foreign investment in the nation’s huge retail industry, a move that could strengthen the country’s food supply chain and open India to giant global retailers such as Wal-Mart. …

STLtoday.com – ‘India opens more to foreign multibrand retailers’ - AP | Posted: Thursday, November 24, 2011 10:36 am | Loading… India’s Cabinet decided Thursday to allow more direct foreign investment in the nation’s huge retail industry, a move that could strengthen the country’s food supply chain and open India to …

Newser – ‘India to allow more foreign retail investment, likely paving way for Wal-Mart’ – India’s Cabinet decided Thursday to allow more direct foreign investment in the nation’s huge retail industry, a move that could strengthen the country’s food supply chain and open India to giant global …

Wall Street Journal (blog) – ‘FDI in Retail: If Wal-Mart Builds It, Will Indians Come?’ - The Indian government deserves credit for doing what , for at least five years, it has been contemplating: setting the stage for the creation if a modern retail industry. It is unlikely that the Cabinet was seized by Adam Smith-like …

Houston Chronicle – ‘India opens more to foreign multibrand retailers’ – NEW DELHI (AP) — India’s Cabinet decided Thursday to allow more direct foreign investment in the nation’s huge retail industry, a move that could strengthen the country’s food supply chain and open India to giant global retailers such …

Zee News – ‘Cabinet clears FDI in multi-brand retail’ – New Delhi: In a major decision, the government Thursday approved 51 percent FDI in multi-brand retail paving the way for global giants like WalMart to open mega stores in cities with population of over one million. The nod from the Union Cabinet came …

This permission, given by a ruling political coalition that has allowed food inflation to rage on unchecked for the last three years, which has regularly pushed up the prices of petrol (gasoline) and diesel, and whose record on tackling corruption and graft is shamefully weak, will not go unchallenged.

The World Development Movement has been bringing to public attention, and to policymakers in Britain, the effects of financial market speculation in food. Recently, a WDM campaign group circulated a letter amongst economists in all countries addressed to the finance ministers of the countries that make up the G20. They met in Paris, France, on 15 October.

I am honoured to be amongst the 450 who have signed the statement. Those who have lent their names to the statement are amongst a group of economists, social scientists, academics and activists who are witnessing – every day no matter where they live – the impacts of relentless food inflation on the lives of poor households whether urban or rural. This statement is one way to remind the G20 powers of their social responsibilities.

Here follows the text of the letter, which is available on the original site here:

11 October 2011

Dear G20 Finance Ministers,

We write to you ahead of the October meeting of the G20 Finance Ministers to urge you to commit with your counterparts to take effective action to curb excessive speculation on food commodities. Excessive financial speculation is contributing to increasing volatility and record high food prices, exacerbating global hunger and poverty.

While there are many pressures on food prices, fundamental changes in supply and demand cannot fully account for the dramatic price fluctuations that have occurred in recent years.

In June, a report for the G20 by international organisations including the IMF and the OECD noted that “too much speculation can cause frequent and erratic price changes” in futures markets.

Evidence suggests that financial speculators are less likely to make trading decisions based on information regarding supply and demand and are more prone to herding behaviours than commercial traders. Excessive speculation undermines the price discovery function of futures markets, driving real prices away from levels determined by supply and demand.

The High Level Panel of Experts on food security for the Committee on World Food Security at the FAO reported in July that “tighter regulation of speculation is necessary.” The panel suggested that “Increasing transparency, by requiring exchange trading and clearing of most agricultural commodity contracts, and setting lower limits for noncommercial actors could be the first set of measures taken by the countries that house major commodity exchanges.”

Increasing market transparency is vital, but will not go far enough to tackle excessive financial speculation. We therefore urge you to support the establishment of position limits to cap the proportion of agricultural commodity derivatives markets that can be  held by financial speculators.

Limits could be set at a level that would maintain sufficient liquidity in the markets while preventing an excessive concentration of purely financial actors. The US has already passed legislation including provisions to introduce such limits and the G20 should act to prevent regulatory arbitrage between exchanges.

