|
|
Poor nations should reject the advice they are getting from institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, and work instead towards food sovereignty.
|
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) says it is responding to the global food crisis by doling out new emergency loans to 15 of the world’s poorest nations, mostly in Africa.
But the new loans carry the same controversial conditions, such as tariff and subsidies cuts, that many analysts now agree are partly to blame for the soaring inflation and inability of developing country governments to cope, reported Ipsnews.net.
Mark Plant, deputy director of the IMF’s Policy Development and Review Department, told an IMF publication last week that the so-called Exogenous Shocks Facility (ESF), which the fund uses to disburse fast loans in emergency situations, would be open for business to the world’s poorest nations by June.
Already 15 countries are talking to the Washington-based IMF about tapping loans from the program, which is designed to offset expenses and budget imbalances incurred from shuffling expenditures to ease food prices in poor nations.
The IMF official said that in addition to the emergency program, developing countries suffering high food prices could also receive advance loans from the more traditional Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility, the loan framework under which poor countries typically have to agree to revamp their economies in return for IMF cash.
But analysts say that both loan programmes could in fact make a bad situation worse. The conditions that these two programs share include trade liberalization, cutting social spending, trimming subsidies to local producers and limiting bailouts to troubled national sectors.
Under those conditions, international financial institutions such as the IMF and its sister institution the World Bank helped force developing countries to dismantle much of their agricultural tariff systems, allowing in huge quantities of cheaper farm goods from Europe and the United States.
Critics say this effectively sabotaged national food security systems and has left poor countries ever more reliant on food imports and defenseless in the face of the latest price increases.
Today, according to figures from the Global Policy Forum, nearly three in four developing countries are net importers of food.
Food import surges have had an especially harsh impact on rural poor and local economies in Africa. Also, rising food prices are having their biggest impact on poor people in low-income developing countries. Rice prices have reached record levels, while wheat prices have nearly tripled and corn doubled since 2000.
Some 33 countries, most in Sub-Saharan Africa, which already carries the world’s heaviest debt burden, have been particularly affected. New loans from the ESF could further plunge these nations into the red.
IMF policy advice to eliminate tariffs on some food items, as Plant has advocated, would simply continue to discourage local production and put poor countries even more at the mercy of international commodity markets over which they have no control.
It is unclear whether pushing more funds in the form of new loans in the market will ease prices, although such a move would likely fatten profits for international food companies, traders and speculators.
As part of its package to deal with the crisis, the IMF is also arguing that poor nations redirect new subsidies only to the poor while removing subsidies to petroleum products, an argument that overlooks the major impact of fuel on food prices.
The IMF insists that it is offering varied advice to suit different countries and avoid destabilizing their economies.
But food security activists say that poor nations should reject the advice they are getting from institutions such as the IMF and World Bank and work instead towards “food sovereignty“.