Commodities at a glance - UNCTAD | Homeunctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/suc2012d3_en.pdf · ·...

U n i t e d n at i o n s C o n f e r e n C e o n t r a d e a n d d e v e l o p m e n t

N°4 - July 2012

Special issue on food securityCOMMODITIES AT A GLANCE

Pho

to c

redi

t: ©

Ele

na S

chw

eitz

er -

Fot

olia

.com

Printed at United Nations, Geneva – GE.13-50252 – March 2013 – 881 – UNCTAD/SUC/2012/3

Commodities at a glanCe Special issue on food security

N°4 - July 2012

U n i t e d n a t i o n s C o n f e r e n C e o n t r a d e a n d d e v e l o p m e n t

New York and Geneva, 2012

ii Commodities at a glanCe

NOTES

This edition of the Commodities at a Glance has been prepared by the Special Unit on Commodities (SUC) of UNCTAD. The publication aims to collect, present and disseminate accurate and relevant statistical information linked to international primary commodity markets in a clear, concise and friendly format.

For further information about this publication, please contact the Special Unit on Commodities (SUC), UNCTAD, Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland, tel. +41 22 917 5676, e-mail: [email protected].

STATISTICAL DATA SOURCES

All statistical data sources for this publication are indicated under each figure.

DISCLAIMER

The designations employed and the presentation of the material do not imply the expression of any opinion on the part of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of authorities or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

This publication has not been formally edited.

COPYRIGHT

Material in this publication may be freely quoted or reprinted, but full acknowledgement is requested (UNCTAD, Special Unit on Commodities, Commodities at a Glance). A copy of the publication containing the quotation or reprint should be sent to the UNCTAD secretariat at: Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland, or by email to: [email protected].

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

The current publication is intended to be published on a six-monthly basis. If you are interested in receiving updated versions by e-mail on a regular basis, please send an e-mail to: [email protected].

UNCTAD/SUC/2012/3

iiicontents

CONTENTS

CLASSIFICATION OF COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES ..................................................... v

1. DiStributioN bY couNtrY GroupiNGS ...........................................................................................................................................................v

2. DiStributioN bY GeoGraphical reGioN .......................................................................................................................................................vi

SOURCES AND DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................vIII

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... IxFigure 1. Evolution of the world population in specific country groupings, 1961–2050 (million people) ................................................xFigure 2. Share of urban population in selected country groupings, 1961–2050 (percentage) .............................................................x

I. FOOD AvAILABILITY ............................................................................................ 1

Figure 3a. Evolution of world wheat production, 1990/91–2012/13 (million tons) ................................................................................. 4Figure 3b. World wheat production as a share of world total and regional total by region and main producers in the region,

2011–2012 (percentage) ................................................................................................................................................... 4Figure 4a. Evolution of world maize production, 1990/91–2012/13 (million tons) ................................................................................. 5Figure 4b. World maize production as a share of world total and regional total by region and main producers in the region,

2011–2012 (percentage) .................................................................................................................................................... 5Figure 5a. Evolution of world rice production, 1990/91–2012/13 (million tons) .................................................................................... 6Figure 5b. World rice production as a share of world total and regional total by region and main producers in the region,

2011–2012 (percentage) .................................................................................................................................................... 6Figure 6. Agricultural water withdrawal as a share of water withdrawal in selected country groupings, 1998–2012 .......................... 7Figure 7a. Evolution of world wheat demand, 1990/91–2012/13 (million tons) ................................................................................... 7Figure 7b. Evolution of world wheat production deficit, 1990/91–2012/13 (million tons) ..................................................................... 8Figure 7c. World wheat demand as a share of world total and regional total by region and main countries .......................................... 8Figure 7d. World wheat demand as a share of world total by type of use, 1990–1991 ......................................................................... 9Figure 7e. World wheat demand as a share of world total by type of use, 2011–2012 ......................................................................... 9Figure 8a. Evolution of world maize demand, 1990/91–2012/13 (million tons) .................................................................................. 10Figure 8b. Evolution of world maize production deficit, 1990/91–2012/13 (million tons) ................................................................... 10Figure 8c. World maize demand as a share of world total and regional total by region and main countries in the region,

2011–2012 (percentage) .................................................................................................................................................. 11Figure 8d. World maize demand as a share of world total by type of use, 1990–1991 ........................................................................ 11Figure 8e. World maize demand as a share of world total by type of use, 2011–2012 ....................................................................... 12Figure 9a. Evolution of world rice utilization, 1990/91–2011/12 (million tons) ................................................................................... 12Figure 9b. Evolution of world rice production deficit, 1990/91–2011/12 (million tons) ....................................................................... 13Figure 9c. World rice consumption as a share of world total by region and main consumers in the region, 2011–2012

(percentage)...................................................................................................................................................................... 13Figure 10a. Evolution of world wheat production yields, 1990–2010 (ton per hectare) ......................................................................... 14Figure 10b. Wheat production yields by region, 2010 (ton per hectare) ................................................................................................ 14Figure 11a. Evolution of world maize production yields, 1990–2010 (ton per hectare) .......................................................................... 15Figure 11b. Maize production yields by region, 2010 (ton per hectare) ................................................................................................. 15Figure 12a. Evolution of world rice (paddy) production yields, 1990–2010 (ton per hectare) ................................................................. 16Figure 12b. Rice (paddy) production yields by region, 2010 (ton per hectare) ....................................................................................... 16Figure 13. Evolution of world wheat, maize and rice (milled) exports, 1990–2009 (million tons) ......................................................... 17Figure 14. World exports of wheat, maize and rice (milled) as a share of world total production, 2008–2009 average

