Steve Wiggins

Contributions to this discussion were few indeed.

I doubt that this means that regional policy issues are not important, but rather that the questions were not put in way to stimulate reaction. Or that some of the issues had been raised in other discussions.

It may also be that some of the regional policy issues arising perhaps do not lend themselves to discussion, for two reasons:

(a)To discuss some issues, quite specialised technical knowledge is required that not many of us have the workings of futures markets on commodity exchanges would be a good example; and,

(b)Other issues have long involved different groups taking at cross purposes. The benefits of trade liberalisation is a case in point. Economists favour trade since that's what most (and standard) economic theory suggests will deliver most benefits, and since there is evidence that increased trade by and large correlates with faster rates of economic growth for countries that trade. These are strong arguments: it is no surprise that across the world, from the EU to East Asia, from NAFTA to SADC, and not least within the WTO, the large majority of political leaders are committed in principle to freer trade.

But there are equally compelling reasons why, in practice, governments hesitate to free up trade.

Some are to do with the relevant times spans that different policy-makers consider. Economists like to think of the medium to long terms, and are reluctant to attribute too much weight to events in the short term. Other policy-makers in government and practitioners in NGOs, on the other hand, are acutely aware of distress, even if it is likely that such is short term and temporary.

Economists, certainly macro-economists, favour arguments about events in large aggregates, such as the population of the whole country. In contrast, decision-makers in governments and NGOs often deal with small groups and individuals. That those losing out from liberalisation might be compensated by those who gain is of little comfort to them. Michael Drinkwater rightly takes economists to task for not conducting more detailed analyses of the social impacts of trade liberalisation. That economists have been reluctant to date to make more efforts in this direction is an example of the failure to conduct research that might be practical and holistic, the need for which Ina Mentz pointed out.

Lastly the political dimensions of liberalisation can cause politicians to hesitate. Most practitioners as well as political leaders are well aware of these, although since few of us are trained as political scientists, and since political arguments are seen in formal debates as somehow less honourable or valid than economic or social ones, few are prepared to express these arguments openly and formally. At least two political arguments are worth mentioning. First, as outlined earlier, the risks of trade liberalisation going wrong may be politically more damaging than the potential gains from trade. When freer trade produces unwelcome results, they tend to be highly visible and easily attributable to political decisions. When trade works, the benefits are less observable and not readily attributed to the politicians who liberalised. (Trade benefits tend to seen as the returns to endeavours of enterprises and their workers that produce trade goods, to import-export dealers, and to the citizenry as a whole.)

Second, as George Allison wrote, politicians are reluctant to give up instruments that allow them to take action. Trade liberalisation tends to mean less for political leaders to do. It leaves politicians open to the criticism that they are doing nothing if and when imports compete successfully with some domestic interest. (Liberalisation may also reduce the scope for handing out favours to supporters, in the form of special treatment in trade policy.) Paradoxically, liberalisation should allow government to spend more time and energy on the other many priorities for public action; but this possible virtue, even if it exists, is not readily appreciated.

Enough speculation. Thanks to do those few who did contribute.

Top

• Elliot Vhurumuku gives a wide-ranging answer to quesitons about the regional early warning systems.
  
• Ina Mentz calls for policy-relevant research, and research that looks at multi-faceted problems in multi-faceted ways.
  
• Michael Drinkwater challenges economists for a more detailed consideration of trade impacts on different groups, especially under conditions of imperfect markets.
  

In reply to MD, fair point: economists are trying to build models and understanding of trade impacts in real, rather than assumed and abstract conditions, but that work is not far advanced to date. The mention of the marginalisation of the poor owing to lack of functioning markets brings to mind Joan Robinson's comment: 'The only thing worse than being exploited by a capitalist is not being exploited by one.'