Position limits would be more effective in tackling excessive speculation than position management powers, which rely on the use of judgement by exchanges and provide little assurance that powers will be exercised effectively. Clear limits would provide regulatory certainty, promoting stable and sustainable derivatives markets to the benefit of food producers, consumers and broader economic stability.

With around 1 billion people enduring chronic hunger worldwide, action is urgently needed to curb excessive speculation and its effects on global food prices.

Yours sincerely,

Using the just released FAO food index update for 2011 August, I have compared the two periods of high food prices, the earlier one in 2007-08 and the continuing period of 2010-11.

Between 2007 Dec and 2008 Sep: for 8 months the Food Index was above 200, and for 10 months the Cereals Index was above 200.

Between 2010 Sep and 2011 Aug: for 11 months the Food Index has been above 200, and for 12 months the Cereals Index has been above 200.

This is the longest period in the last ten years that the FAO food index has been at such a level. This is the backstory of the FAO Food Price Index.

Let’s turn to what the FAO has said about the 2011 August update.

World food prices remained virtually unchanged between July and August 2011. The Index averaged 231 points last month compared to 232 points in July. It was 26% higher than in August 2010 but seven points below its all-time high of 238 points in February 2011. Within the index, cereals prices rose, reflecting the fact that although cereal production is expected to increase, it will not do so by enough to offset the additional demand, so that stocks continue to be low and prices continue to be high and volatile.

The FAO Cereal Price Index averaged 253 points in August, up 2.2%, or 5 points, from July and 36% higher than in August 2010. However, the firmer cereal prices were largely offset by declines in international prices of most other commodities included in the Food Price Index, oils and dairy products in particular.

Cereal price rises stem from a supply and demand balance that remains tight despite the anticipated increase in production. World cereal production in 2011 is now forecast to reach 2,307 million tonnes, 3% higher than in 2010. But this latest forecast is nearly 6 million tonnes lower than the previous forecast published in July.

Among the major cereals, the maize supply situation is a cause for concern following downward revisions to maize crop prospects in the United States, the world’s largest maize producer, because of continued hot weather in July and August. Average wheat prices were also up 9% in August given the strong demand for feed wheat and shrinking supplies of high quality wheat. Nonetheless, world wheat production is forecast to increase by 4.3% (or 28 million tonnes), only 4 million tonnes below the 2009 record.

World coarse grain production is still heading for a record level of 1,147.5 million tonnes, up 2.4% (or 27 million tonnes) from 2010, in spite of lowered maize production prospects in the United States, the world’s largest maize producer. Rice prices also gained with the benchmark Thai rice price up 5% from July, driven by a policy change in Thailand, the world’s largest rice exporter, where paddy rice will be purchased from farmers at above market prices. Global rice production prospects remain favourable, however, with output set to reach a new high of 479 million tonnes, up 2.5% from 2010.

Total cereal utilization in 2011-12 is forecast to increase by 1.4%, almost matching anticipated 2011 production. As a result, global cereal inventories by the close of seasons in 2012 are likely to remain close to their already low opening levels. Only rice stocks are expected to increase significantly, supported by record production. Wheat inventories are likely to decline to their lowest level since 2009 and world stocks of coarse grains are also forecast to plunge, with maize inventories falling to 124 million tonnes, their lowest level since 2007. Given the tight global supply and demand balance for coarse grains, its stocks-to-use ratio is forecast to fall to a historical low of 13.4%.

The FAO Oils/Fats Price Index averaged 244 points in August, following a declining trend since March but still remaining high in historical terms. The FAO Dairy Price Index averaged 221 points in August, significantly down from 228 points in July and 232 points in June, but still 14% higher than the same period last year. The FAO Meat Price Index averaged 181 points in August, up 1% from July. The FAO Sugar Price Index averaged 394 points in August, down 2% from July, but still 50% higher than in August 2010.

India’s meteorological department has issued its second long range forecast for the 2011 monsoon and has lowered its estimate. Rainfall will be 95% of the 50-year average in the June-September season, which are the monsoon months. In April, the Indian Meteorological Department predicted a monsoon that would be 98% of the long-term average. Normal precipitation is considered to be 96%-104% percent of the long-term average.