(percentage) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 17Figure 15a. Top five wheat exporters in volume as a share of world total exports, 2008–2009 average (percentage) ........................... 18Figure 15b. Top five maize exporters in volume as a share of world total exports, 2008–2009 average (percentage) ........................... 18Figure 15c. Top five rice (milled) exporters in volume as a share of world total exports, 2008–2009 average (percentage) ................. 19Figure 16a. Top five wheat importers in volume as a share of world total imports, 2008–2009 average (percentage) .......................... 19Figure 16b. Top five maize importers in volume as a share of world total imports, 2008–2009 average (percentage) ........................... 20Figure 16c. Top five rice (milled) importers in volume as a share of world total imports, 2008–2009 average (percentage) .................. 20

iv Commodities at a glanCe

Figure 17. Evolution of cereal price indices, 1960–2012 (base 2000 = 100) ...................................................................................... 24Figure 18a. Intra-annual volatility of Argentine wheat price indices, 1990–2011 (base 2000 = 100) .................................................... 24Figure 18b. Intra-annual volatility of United States wheat price indices, 1990–2011 (base 2000 = 100) .............................................. 25Figure 18c. Intra-annual volatility of Argentine maize price indices, 1990–2011 (base 2000 = 100) .................................................... 25Figure 18d. Intra-annual volatility of United States maize price indices, 1990–2011 (base 2000 = 100) .............................................. 26Figure 18e. Intra-annual volatility of Thai rice price indices, 1990–2011 (base 2000 = 100) ................................................................ 26Figure 19. Annual percentage change in wheat, maize and rice, world closing stocks, 1990/91–2011/12 .......................................... 27Figure 20. Annual percentage change in food aid shipments, 1995/96–2010/11 ............................................................................... 27Figure 21a. Number of disasters (drought) by region during the 2000s ................................................................................................ 28Figure 21b. Number of disasters (extreme temperature) by region during the 2000s ............................................................................ 28Figure 21c. Number of disasters (flood) by region during the 2000s ..................................................................................................... 29Figure 22a. United States: Distribution of agricultural domestic support (percentage) ............................................................................ 29Figure 22b. European Union: Distribution of agricultural domestic support (percentage) ........................................................................ 30

II. FOOD ACCESS ................................................................................................. 31

Map 4. Depth of hunger, average food deficit of undernourished population in kilocalories per person per day, 2006–2008 average ........................................................................................................................................................ 34

Figure 23b. Share of the main food groups in total dietary energy consumption, 2005–2007 average: Sub-Saharan African countries and North African countries (percentage) ........................................................................................................... 35

Figure 23c. Share of the main food groups in total dietary energy consumption, 2005–2007 average: Developing Asia, Latin America and Oceania (percentage) ........................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 23d. Share of the main food groups in total dietary energy consumption, 2005–2007 average: Selected developed economies (percentage) .................................................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 24. Evolution of the diet diversification index in selected country groupings, 1990–1992 and 2005–2007 averages ............. 37Figure 25. Share of food consumption expenditure in total consumption expenditure in selected ....................................................... 37 countries and country groupings, latest available year (percentage) .................................................................................. 37Figure 26a. Consumer price index, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010: Net food-importing developing countries (base 2005 = 100) ............. 38Figure 26b. Consumer price index, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010: Least developed countries (base 2005 = 100) ................................... 38Figure 26c. Consumer price index, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010: Sub-Saharan African countries (base 2005 = 100) ............................ 39Figure 26d. Consumer price index, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010: North African countries (base 2005 = 100) ........................................ 39Figure 26e. Consumer price index, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010: Developing Asia (base 2005 = 100) ................................................... 40Figure 26f. Consumer price index, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010: Latin America (base 2005 = 100) ...................................................... 40Figure 26g. Consumer price index, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010: Oceania (base 2005 = 100) ............................................................... 41

III. FOOD UTILIzATION ............................................................................................ 43

Figure 27. Number of undernourished people in selected country groupings, percentage change between 1990/92–2000/02 and 2000/02–2006/08 (percentage) ................................................................................................................................ 45

Figure 28. Malnutrition prevalence in children under 5, weight for age .............................................................................................. 45Figure 29. Malnutrition prevalence of children under 5, underweight (percentage) ............................................................................. 46Figure 30. Malnutrition prevalence of children under 5, by gender and region, as a share of total under 5 malnourished ................................46Figure 31. Cause of death as a share of total number of deaths, by communicable diseases and maternal,

prenatal and nutrition conditions, 2008 (percentage) ......................................................................................................... 47Figure 32. Birth rate, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010 (1,000 people) ....................................................................................................... 47Figure 33. Low-birthweight babies as a share of births, last available year (percentage) .................................................................... 48