The third and final set of regional issues concerns migration, as follows:

Discussion: Tuesday 1 July to Thursday 3 July: Migration and any other
regional issues

• Should migration be encouraged, tolerated or discouraged between countries Southern Africa?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of such movements?
• Should more be done to make available information to potential migrants on the opportunities, advantages and drawbacks of migration?
• What should be done, and which is feasible, to protect the rights of those have migrated - rights to fair treatment at work, minimum wages, medical attention, and education for any accompanying dependants?
• How can remittances from migrants to households and relatives in areas in origin be facilitated? How can these funds be used wisely?

Any thoughts?

Top

Elliot Vhurumuku

What indicators, methods and techniques should be used when collecting data for vulnerability assessments and early warnings?

You can use what we term indicator approach, the livelihoods approach (some term it Household Economy Approach, some Food Economy) and income accounting approach. The approach selected should depend on data availability, the purpose of the analysis, time and resources available and sometimes preference on the analyst. I have had the experience of applying most of the approaches and generating information used in decision making.

How should the information be analysed and results disseminated so as to contribute to public policy more effectively? How can the information and analysis be used to assist private actors in food systems?

The level of data and information collected determines the technique used for data nalysis. Analysis could be qualitative, it could be both quantitative and qualitative. The data could be analyzed using using spreadsheets, SPSS or special programs designed for the purpose. In all essence, the analysis should be meet the basic information needs on availability, access, utilization and stability of supply and the level of answering these issues could be at national level, sub national level or even at household level or for a geographical or for a specific socio economic group/groups. Private sector like any other public decison maker can benefit form market information, identified needs.

The channels of desermination depend on structural organaizations within country, info can be disseminated through workshops of stakeholders, media, available websites, email, hard copies, etc. It depends on the means available.

What else can or needs to be done regionally to warn of problems and prepare for emergencies?

Solution is formulation of an intergrated regional information system. The system reqquires collated information sstem at regional level, an example is the SADC regional early warning system which looks at early warning info from tthat perspective. Vulnerability assessments have also been done incountry but with a regional perspective as these are done almost at the same time and the methodology and minimum issues covered incountry are determined regionally and a regionally pespective developed.

Top

If trade is used as an economic weapon, which it is, what is the answer, and how does one get beyond the impasse outlined below? Well, for a start, I would like to see the real impacts of the different positions for the poor spelt out in more detail. Economic liberalization in Southern Africa has disproportionately affected the poor, in that in most countries, livelihood trends work we have undertaken show that social economic differences within regions have accentuated since the mid-1990s, and in countries like Zambia, the more remote regions have become increasingly the poorest. Nevertheless, at the same time, one of the factors that negatively affected the success say of a large CARE project in the south-west of Zambia, the Livingstone Food Security Project, which introduced drought tolerant seeds on a widespread scale, was that the hugely increased quantities of sorghum grown could not easily be officially marketed to Botswana, the main market, because of SACU tariffs. Since for farmers to sustain cultivation of sorghum on that scale, it had to be comparable to maize as a cash crop as well as a food crop, farmers were after a period of time, switching back.

So for me, the answer to the question below is that neither side is either wholly right or wholly wrong. Unfortunately, because the arguments of the economists are often couched in theoretical rather than practical terms, and because no-one closely enough analyses the impact on different categories of producers and consumers of different strategies, it is hard to work out what kind of balance between free trade and protection (or subsidy) that is required. The structural adjustment policies forced onto Southern African countries from the 1980s onwards, were irresponsible in that the assumption seemed to be made that 'the market' would simply flow into some of the most inhospitable marketing conditions that can be found anywhere. This of course meant that with the demise of government parastatal a vacuum was left in many parts of countries like Zambia and Malawi, which still exists. The marketing playing field in these and other countries in the region is very uneven and is undoubtedly acting to marginalize the poor even more. At the same time, better movement of commodities between countries in the region, is the only way that countries can make more use of their comparative advantages for producing some kinds of crops over another. So as a sociologist, I'd like to see some more practical economics that both aids economic growth, but also doesn't increase differentiation and poverty yet further, rather than theoretical economics on this issue please.