India’s agriculture-dependent population has been hoping for adequate rainfall to harvest good quantities of foodgrain and lentils for a second year and bring down inflation, which has led the Reserve Bank of India – the central bank – to raise rates for a 10th time in 15 months. Agriculture accounts for 14% of the economy and a reduced harvest can further lower rural incomes and send food inflation higher than it already is. Inflation in India is the highest among Asia’s major economies.

Bloomberg reported that the wholesale price index in India accelerated 9.06% in May after having increased 8.66% a month earlier, according to official data released on June 14. An index measuring wholesale prices of farm products including milk and lentils rose 8.96% in the week ended June 4 from a year earlier, according to the commerce ministry. India imported record quantities of sugar, lentils and oilseeds in 2009 following the weakest monsoon that year since 1972.

The IMD’s ‘long period’ is 1951-2000 and the department considers probabilities for the country (all-India) and four major regions: north-west India, central India, north-east India and south peninsula. “Over the four broad geographical regions of the country, rainfall for the 2011 Southwest Monsoon Season is likely to be 97% of its LPA over North-West India, 95% of its LPA over North-East India, 95% of its LPA over Central India and 94% of its LPA over South Peninsula, all with a model error of ± 8 %.”

The IMD also employs a six-parameter statistical forecasting system to prepare probability forecasts for five pre-defined rainfall categories. These are deficient (less than 90% of LPA), below normal (90-96% of LPA), normal (96-104% of LPA), above normal (104-110% of LPA) and excess (above 110% of LPA). The forecasted probabilities for the 2011 southwest monsoon season based on this system in percentage for the above 5 categories are 19%, 37%, 37%, 6% and 1%
respectively.

The department’s ‘Summary of the Update Forecasts for 2011 Southwest Monsoon Rainfall’ has said:

(1) Rainfall over the country as a whole for the 2011 southwest monsoon season (June to September) is most likely to be below normal (90-96% of LPA). Quantitatively, monsoon season rainfall for the country as a whole is likely to be 95% of the long period average with a model error of ±4%. The Long period average rainfall over the country as a whole for the period 1951-2000 is 89 cm.

(2) Rainfall over the country as a whole in the month of July 2011 is likely to be 93% of its LPA and that in the month of August is likely to be 94% of LPA both with a model error of ± 9 %.

(3) Over the four broad geographical regions of the country, rainfall for the 2011 Southwest Monsoon Season is likely to be 97% of its LPA over North-West India, 95% of its LPA over North-East India, 95% of its LPA over Central India and 94% of its LPA over South Peninsula, all with a model error of ± 8 %.

According to Reuters, government officials played down concerns that lower rainfall could fan inflation and dampen growth. “There is no need to press the panic button, as June rains are still above normal,” said Shailesh Nayak, the top civil servant in the ministry of earth sciences which controls the country’s weather office.

While rains could be slightly lower than normal in July, India’s chief forecaster said distribution was key. “There are chances the monsoon will pick up after July 15 once it covers the entire country,” said D. Sivananda Pai, director at the state-run National Climate Center. “Don’t go by the numbers, it is the distribution (of the rains) which we are still hoping to be good.” The weather office predicted 27 centimetres of rain in July compared with long-term average rainfall of 29 centimetres, and rains at 24 centimetres in August, when seeds start maturing, compared with long-term averages of 26 centimetres.

Weather office chief Ajit Tyagi remained optimistic. “Ninety five percent is a good forecast,” Tyagi said. “Had it been 90% of the long-term average then it would have been a cause for concern,” he said, adding that in the past slightly below normal monsoon rains had also seen adequate farm output because they were well distributed in the major crop growing regions.

Explaining climatic conditions over the equatorial Pacific and Indian Oceans, the department’s second long range said moderate to strong La Nina conditions that prevailed in the equatorial Pacific during mid-August 2010 to early February 2011 weakened during subsequent months and dissipated to neutral conditions around mid-May 2011. The latest forecasts from a majority of the dynamical and statistical models indicate strong probability for the present ENSO-neutral conditions to continue during the current monsoon season and the remaining part of 2011.