v

CLASSIFICATION OF COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES

1. DISTRIBUTION BY COUNTRY GROUPINGS

NET FOOD-IMPORTING DEVELOPING COUNTRIESAfghanistan

Angola

Bangladesh

Barbados

Benin

Bhutan

Botswana

Burkina Faso

Burundi

Cambodia

Cape Verde

Central African Republic

Chad

Comoros

Côte d’Ivoire

Cuba

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Djibouti

Dominica

Dominican Republic

Egypt

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Ethiopia

Gabon

Gambia

Guinea

Guinea-Bissau

Haiti

Honduras

Jamaica

Jordan

Kenya

Kiribati

Lao People’s Democratic Republic

Lesotho

Liberia

Madagascar

Malawi

Maldives

Mali

Mauritania

Mauritius

Mongolia

Morocco

Mozambique

Myanmar

Namibia

Nepal

Niger

Pakistan

Peru

Rwanda

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Samoa

Sao Tome and Principe

Senegal

Sierra Leone

Solomon Islands

Somalia

Sri Lanka

Sudan

Timor-Leste

Togo

Trinidad and Tobago

Tunisia

Tuvalu

Uganda

United Republic of Tanzania

Vanuatu

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Yemen

Zambia

LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

Afghanistan

Angola

Bangladesh

Benin

Bhutan

Burkina Faso

Burundi

Cambodia


Chad

Comoros

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Djibouti

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Ethiopia

Gambia

Guinea

Guinea-Bissau

Haiti

Kiribati


Lesotho

Liberia

Madagascar

Malawi

Mali

Mauritania

Mozambique

Myanmar

Nepal

Niger

Rwanda

Samoa


Senegal

Sierra Leone

Solomon Islands

Somalia

Sudan

Timor-Leste

Togo

Tuvalu

Uganda


Vanuatu

Yemen

Zambia

classification of countries and territories

vi Commodities at a glanCe

2. DISTRIBUTION BY GEOGRAPHICAL REGION

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

Angola

Benin

Botswana

Burkina Faso

Burundi

Cameroon

Cape Verde


Chad

Comoros

Congo

Côte d’Ivoire

Dem. Rep. of the Congo

Djibouti

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Ethiopia

Gabon

Gambia

Ghana

Guinea

Guinea-Bissau

Kenya

Lesotho

Liberia

Madagascar

Malawi

Mali

Mauritania

Mauritius

Mayotte

Mozambique

Namibia

Niger

Nigeria

Rwanda

Saint Helena


Senegal

Seychelles

Sierra Leone

Somalia

South Africa

Sudan

Swaziland

Togo

Uganda


Zambia

Zimbabwe

NORTH AFRICA

Algeria

Egypt

Libya

Morocco

Tunisia

DEVELOPING ASIA

Afghanistan

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Bhutan

Brunei Darussalam

Cambodia

China

China, Hong Kong SAR

China, Macao SAR

China, Taiwan Province of

India

Indonesia

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Iraq

Jordan

Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of

Korea, Republic of

Kuwait


Lebanon

Malaysia

Maldives

Mongolia

Myanmar

Nepal

Occupied Palestinian territory

Oman

Pakistan

Philippines

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Singapore

Sri Lanka

Syrian Arab Republic

Thailand

Timor-Leste

Turkey

United Arab Emirates

Viet Nam

Yemen

vii

LATIN AMERICA

Anguilla

Antigua and Barbuda

Argentina

Aruba

Bahamas

Barbados

Belize

Bolivia (Plurinational State of)

Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba

Brazil

British Virgin Islands

Cayman Islands

Chile

Colombia

Costa Rica

Cuba

Curaçao

Dominica

Dominican Republic

Ecuador

El Salvador

Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

Grenada

Guatemala

Guyana

Haiti

Honduras

Jamaica

Mexico

Montserrat

Nicaragua

Panama

Paraguay

Peru

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Sint Maarten (Dutch part)

Suriname

Trinidad and Tobago

Turks and Caicos Islands

Uruguay

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of

OCEANIA

American Samoa

Cook Islands

Fiji

French Polynesia

Guam

Kiribati

Marshall Islands

Micronesia (Federated States of)

Nauru

New Caledonia

Niue

Northern Mariana Islands

Palau

Papua New Guinea

Samoa

Solomon Islands

Tokelau

Tonga

Tuvalu

Vanuatu

Wallis and Futuna Islands

classification of countries and territories

viii Commodities at a glanCeviii

SOURCES AND DEFINITIONS

Sources

All statistical data sources for this publication are indicated under each figure. The term “source” indicates the source of the data series. However, figures are produced by UNCTAD with data revised when necessary.

The third revision of the Standard International Trade Classification has been used throughout this document for trade statistics.

Definitions

Figure 6: Agricultural water withdrawal: Annual quantity of water withdrawn for irrigation, livestock and aquaculture purposes. It includes renewable freshwater resources as well as overabstraction of renewable groundwater or withdrawal of fossil groundwater, use of agricultural drainage water, (treated) wastewater and desalinated water.

Total water withdrawal: Annual quantity of water withdrawn for agricultural, industrial and municipal purposes. It includes renewable freshwater resources as well as potential overabstraction of renewable groundwater or withdrawal of fossil groundwater and potential use of desalinated water or treated wastewater. It does not include in- stream uses, which are characterized by a very low net consumption rate, such as recreation, navigation, hydropower and inland capture fisheries.

Figures 23a, 23b, 23c, 23d: Food groups – Share in total dietary energy consumption

Main food groups – Food groups providing at least 90 per cent of total dietary energy supply based on the last three-year period.

Figure 24: Diet diversification index: Contribution of non-starchy foods (all but cereals, roots and tubers) to total dietary energy consumption (share in total dietary energy consumption).

Figure 25: Food consumption expenditure refers to the monetary value of acquired food, purchased and non- purchased, including non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverages as well as food expenses on away-from-home consumption in bars, restaurants, food courts, work canteens and street vendors.

Total consumption expenditure refers to the monetary value of acquired goods for consumption, food and non-food items, consumed by members of household.

(Excludes non-consumption expenses such as direct taxes, subscription and insurance premiums.)

Figure 27: Undernourishment refers to the condition of people whose dietary energy consumption is continuously below a minimum dietary energy requirement for maintaining a healthy life and carrying out a light physical activity with an acceptable minimum body weight for attained height.

Figure 28: Malnutrition prevalence is the percentage of children under age 5 whose weight for age is more than two standard deviations below the median for the international reference population, ages 0–59 months.

The data are based on new child growth standards released in 2006 by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Figure 31: Cause of death, by communicable diseases and maternal, prenatal and nutrition conditions – Cause of death refers to the share of all deaths for all ages by underlying causes. Communicable diseases and maternal, prenatal and nutrition conditions include infectious and parasitic diseases, respiratory infections, and nutritional deficiencies such as underweight and stunting.

Figure 33: Low-birthweight babies are newborns weighing less than 2,500 grams, with the measurement taken within the first hours of life, before significant postnatal weight loss has occurred.

ix

INTRODUCTION

This issue of Commodities at a Glance focuses on the global food security, price volatility and continuing high food prices. According to the 1996 World Food Summit, “food security, at the individual, household, national, regional and global levels is achieved when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”.1 From this definition emerge four major dimensions of food security, which are food availability, food access and stability of such access and food utilization. Moreover, there is a distinction between transitory food insecurity (seasonal discrepancy between supply and demand to food) and chronic food insecurity (persistent or long-term food insecurity). Although the definition of food security undergoes continual review, its multidimensional aspect and the duration have remained at its core. Indeed, the definition of food security has evolved from mere availability of food and stability of prices (1974) to its current definition that encompasses other dimensions such as access and utilization as suggested by Sen in his seminal study of 1981.2 According to him, food insecurity is not only the lack of food availability but more importantly an issue of “entitlements”.

The 2007–2008 food crisis was very damaging for food security, and was interpreted as a wake-up call by many observers to refocus attention on food commodities. Before the crisis, only developing countries were seriously concerned about the problem of food security and agricultural markets. Today, the issue of food security has become topical, and even developed countries are engaging in or thinking of strategies to ensure the food security of their people. Two recent developments are important to recall in this regard. The first is the High-Level Task Force on Global Food Crisis3 (HLTF) set up by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in the immediate aftermaths of the 2008 food crisis. The second is the initiative of Agricultural Market Information Systems (AMIS), which is being implemented by G20 members’ countries plus Spain. This initiative also involves the main food producing, exporting and/or importing countries of four major crops (wheat, maize, rice and soybeans) such as Egypt, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, the Philippines, Thailand, Ukraine and Viet Nam.4

This report discusses the different indicators of food security as a means of contributing to the debate and offers tools to practitioners to enable them to analyse food security more judiciously and pragmatically. Part I analyses the availability of food through supply side variables such as production, yields, imports, exports, food aid and stocks. Part II deals with access mainly using indicators related to consumption. Food stability is then assessed through these two dimensions by comparison with factors affecting production and consumption, among which we have population growth as well as extreme weather conditions and other shocks. The last part analyses indicators of malnutrition in children, and weight for age as proxies for food utilization.