Top

General remarks:
One issue that needs attention, not only in this field, is the gap between research (data collection and analysis) and policy-making and planning processes. Research findings are not effectively disseminated to policy makers and planners. In fact, sometimes it is hard or even impossible to interpret research findings in terms of policy-making requirements. This is a general problem. Also, researchers undertaken research projects without consulting policy makers and planners in terms of their needs for information.

Another major issue is that projects are planned without including indicators and mechanisms/procedures for regularly assessing impact and progress. No baseline data is established, which means that it is difficult if not impossible to assess progress with and impact of projects/programmes at later stages, which, in turn, limits roleplayers' ability to do proactive planning.

Another issue that should be highlighted in terms of research, data collection and analysis is again the issue of multisectoral/multidisciplinary and holistic approach to community problems, including the problem under discussion. Processed of collecting and analysing data are often undertaken by researchers and experts in different fields, without any intention or thought to link the different data sets and to produce "comprehensive results" that illustrate an "integrated approach" towards solving the problems of communities. This is one of the main reasons why actions and projects that flow from such research activities are also very often fragmented in nature. It tends to confuse communities because too many different players are active in the same community, with little or no intention to join efforts and pool limited resources. In this way we do not manage to solve problems in a cost-effective manner.

I need to emphasise that recent initiatives to include data on health and nutrition in efforts toassess vulnerability are indeed important and should be promoted. Health and nutrition status of people have not been given adequate prominence in research on vulnerability and emergency matters.

Top

Since there has been so little response to issues of regional trade, stocks and commodity exchanges, please do send any observations on these, even if for the next couple of working days attention moves to the following questions:

Regional cooperation in early warning systems and disaster preparedness

• What indicators, methods and techniques should be used when collecting data for vulnerability assessments and early warnings?

To date early warning systems have been based in first instance on estimates of crop harvests. More recently vulnerability assessments have incorporated economic and social data on household circumstances, prices of food and key assets such as livestock. Very recently moves have been made to include data on health and nutrition.

* Collecting and analysing this information is costly. Integrating information on different phenomena presents challenges for methods.

* Are current data collection and analysis sufficient, or should there be additions, changes, or subtractions to what is being done?

• How should the information be analysed and results disseminated so as to contribute to public policy more effectively? How can the information and analysis be used to assist private actors in food systems?

Experience shows that governments and donors have not always reacted to early warning information until crises have become readily apparent on the ground when the advantage of an early warning has been lost. Is this just the nature of politics, or could information be disseminated to better effect?

* What is the scope for using existing systems to supply information to private enterprises and traders?

• What else can or needs to be done regionally to warn of problems and prepare for emergencies?

Top

Many politicians have had little exposure to the regional grain trade, and are wary of relying on produce from neighbours, as Zimbabwe's meltdown has graphically illustrated.

Food security means having a large stack of maize that can be seen by all, and distributed to a crisis point at the drop of a hat, or at the hint of an election. Food in this environment is power.

Where much industry has been privatised, and the private sector small, Government offers the only refuge from a security and employment perspective. Politicians are reluctant to let go of muddled food merry go round, as there isn't much else to play with in the swing park.

Top

Dr Steve Wiggins

Jayne et al. (2002)* have suggested that it may be in part a matter of risk. Governments, and many of the citizens, face severe downsides if things go wrong and staple foods become unavailable or the price of staples soars, no matter that this may apply for a few months only. They are therefore willing to spend quite heavily on strategic grain reserves and to intervene in food markets, even if such measures are costly. Economists, often used to considering longer time-scales, see food crises as small disturbances to longer-run trends and under-estimate the political and social costs of such events.

Not only may there be differences in the degree of risk-avoidance, there may be differences in the perception of risks. Economists, by and large, are inclined to see liberalisation of markets and trade as entailing fewer and lesser risks than others may perceive.

There may be other reasons for the differences.

Do such differences imply that economic arguments for freer trade should be qualified by consideration of political and social risks?