It is important to note that in addition to El Niño and La Niña events, other factors such as the Indian Ocean Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) have also significant influence on India monsoon. However, the latest forecasts do not suggest development of either a positive or a negative Indian Ocean Dipole event during the 2011 monsoon season. In the absence of strong monsoon forcing from both Pacific and Indian Oceans, intraseasonal variation may become more crucial during this southwest monsoon season and lead to increased uncertainty in the monsoon forecasts.

Vendors in Mapusa, Goa. The middle basket contains 'nachne', local millet

Are the current arrangements fit for the job? This is the question posed in a current discussion on FAO’s The Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum). The Forum is set up and managed by by FAO’s Agricultural Development Economics Division and, in their words, “is a community of practitioners currently reaching more than 2800 members” around the world.

The short intro to this discussion is: one of the consequences of the 2007-08 food price crisis was the emergence of a number of new institutions and initiatives that were intended to strengthen global capacities to respond to such situations. “You are invited to share views on how an effective global food governance system should work and on what major issues are to be addressed in order to ensure an adequate and safe food supply for all humans at all times.”

Here is my contribution to the discussion on ‘Global Governance for Food Security: are the current arrangements fit for the Job?’.

‘Global governance’ and ‘food security’ are not compatible ideas in present circumstances. If we look at the idea of ‘food security’, which development agencies and social scientists tend to agree is achieved by every family/household having enough to eat – and able to find and purchase that food easily – then this is only part of a way of living. That way of living, where the production and consumption of food is concerned, has for some years now been more aptly called ‘food sovereignty’. The difference between ‘security’ and ‘sovereignty’ is a major one, and governance – as it is commonly understood by UN agencies and development professionals – may apply to ‘security’ but hardly can to ‘sovereignty’.

So there is a difficulty with how this has been framed. Global governance is I’m sorry to say neither feasible under current economic conditions nor desirable from a cultural diversity point of view. It may have been a guiding principle in the mid-1930s when the League of Nations was created, and has been re-articulated in many forms – sometimes grandly, at other times in attempts to find peace and end conflict. The idea lies at the heart of many of the multidisciplinary efforts led by UN agencies, especially concerning human development, environment, healthcare, the right to education. It is at the core of the Millennium Development Goals programme. It remains, as it was more than 70 years ago, a fuzzy notion that does more to distract than to build. FAO needs to have nothing to do with such an idea.

Rice is still planted and harvested in the coastal talukas, but fields such as these are threatened by urbanisation

The food crisis of 2007-08 is a point of extreme stress in the steady progress of the consolidation of the factors of food production and the organisation of the consumers of food products. In many ways, the ‘crisis’ began when the first fields were harvested with Green Revolution hybrids, and that was a long time ago. It is the growing concentration of capital in the post-harvest sequence – rather than in the people and households and villages who cultivate – that has led to the extreme food impoverishment which we first recognised in 2007-08 and promptly called a ‘crisis’.

This systemic difficulty continues simply because the same forces that, in public fora, in UN agencies, in corporate-industrial circles and within national policy, call for governance are also the forces that create legislation, treaties, trade agreements and multilateral institutions designed to sabotage all expressions of food sovereignty.

I have no doubt that within the ‘number of new institutions and initiatives’ there are also a number of people with the will and intention to help solve a problem that is found in many countries, many provinces and states. However, that does not make it a ‘global problem’. Some of the forces at work are international in scope and scale, such as the reach of the giant fertilisers corporations, the impact of the world’s major agricultural commodities exchanges, the dense links between grain trading cartels and the financial markets. These operate internationally, and the effects of deprivation and food price inflation are also seen in many countries. There are common elements, no doubt, but it is useful to distinguish elements that are common from the idea of ‘global’, for there will not be an inter-agency solution.

Identification of these problems, the reform of economic systems which permit such deprivation, and the creation and maintenance of social institutions (council of village elders for example) can only form locally and work locally. At best, there may be an exchange for methods and practice, available to all to participate in. That I think is what FAO should aim for on this subject.