1 Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action, World Food Summit 13–17 November 1996, Rome. FAO 2 A. Sen, Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981).3 For more information, visit http://www.un-foodsecurity.org/.4 For more information, visit http://www.amis-outlook.org/amis-about/en/.

introduction

x Commodities at a glanCe

Figure 1. Evolution of the world population in specific country groupings, 1961–2050 (million people)

Source: FAO, FAOSTAT Population.Notes: Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Northern Mariana Islands and Palau data series starts in 1991.

Up to 2050, the largest population growth would be recorded by sub-Saharan Africa (+123 per cent), the least developed countries group (+103 per cent) and the net food-importing developing countries group (+85 per cent).

Figure 2. Share of urban population in selected country groupings, 1961–2050 (percentage)

Source: FAO, FAOSTAT Population.Notes: Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Northern Mariana Islands and Palau data series starts in 1991.

In 2050, about 60 per cent of those living in sub-Saharan Africa, as well as those in the least developed countries and the net food-importing developing countries will live in urban areas, compared with one third in 2011.

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 00019

61

1966

1971

1976

1981

1986

1991

1996

2001

2006

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2046

Net food-importing developing countries Least Developed CountriesSub Saharan Africa Northern AfricaDeveloping Asia Latin AmericaOceania

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1961

1966

1971

1976

1981

1986

1991

1996

2001

2006

2011

2016

2021

2026

2031

2036

2041

2046

World Net food-importing developing countriesLeast Developed Countries Sub Saharan AfricaNorthern Africa Developing AsiaLatin America Oceania

FOOD AvAILABILITYI.

2 Commodities at a glanCe

Utilizing the framework of Sen (1981), chronic food insecurity witnessed in some countries before the 2008 food crisis and transitory food insecurity experienced by developed countries during this period are not related to food availability as much as to access to food. For example, the percentage of wheat available for food purposes increased from 65 per cent to 68 per cent between 1990–1991 and 2011–2112 (see figures 7d and 7e). Moreover, production of commodities such as wheat, maize and rice exhibit an increasing trend over the last three decades. More precisely, wheat production grew on average at 0.8 per cent per annum from 1990–1991 to 2012–2013, while maize production increased by 3.8 per cent per annum over the same period. Only rice exhibited mixed patterns as its production decreased between 1999–2000 and 2002–2003, but increased from 1990–1991 to 2011–2012.

Despite increasing yields for the above-mentioned food commodities, one of the major threats to food availability is the development of competitive uses for crops like maize. For example, maize production yields rose by 42 per cent between 1990 and 2010. However, the proportion of maize available for food consumption did not enjoy the same amplitude of growth. Maize available for food purposes experienced a growth of 32 per cent; that is, up from 74.1 million tons in 1990–1991 to only 98 million tons in 2011–2012. On the other hand, maize used for industrial purposes rose by 343 per cent; that is, from 56 million tons to 248 million tons over the same period.

In addition to the competitive uses of food items, food availability is also skewed due to the fact that food production is mainly concentrated in Asia, Europe, and North America, and to some extent, the Russian Federation. Although trade could serve to redistribute food across the globe, its effects are less clear than expected, even among developing countries. For example, for few food items such as wheat, maize and rice, markets are dominated by a limited number of countries.5 Exports of wheat are mainly undertaken by Europe, North America and the Russian Federation, while importers are concentrated in Europe, with the exception of few countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Brazil and Japan. For rice, the situation is worse; exports are highly concentrated in Asia, as this region is at the same time the main producing and consuming

5 See Using Trade Policy to Overcome Food Insecurity, in: Global Monitoring Report, 2012: Food Prices, Nutrition, and the Millennium Development Goals, World Bank.

one. In 2008–2009, only 7 per cent of the milled rice produced was exported, the main importing countries being the Philippines, Nigeria and the European Union (EU) (see figures 14, 15a to 15c and 16a to 16c).

Food availability has almost certainly been reinforced by imports of relatively cheap food such as, poultry, rice and dairy products from developed countries, the outcome of subsidies provided by these countries in the form of the so-called “domestic supports”.6

Each country has to notify its domestic supports to the WTO. These notifications show that from 1995 to 2009, supports to farmers in both the EU and the United States have shifted to the Green Box (they have been “greened”); that is both these countries have been notifying their domestic support increasingly as permissible “non-trade distorting supports”.

In the case of the EU, total domestic supports notified as non-trade distorting measures have increased from about 20 per cent to 80 per cent of total domestic supports. Thus, while total domestic supports for agriculture have been reduced from €90.6 billion in 1995 to about €80 billion in 2009, total “green support” has more than tripled from €19 billion to about €64 billion. Similarly, in the United States, total green support increased almost threefold between 1999 and 2010 to $120 billion, thus reversing its earlier decline between 1996 and 1999. (See figures 22a and 22b).

Combined with the lowering of tariff rates by several developing countries and the dismantling of domestic agricultural sector support for a variety of reasons, but within the context of trade liberalization, cheaper food imports have increased significantly in food-importing developing countries, thus making matters worse. In this new environment, domestic producers, in particular smallholders, were unable to compete with these cheaper food imports, and in several cases, have moved out of food production, leading to a loss of production capacities in a range of developing countries, thereby exacerbating food insecurity particularly in a context of sharp and unexpected rises in global food

6 The WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture divides “domestic supports” into four main categories: the Amber box, de minimis subsidies, the Blue Box and the Green Box. The Amber Box encompasses agricultural subsidies that by definition distort trade and are not permitted by WTO. Blue Box subsidies aim at limiting agricultural production (this type of subsidies has been mainly used by the EU). De minimis subsidies may distort trade but are permissible below a certain level. Green Box supports encompass agricultural subsidies considered not to distort trade and therefore can be increased without limits. A wide range of policy measures are covered by the Green Box, including environmental programmes, payments for relief from natural disasters and the provision of subsidies based on historical rather than current production (decoupled income support).

3Food availability

prices coupled with export restrictions. In a context of a medium-term developmental framework, these imports have had a negative impact on agricultural development in the food-importing countries.