Or is it better that liberal economists stick to their arguments, in the hope and conviction that sooner or later governments will accept more liberal trade and see the benefits?

Any thoughts on this, and other of the questions arising from regional trade, stocks and commodity exchanges, would be gratefully received,

Steve Wiggins, Moderator

* Jayne, T. S., J. Govereh, A. Mwanaumo, J.K. Nyoro & A. Chapoto, 2002, False promise or false premise? The experience of food and input market reform in Eastern and Southern Africa, World Development, 30 (11), 19671985

Top

Sue Mbaya suggests that the question of the experience of regional trade to date be added to the list. Excellent idea.

Does anyone have any useful information or arguments to share on the experience of regional trading in foods?

At a meeting arranged by FANRPAN in Gaborone in late March this year, there were three papers given that dealt with trade. Brief notes on these are given below. Two are specific case studies and essentially argue for freer trade in grains within SADC. The other study is in favour of more trade, but does note that liberalisation of food trade within SADC so far has meant a major increase of South African exports of processed foods to the countries to the north. This may well be linked to the expansion of South African-owned supermarket chains, such as Shoprite and Pick and Pay.

Does that mean that freer trade will mean the smaller economies being dominated by the regional giant?

Would such domination mean cheaper and more reliable suplies of staple foods, or not? Any thoughts?

Brief Notes from: Regional Dialogue on Agricultural Recovery, Food Security and Trade Policies in Southern Africa, 26-27 March 2003, Gaborone, Botswana

Amani, Haidari (ESRF, Dar es Salaam): Agricultural trade policies and strategies for the SADC region.

Under the SADC protocols, trade is to become more liberal in the region. But there are many obstacles remaining ¾ licensing, bans and quantitative controls. In 1990s trade expanded, but much of this was RSA exports to the region. RSA and Namibia see trade problems in crossing borders: in other parts of the region, domestic supply limits are more commonly mentioned. Transport costs are very high within the region.

Argues for stopping policy backsliding, on trade harmonisation of procedures and standards ¾ notes problem of proliferation of trade agreements.

Raises issues of RSA retail chains expanding: where do they source their produce?

Arlindo, Pedro (MADER, Moz.) & David Tschirley (MSU), The Effects of Regional Trade of Agricultural Commodities on National Producers and Consumers. The Case of Maize Between Northern Mozambique and Malawi.

Since 1997 maize exports from northern Mozambique to Malawi have boomed, save for the years in the late 1990s which starter packs were widely distributed in Malawi. Maize exports from Mozambique have boosted producer prices and earnings, but have not increased prices in the main markets of Mozambique in the centre and south of the country. Exporting maize when Mozambique production is low does not imperil local food security, since local farmers switch to cassava and sweet potato: they are careful to assure their own food stocks before selling. Concludes that regional trade benefits both Mozambican farmers and Malawian consumers, and should be encouraged. Mozambique should look to develop markets in Zambia and Zimbabwe as well.

Nijhoff, Jan & David Tschirley (MSU): Coordination for Long-Term Food Security by Government, Private Sector, and Donors: Issues and Challenges

From Insights in Zambia and Mozambique

In Zambia, imports of white maize in 2001/02 organised by government, went to the 16 large-scale millers. After imports received, maize grain prices fell, but those of milled meal hardly fell at all.

In contrast, in Mozambique, most imports are commercial: even 40% or so of food aid was sold off in the mid-1990s. Maputo has often had lower maize prices than Beira, since it gets imports from RSA. But VAT is now charged on maize imports, and refunds are only given to formal millers making meal or animal feed, but not to small-scale traders and informal millers. Since VAT was imposed on imported maize (and not on wheat, rice, etc.) much less grain has entered from RSA and Maputo prices exceed those of Beira. Lessons: get government out of maize importing, or if they are involved, make things, clear, transparent and credible; and allow small-scale operators access to imports. Check VAT regulations.

Top

Top