FAO food price index for 2011 March

Global food prices decline, is the assessment of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) for 2011 March. The FAO Food Price Index has shown its first decrease in eight months. “The food price index dropped some this month but only time will tell if this is the start of a reversal of the upward trend,” said FAO.

The Index averaged 230 points in March 2011, down 2.9 percent from its peak in February, but still 37 percent above March of last year. “The decrease in the overall index this month brings some welcome respite from the steady increases seen over the last eight months,” said David Hallam, Director of FAO’s Trade and Market Division. “But it would be premature to conclude that this is a reversal of the upward trend,” he added.

“We need to see the information on new plantings over the next few weeks to get an idea of future production levels. But low stock levels, the implications for oil prices of events in the Middle East and North Africa and the effects of the destruction in Japan all make for continuing uncertainty and price volatility over the coming months,” said Hallam.

FAO food commodity price index for 2011 March

International prices of oils and sugar dropped the most, followed by cereals. By contrast, dairy and meat prices were up, although only marginally in the case of meat. The Cereal Price Index averaged 252 points in March, down 2.6 percent from February, but still 60 percent higher than in March 2010. March was extremely volatile for grains, with international quotations first plunging sharply, driven largely by outside market developments such as the increased economic uncertainties accompanying the turmoil in North Africa and parts of the Near East as well as the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, before regaining most of their losses. Rice prices also fell as a result of abundant supply in exporting countries and sluggish import demand.

A positive outlook but food stocks diminish, said the FAO. World production of cereals fell in 2010, resulting in falling stocks, while total cereal utilization is expected to reach a record level in 2010/11. While most indications point to increased cereal production in 2011, the projected growth may not be sufficient to replenish inventories, in which case prices could remain firm throughout 2011/12 as well.

Index details: The FAO Food Price Index (FFPI) averaged 230 points in March  2011, down  2.9 percent from its peak in February, but still 37 percent above March last year. International prices of oils and sugar contracted the most, followed by cereals. By contrast, dairy and meat prices were up.

FAO food price index real/deflated for 2011 March

The FAO Cereal Price Index averaged 252 points, down 2.6 percent from February, but still 60% higher than in March 2010. The past month was extremely volatile for grains, with international quotations first plunging sharply, driven largely by recent events in Japan and North Africa, before regaining most of their losses towards the end of the month, as markets reacted to a continuing tight world supply and demand condition. Rice prices also fell amid large availability in exporting countries and sluggish import demand.

The FAO Oils/Fats Price Index fell 7 percent, to 260, interrupting nine months of consecutive rise. Last month’s slide in prices reflects primarily a recovery in global supply prospects for palm oil. The FAO Sugar Price Index averaged 372 points, down as much as 10 percent from the highs of January and February. The recent decline in international sugar prices was partly prompted by prospects of increased market availability, notably from India.

The FAO Dairy Price Index averaged 234 points, up 1.9 percent from February and 37 percent above its level in March 2010. Firm import demand together with lower than expected production in Southern hemisphere supplying countries, where the milking season is coming to a close, continue to underpin world prices. The FAO Meat Price Index  was little changed at 169 points in March. The upward trend in  meat prices since 2010 has flattened in the past few months, reflecting trade disruptions in several key markets, particularly North Africa and Japan.

These charts describe the 12-month rise in two indices: FAO’s Food Price Index, whose all-time high is the cause for so much alarm, and the IMF’s commodity index for food, which is less often referred to for food price burden impacts, but is no less important.

The FAO Food Price Index, comparative rise over 12 months for 2010 Feb to 2011 Jan and for 2007 Jul to 2008 Jun.

We see the index movements until the 2008 peak and the current peak of the FAO index and of the IMF food index (below). Over a year’s rise they are similar, but the worrying factor is the base for the 2010-11 rise, which is higher in both.

The IMF Commodity (Food) Price Index, comparative rise over 12 months for 2010 Feb to 2011 Jan and for 2007 Jul to 2008 Jun.