The fragile state of food stability is demonstrated by the high volatility of food prices (See figures 17 and 18a to 18e). In the past decade or so, volatility was coupled with the increase of prices of the main crops covered in this report. The underlying factors seem to be more frequent food deficits and depleted closing stocks during the period as well as climatic adverse conditions such as drought and extreme temperatures. For instance, between 2000–2001

and 2011–2012, stocks of wheat, maize and rice depleted more frequently than during previous periods. Moreover, the depth of depletion measured by the annual percentage change reached the highest levels during the last decade (See figure 19). Food stocks are often considered as contributing to food availability, especially to help smooth prices during periods of tight balance between supply and demand. Therefore, their depletion was rightly mentioned as one of the complex set of factors, including financialization of the commodity markets (see section 2 below), that underscored the food crisis experienced in 2007–2008.


Figure 3a. Evolution of world wheat production, 1990/91–2012/13 (million tons)

Source: International Grains Council (IGC).Notes: Wheat stands for wheat, wheat flour, durum and semolina. Abbreviations: e – estimates, f – forecasts, p – projections.

Wheat production has increased steadily since 1990/91 with an average growth rate of 0.8 per cent per annum.

Figure 3b. World wheat production as a share of world total and regional total by region and main producers in the region, 2011–2012 (percentage)

Source: IGC.Notes: Wheat stands for wheat, wheat flour, durum and semolina. Abbreviation: CIS – Commonwealth of Independent States

Asia is the leading wheat producing region with about 40 per cent of world production in 2011/12. Together, China and India account for more than three quarters of regional production.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Asia Europe CIS NorthAmerica

Oceania LatinAmerica

Africa

Fran

ce (2

5%)

Germ

any

(16%

)UK

(11%

)

Chin

a (4

3%)

Indi

a (3

2%)

Russ

ian

Fed.

(48%

)Ka

zakh

stan

(20%

)Uk

rain

e (1

9%)

USA

(68%

)Ca

nada

(32%

)

Aust

ralia

(99%

)

Arge

ntin

a (5

1%)

Egyp

t (36

%)

Mor

occo

(25%

)

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

80019

90/9

1

1991

/92

1992

/93

1993

/94

1994

/95

1995

/96

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

2010

/11e

2011

/12f

2012

/13p

5Food availability

Figure 4a. Evolution of world maize production, 1990/91–2012/13 (million tons)

Source: IGC.Abbreviations: e – estimates, f – forecasts, p –projections.

World maize production has increased sharply since 1990/91 with an average growth rate of 3.8 per cent per annum.

Figure 4b. World maize production as a share of world total and regional total by region and main producers in the region, 2011–2012 (percentage)

Source: IGC.Abbreviations: e – estimates, f – forecasts, p –projections.

Taken together, the United States and China accounted for about 60 per cent of world maize production in 2011/12. In the United States, about 40 per cent of maize production in 2011/12 was converted into biofuels.

38

29

149 7

40

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

NorthAmerica

Asia Latin America Europe Africa CIS Oceania

Chin

a (7

5%)US

A (9

7%)

Braz

il (5

3%)

Arge

ntin

a (1

8%)

Mex

ico

(17%

)

Fran

ce (2

1%)

Rom

ania

(14%

)

Sout

h Af

rica

(20%

)

Ukra

ine

(70%

)

0.1%

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 00019

90/9

1

1991

/92

1992

/93

1993

/94

1994

/95

1995

/96

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

2010

/11e

2011

/12f

2012

/13p


Figure 5a. Evolution of world rice production, 1990/91–2012/13 (million tons)

Source: USDA, Rice Yearbook 2011 (table 22 – World rice supply and utilization).Notes: For the period 2003/04 – 2011/12 (under review by IGC, data used for other figures regarding wheat and maize production) IGC and

USDA data are similar. As a consequence, USDA ones have been selected in order to enable us to present a longer series for rice.Abbreviation: f – Forecast as of May 11, 2011.

Despite a slowdown between 1999/00 and 2002/03, world rice production recorded an average growth rate of 1.3 per cent per annum over the 1990/91–2011/12 period.

Figure 5b. World rice production as a share of world total and regional total by region and main producers in the region, 2011–2012 (percentage)

Source: USDA, Rice Yearbook 2011 (table 22 – World rice supply and utilization).

Asia largely dominates world rice production with 91 per cent of the world production in 2011–2012.

90.8

3.5 3.5 1.4 0.4 0.3 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Asia Africa LatinAmerica

NorthAmerica

Europe CIS Oceania

Egyp

t (26

%)

Mad

agas

car (

17%

)Ni

geria

(16%

)M

ali (

10%

)

Chin

a (3

3%)

Indi

a (2

4%)

Braz

il (4

7%)

Peru

(10%

)

USA

(92%

)

Russ

ian

Fed.

(56%

)Ka

zakh

stan

(18%

)Uz

beki

stan

(11%

)

0.1

Aust

ralia

(100

%)

300

325

350

375

400

425

450

475

500

1990

/91

1991

/92

1992

/93

1993

/94

1994

/95

1995

/96

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12f

7Food availability

Figure 6. Agricultural water withdrawal as a share of water withdrawal in selected country groupings, 1998–2012

Source: FAO, Aquastat.Notes: This statistical series contains many gaps and most of the data covers the period from 1998 to 2002. However, to present

the largest coverage for each country grouping, we chose to enlarge the time period. In regard to Oceania, data cannot be presented here, as data for only 2 countries out 19 are available.

Abbreviation: NFIDC – net food-importing developing countries.

A major concern for agriculture is the sufficiency of fresh water to meet its increasing needs, as well as those of industry. Agricul-ture is e.stimated to account for about 70 per cent of fresh water withdrawal in the world and is normally seen as the main factor responsible for increasing global scarcity of global fresh water (Bruinsma, 2003).7 In developing countries, water withdrawn is almost exclusively devoted to agricultural production. In comparison, the EU-27 and the United States respectively used 26 per cent and 41 per cent of the water withdrawn for agricultural purposes (while the remaining is largely devoted to industrial purposes).

Figure 7a. Evolution of world wheat demand, 1990/91–2012/13 (million tons)

Source: IGC.Notes: Wheat stands for Wheat, wheat flour, durum and semolina. Abbreviations: e – estimates, f – forecasts, p –projections.

At 0.9 per cent per annum, world wheat demand has slightly exceeded production growth rates since 1990/91.

