Facing the Global Food Crisis

The price of food is increasing sharply in every region of the world for some of the most basic foodstuffs traded on international commodity markets. The price of wheat has doubled in less than a year, while other staples such as corn, maize and soy are trading at well above their 1990s levels. Rice, which is the staple food for about 3 billion people worldwide, has tripled in cost in the last 18 months, and in some countries, prices for milk and meat have more than doubled.

The United States expects food prices to continue to rise through 2009 and then finally stabilize by 2015 above 2006 levels. This projection indicates that the crisis will be long-term, and that the greatest impact will be seen in the coming year unless extraordinary measures are undertaken in many countries. Read more about the causes of the current global food crisis.

The Effect of the Global Food Crisis on the World's Poorest People

Catholic Relief Services is assessing how the food price increases are affecting countries and the people we are serving. Some examples:

• In Lesotho, schoolchildren were reportedly fainting from hunger.
• In Ethiopia, the Missionaries of Charity report a 20 percent increase in people needing their services, and a great increase in the numbers of women, children, the elderly and disabled living on the streets.
• In Sri Lanka, the elderly are hardest hit, but 54 percent of families have reduced the number of meals they eat each day.
• Average wheat prices in Afghanistan have increased by 67 percent over the past 12 months, and Afghans who are not involved in agriculture now spend on average 75 percent of their income on food.
• In Uganda's urban areas, salaries that used to cover a full month of expenses now only cover 3 weeks' worth. Meat prices have risen up to 30 percent in the last several months; most staple foods were reported to be in short supply in some areas.
• In Bosnia the cost of a loaf of bread is up 100 percent since last summer; a liter of milk more than doubled from 75 cents to $1.62 and butter has also doubled in price while the number of people that are using food dispensaries is increasing.
• Haiti's food prices are up about 80 percent since August 2007.

The Effect of the Global Food Crisis on CRS Programming

CRS receives U.S. government-provided food aid, also known as P.L. 480 Title II Food for Peace, to use to feed hungry people during emergencies but also for long-term development projects such as providing food in schools to encourage children, particularly girls, to come to school. Read more about the P.L. 480 Title II food aid program and CRS' position.

As the current food crisis unfolds, CRS and other food aid providers have been asked by Food for Peace administrators to cut back on food aid program tonnage in every country that has not yet received all the food it is was supposed to get this year. The costs of commodities and freight have gone up so much that Food for Peace cannot afford to buy and ship the agreed- upon quantities, even though it will meet its funding commitments.

Even if the Food for Peace program receives close to $1 billion in additional funding this year, as CRS is advocating, it may only achieve the same commodity tonnage delivered in 2007, a year that saw relatively few disasters. CRS' program in Haiti has had to cut nearly 3,000 metric tons of food from its programs. CRS' program in India had already ordered its food for this year, but is having to cut back by 35 percent in the next fiscal year, in effect reducing the number of people served by 100,000.

CRS Policy Responses to the Global Food Crisis

Short-term responses

CRS and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have urged the United States to provide emergency funding to help hungry people around the world secure food. Immediate support to boost small-scale farmer production in the developing world is also essential. There may be a need for more funding for soap, blankets, household items, clothing and shelter if more people overseas are displaced by riots and violence due to the food price increases.

More U.S. Food Aid

Newly reformed U.S. government international food aid programs must be increased to address ongoing emergencies and to target the chronic malnutrition affecting so many millions around the world. Funding levels will have to rise significantly to account for increased costs of commodities and shipping in order to provide adequate levels of food assistance to meet both acute and chronic needs.

More Cash-Based and Development Programs

Immediate responses to the food crisis must include cash for vouchers that, similar to domestic food stamps, permit targeted poor families to get food they cannot otherwise afford. U.S. food aid can help mitigate the impact of food shortages if it can reach countries facing food shortages quickly. But in areas where there is sufficient food but food prices have gone up, importing food aid can merely reduce the impetus for farmers to plant more. Funding is needed to ensure that subsistence farmers have access to seeds and fertilizer to increase their yields in the coming agricultural season.

Long-term U.S. policy responses

Increase development assistance

In the long term, U.S. government food aid is not going to be the solution to the global food crisis. Hence, developmental food aid must be complemented by, and integrated with, other long-term agricultural programs.

The United States must partner with developing countries to engage in agricultural research, enable small-scale farmers to apply new technologies, build rural infrastructure and gain access to local, regional and global markets. Long-term investment should expand small-scale production of staple food crops and empower the poor to participate in adding value locally to the crops they produce.

Investment will be needed in market infrastructures so that farmers can efficiently move their produce to market. Similarly, investments in small-scale irrigation will help farmers ensure more consistent production, and may permit them to plant in more than one season. Agricultural investments should focus on poor farmers producing staple food crops.

These cash-based programs should include disaster risk reduction components to help communities prepare for cyclical disasters such as droughts and floods. For example in Haiti, CRS is using cash vouchers to help urban poor people clear drainage canals and reinforce infrastructure to better withstand the annual hurricane season. Investments must also be made in post-harvest storage so that less food is lost to pests, weather and other factors.

Change U.S. agricultural policies

The United States, European Union and Japan should direct domestic agricultural spending toward those who need them most and minimize the impact of these supports on small-scale farmers in developing countries. USCCB and CRS have called for such a change in recent trade negotiations and in Farm Bill legislation. Access to nutritious food and the promotion of sustainable agricultural practices should be given priority.

Respond to climate change and its impact on the poor

Many scientists believe climate change has affected global agriculture and access to food by changing weather patterns and creating droughts. USCCB and CRS are calling for a prudent response to climate change that minimizes its impact on the poor.

Make food a priority in biofuel policies

The current agricultural system should be re-evaluated in light of the needs of poor and hungry people in the United States and abroad. Access to nutritious food and the promotion of sustainable agricultural practices should be given priority.

CRS calls on the U.S. government to support:

1. Adequate funding to meet immediate hunger needs: CRS urges Congress to provide $2.1 billion for Title II food aid, $300 million for the McGovern-Dole Nutrition and Education program, and $230 million to replenish the Bill Emerson Trust in the Fiscal Year 2009 regular appropriations funding.
2. Significant increases in U.S. government investment in agricultural development, market infrastructure and support for changes in developing country agricultural policies that discourage agricultural development.