7 Jelle Bruinsma, World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030 – An FAO Perspective (2003).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

NFID

C

LDCs

Sub

Saha

ran

Afric

a

North

ern

Afric

a

Deve

lopi

ng A

sia

Latin

Am

eric

a

Ocea

nia

EU-2

7

Unite

d St

ates

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

1990

/91

1991

/92

1992

/93

1993

/94

1994

/95

1995

/96

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

2010

/11e

2011

/12f

2012

/13p


Figure 7b. Evolution of world wheat production deficit, 1990/91–2012/13 (million tons)

Source: IGC (July 2012).Notes: Wheat stands for wheat, wheat flour, durum and semolina.

Wheat production deficit: difference between wheat production and wheat demand.Abbreviations: e – estimates, f – forecasts, p – projections

Due to adverse weather conditions, wheat production is forecast to fall in 2012/13, which could lead to a large wheat production deficit. As a consequence, ending stocks may fall to their lowest level since 2008/09.

Figure 7c. World wheat demand as a share of world total and regional total by region and main countries in the region, 2011–2012 (percentage)

Source: IGC.Notes: Wheat stands for wheat, wheat flour, durum and semolina.

Asia is the largest wheat-consuming region, accounting for about half of world wheat consumption.

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

5019

90/9

1

1991

/92

1992

/93

1993

/94

1994

/95

1995

/96

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

2010

/11e

2011

/12f

2012

/13p

47

1912 9 6 5 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Asia Europe CIS Africa NorthAmerica

LatinAmerica

Oceania

Chin

a (3

6%)

Indi

a (2

6%)

Russ

ian

Fed.

(48%

)Uk

rain

e (1

7%)

Kaza

khst

an (1

0%)

Egyp

t (30

%)

Alge

ria (1

4%)

Mor

occo

(14%

)

USA

(79%

)Ca

nada

(21%

)

Braz

il (3

6%)

Mex

ico

(22%

)Ar

gent

ina

(15%

)

Aust

ralia

(87%

)

EU 2

7 (9

6%)

9Food availability

Figure 7d. World wheat demand as a share of world total by type of use, 1990–1991


The distribution of world wheat demand changed slightly between 1990/91 and 2011/12, with a larger share of the demand devoted to food.

Figure 7e. World wheat demand as a share of world total by type of use, 2011–2012


Food65%

Feed23%

Other uses12%

Food68%

Feed19%

Other uses13%


Figure 8a. Evolution of world maize demand, 1990/91–2012/13 (million tons)

Source: IGC. Abbreviations: e – estimates, f – forecasts, p –projections.

World maize demand increased sharply over the period (+2.9 per cent per year).

Figure 8b. Evolution of world maize production deficit, 1990/91–2012/13 (million tons)

Source: IGC. Abbreviations: e – estimates, f – forecasts, p –projections.

The large increase in maize production forecasted for 2012/13 (+5.6 per cent) should help to meet strong world demand, as well as contribute to the replenishment of stocks, which are at historically low levels (less than 2 months’ consumption, compared with 3.5 months in 1990/91).

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 00019

90/9

1

1991

/92

1992

/93

1993

/94

1994

/95

1995

/96

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

2010

/11e

2011

/12f

2012

/13p

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

1990

/91

1991

/92

1992

/93

1993

/94

1994

/95

1995

/96

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

2010

/11e

2011

/12f

2012

/13p

11Food availability

Figure 8c. World maize demand as a share of world total and regional total by region and main countries in the region, 2011–2012 (percentage)

Source: IGC.

Taken together, the United States and China account for 54 per cent of world maize demand.

Figure 8d. World maize demand as a share of world total by type of use, 1990–1991

Source: IGC.

While feed uses largely dominated maize demand in 1990/91, its share declined to 56 per cent in 2011/12. At the same time, the share for industrial use increased sharply. This situation may be due to the biofuel industry. In the United States, the main source of maize demand, 44 per cent of demand emanates from the industry (and more than 90 per cent of it from biofuels). World feed demand is mainly supported by China, where feed accounts for two thirds of the country’s demand.

0.10

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

NorthAmerica

Asia Latin America Europe Africa CIS Oceania

USA

(93%

)Ca

nada

(4%

)

Braz

il (4

8%)

Mex

ico

(28%

)

EU 2

7 (8

9%)

Egyp

t (18

%)

Sout

h Af

rica

(14%

)Ni

geria

(12%

)

Ukra

ine

(51%

)Ru

ssia

n Fe

d (3

0%)

Aust

ralia

(67%

)

Chin

a (6

5%)

Food15%

Feed67%

Industrial12%

Otheruses6%


Figure 8e. World maize demand as a share of world total by type of use, 2011–2012

Source: IGC.

Figure 9a. Evolution of world rice utilization, 1990/91–2011/12 (million tons)

Source: USDA, Rice Yearbook 2011 (table 22 – World rice supply and utilization).Notes: For the period 2003/04–2011/12 (under review by IGC, data used for other figures regarding wheat and maize production) IGC

and USDA data are similar. Therefore, USDA ones have been selected in order to enable us to present a longer series for rice.Abbreviation: f – Forecast as of 11 May 2011.

World rice demand has grown at a stronger pace (1.4 per cent) than production since the beginning of the 1990s.

Food11%

Feed56%

Industrial29%

Otheruses4%

300

325

350

375

400

425

450

475

500

1990

/91

1991

/92

1992

/93

1993

/94

1994

/95

1995

/96

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12f

13Food availability

Figure 9b. Evolution of world rice production deficit, 1990/91–2011/12 (million tons)

Source: USDA, Rice Yearbook 2011 (table 22 – World rice supply and utilization).Notes: For the period 2003/04 – 2011/12 (under review by IGC, data used for other figures regarding wheat and maize production) IGC and

USDA data are similar. As a consequence, USDA ones have been selected in order to enable us to present a longer series for rice.Abbreviation: f – Forecast as of May 11, 2011.

Due to large production deficits from 2001/02 to 2004/05, rice stocks are at a historically low level (30 per cent below 1990 levels in terms of weeks of demand).

Figure 9c. World rice consumption as a share of world total by region and main consumers in the region, 2011–2012 (percentage)

Source: USDA, Rice Yearbook 2011 (table 22 – World rice supply and utilization).Notes: For the period 2003/04–2011/12 (under review by IGC, data used for other figures regarding wheat and maize production) IGC

and USDA data are similar. Therefore, USDA ones have been selected in order to enable us to present a longer series for rice.Abbreviation: f: Forecast as of 11 May 2011.

Asia dominates world rice demand. The international rice market is marginal and highly concentrated within producing regions. The main rice producers are also the main consumers.

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

1519

90/9

1

1991

/92

1992

/93

1993

/94

1994

/95

1995

/96

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12f

88

6 32 1 0.3 0.20

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Asia Africa LatinAmerica

NorthAmerica

Europe CIS Oceania

China (34%)India (24%)Indonesia (10%)

Braz

il (5

2%)

Peru

(13%

)Co

lom

bia

(11%

)

USA

(51%

)Cu

ba (1

2%)

EU 2

7 (9

4%)

Russ

ian

Fed

(50%

)

Aust

ralia

(57%

)

Nige

ria (2

0%)

Egyp

t (15

%)

Mad

agas

car (

11%

)


Figure 10a. Evolution of world wheat production yields, 1990–2010 (ton per hectare)

Source: FAO, FAOSTAT.

The world wheat production yield has increased over the reference period (0.8 per cent per annum on average).

Figure 10b. Wheat production yields by region, 2010 (ton per hectare)


While world wheat production yields averaged 3 tons per hectare in 2010, national production yields are quite heteroge-neous (e.g. production yields in Africa are about 30 per cent lower than in Asia).

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.219

90

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

3.0

5.2

3.3 3.2 3.0

2.3 1.8 1.7

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

World Europe LatinAmerica

Asia NorthAmerica

Africa CIS Oceania

Chin

a (4

.7)

Indi

a (2

.8)

USA

(3.1

)Ca

nada

(2.8

)

Egyp

t (5.

6)M

oroc

co (1

.7)

Ukra

ine

(2.7

)Ru

ssia

n Fe

d (1

.9)

Kaza

khst

an (0

.7)

UK (7.7)Germany (7.3)France (7)

Arge

ntin

a (3

.4)

Aust

ralia

(1.6

)

15Food availability

Figure 11a. Evolution of world maize production yields, 1990–2010 (ton per hectare)


Despite erratic annual changes, world production yields largely improved over the period (+42 per cent between 1990 and 2010).

Figure 11b. Maize production yields by region, 2010 (ton per hectare)


World maize production yields exceeded 5 tons per hectare in 2010, with large productivity gaps between North America and other producing regions. The gap is especially significant between North America and Africa, but it is also big be-tween the United States and the EU-27.

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.419

90

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

5.2

9.6

6.9 6.5

4.6 4.1 4.1

2.1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

World NorthAmerica

Europe Oceania Asia LatinAmerica

CIS Africa

Cana

da (9

.7)

USA

(9.6

)

Fran

ce (8

.9)

EU 2

7 (7

.1)

Rom

ania

(4.3

)

Chin

a (5

.5)

Indi

a (2

)

Arge

ntin

a (7

.8)

Braz

il (4

.4)

Mex

ico

(3.3

)

Ukra

ine

Sout

h Af

rica

(4.7

)


Figure 12a. Evolution of world rice (paddy) production yields, 1990–2010 (ton per hectare)


World rice production yields have significantly increased over the last 20 years.

Figure 12b. Rice (paddy) production yields by region, 2010 (ton per hectare)


Australia is the leading producing country in terms of productivity, far beyond China or India, the two largest rice- producing countries.

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.619

90

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

4.4

9.3

7.5 6.6

4.5 4.4 4.3

2.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5

10.0

World Oceania NorthAmerica

Europe LatinAmerica

Asia CIS Africa

Australia (10.8)

USA

(7.5

)

Braz

il (4

.2)

Peru

(7.3

)

Chin

a (6

.5)

Indi

a (3

.3)

Russ

ian

Fed.

(5.3

)Ka

zakh

stan

(4)

Uzbe

kist

an (3

.4)

Egyp

t (9.

4)M

adag

asca

r (3.

5)M

ali (

3.4)

Nige

ria (1

.8)

17Food availability

Figure 13. Evolution of world wheat, maize and rice (milled) exports, 1990–2009 (million tons)

Source: FAO, FAOSTAT (for maize and wheat data statistics) and USDA, Rice Yearbooks (for rice data statistics).

With 6 per cent average annual growth over the 1990–2009 period, rice exports recorded the most significant growth of all cereals exports.

Figure 14. World exports of wheat, maize and rice (milled) as a share of world total production, 2008–2009 average (percentage)

Source: FAO, FAOSTAT (for maize and wheat data statistics) and USDA, Rice Yearbook 2011 (for rice data statistics).

The share of rice exports is low, as the main producing countries are also the main consumers.

–

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

16019

90

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Rice

exp

orts

(mill

ion

tons

)

Mai

ze a

nd w

heat

exp

orts

(mill

ion

tons

)

Maize Wheat Rice, milled

20

12

7

0

5

10

15

20

25

Wheat Maize Rice, milled


Figure 15a. Top five wheat exporters in volume as a share of world total exports, 2008–2009 average (percentage)


Together the EU-27 and the United States contributed to half of the world’s wheat exports in 2008–2009.

Figure 15b. Top five maize exporters in volume as a share of world total exports, 2008–2009 average (percentage)


The United States is the main maize exporting country with half of the world exports. Together with the EU-27, they contribute to the two thirds of total world exports.

31

19

13 10 9

18

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

EuropeanUnion (27)

United States Canada RussianFederation

Australia Rest of theworld

50

15 12 7 5

11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

United States EuropeanUnion (27)

Argentina Brazil Ukraine Rest of theworld

19Food availability

Figure 15c. Top five rice (milled) exporters in volume as a share of world total exports, 2008–2009 average (percentage)

Source: USDA, Rice Yearbook 2011.

Rice is a highly concentrated market. Asia accounts for about 70 per cent of world exports of milled rice.

Figure 16a. Top five wheat importers in volume as a share of world total imports, 2008–2009 average (percentage)


The EU-27 is the main actor of the wheat market, importing about one fourth of world imports. However, in regard to remaining quantities, imports are largely atomized.

31

18

11 11 9

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Thailand Viet Nam United States Pakistan India Rest of theworld

23

5 5 4 4

59

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

EuropeanUnion (27)

Algeria Egypt Brazil Japan Rest of theworld


Figure 16b. Top five maize importers in volume as a share of world total imports, 2008–2009 average (percentage)


The degree of import concentration for maize with five countries, which account for 56 per cent of global imports, is much lower than for maize exports, where five countries account for 90 per cent of the trade.

Figure 16c. Top five rice (milled) importers in volume as a share of world total imports, 2008–2009 average (percentage)

Source: USDA, Rice Yearbook 2011. Note: The European Union (27) does not consider intra-trade.

In regard to imports, the rice market is the most diversified of the three main grain markets. The EU-27 plays a marginal role in this market, while it is the major stakeholder in regard to maize and wheat imports.

20

8 8

43

16

4 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

EuropeanUnion (27)

Japan Mexico Republic ofKorea

China Rest of theworld

8 6 5 5 4

72

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Philippines Nigeria EuropeanUnion (27)

Iran Saudi Arabia Rest of theworld

21Food availabilityM

ap 1

. Le

adin

g w

heat

-exp

ortin

g co

untr

ies

and

thei

r mai

n tr

adin

g pa

rtne

rs, 2

008–

2009

ave

rage

(tra

de v

alue

) (pe

rcen

tage

)

Sou

rce:

UN

CTA

D, U

NC

TAD

stat

.N

ote:

W

heat

(inc

ludi

ng s

pelt)

and

mes

lin, u

nmille

d (S

ITC

rev

3 –

041)

.

1

To 1 To

1

23

4

5

67

89

1011

12

13

14

15 16

1718

19

Mai

n tr

adin

g pa

rtne

r (>

10%

of e

xpor

t val

ue re

gard

ing

this

spe

ci�c

com

mod

ity c

ode)

Trad

ing

part

ner

(> 5

% o

f exp

ort v

alue

rega

rdin

g th

is s

peci

�c c

omm

odity

cod

e)

Uni

ted

Stat

esCa

nada

Euro

pean

Uni

on (2

7)Ru

ssia

n Fe

dera

tion

Aust

ralia

(1)

Jap

an(2

) P

hilip

pine

s(3

) V

iet N

am(4

) M

alay

sia

(5)

Ind

ones

ia

(16)

Nig

eria

(17)

EU

(27)

(18)

Uni

ted

Stat

es(1

9) M

exic

o

(6)

Pak

ista

n (7

) A

zerb

aija

n(8

) S

yria

n Ar

ab R

ep.

(9)

Tur

key

(10)

Egy

pt(1

1) I

raq

(12)

Ira

n (Is

lam

ic R

ep. o

f)(1

3) S

audi

Ara

bia

(14)

Mor

occo

(15)

Alg

eria

22 Commodities at a glanCeM

ap 2

. Le

adin

g m

aize

-exp

ortin

g co

untr

ies

and

thei

r mai

n tr

adin

g pa

rtne

rs, 2

008–

2009

ave

rage

(tra

de v

alue

) (pe

rcen

tage

)

Sou

rce:

UN

CTA

D, U

NC

TAD

stat

.N

ote:

M

aize

(not

incl

udin

g sw

eet c

orn)

, unm

illed

(SIT

C re

v 3

– 04

4).

1

2

3

4

5

6 7

8910

1112

1314

15

16

17

18

(1)

Japa

n(2

)Re

p. o

f Kor

ea(3

)Ta

iwan

(Pro

v. o

f Chi

na)

(4)

Mal

aysi

a(5

)Ru

ssia

n Fe

dera

tion

(6)

Ira

n (Is

lam

ic R

ep. o

f)(7

) S

audi

Ara

bia

(8)

Syr

ian

Arab

Rep

. (9

) I

srae

l(1

0) T

urke

y(1

1) E

gypt

(12)

Alg

eria

(13)

Mor

occo

(14)

Eur

opea

n Un

ion

(27)

(15)

Mex

ico

Mai

n tr

adin

g pa

rtne

r(>

10%

of e

xpor

tva

lue

rega

rdin

gth

is s

peci

�cco

mm

odity

cod

e)

Trad

ing

part

ner

(> 5

% o

f exp

ort

valu

e re

gard

ing

this

spe

ci�c

com

mod

ity c

ode)

To 1

, 2, 3

To 2

, 3, 4

(16)

Col

ombi

a(1

7) P

eru

(18)

Chi

le

Unite

d St

ates

Braz

ilAr

gent

ina

Euro

pean

Uni

on (2

7)Uk

rain

e

23Food availabilityM

ap 3

. Le

adin

g ric

e-ex

port

ing

coun

trie

s an

d th

eir m

ain

trad

ing

part

ners

, 200

8–20

09 a

vera

ge (t

rade

val

ue) (

perc

enta

ge)

Sou

rce:

UN

CTA

D, U

NC

TAD

stat

.N

ote:

R

ice

(SIT

C re

v 3

– 04

2).

Mex

ico

Japa

n

Haiti

Cana

da

Saud

i Ara

bia

Mai

n tr

adin

g pa

rtne

r (>

10%

of e

xpor

t val

ue re

gard

ing

this

spe

ci�c

com

mod

ity c

ode)

Trad

ing

part

ner (

> 5

% o

f exp

ort v

alue

rega

rdin

g th

is s

peci

�c c

omm

odity

cod

e)


Figure 17. Evolution of cereal price indices, 1960–2012 (base 2000 = 100)

Source: UNCTAD, UNCTADstat.Notes: Wheat, Argentina, Trigo Pan Upriver, FOB ; Wheat, United States, No. 2 Hard Red Winter (ordinary), FOB Gulf ; Maize,

Argentina, Rosario, FOB ; Maize, United States, yellow No. 3, FOB Gulf ; Rice, Thailand, white milled, 5 per cent broken, nominal price quotes, FOB Bangkok. 2012: Average includes data from January to May 2012.

The 2008 food crisis may largely be observed in this figure. Many factors contributed to the food price crisis. A general context of long-term increase in demand for food (as a result of the population growth, urbanization, and rapid economic development in East and South-East Asia in particular) has contributed to market imbalances, aggravated by droughts, slow supply response, the fall in the dollar, high energy prices as well as concerns over increased demand for biofuels, government export restrictions and market speculation.

Figure 18a. Intra-annual volatility of Argentine wheat price indices, 1990–2011 (base 2000 = 100)

Source: UNCTAD, UNCTADstat.Notes: Wheat, Argentina, Trigo Pan Upriver, FOB. Figures 18a to 18e show minimum (lowest point of the black line), maximum (highest point of the black line) and average (pink

arrow) monthly price index.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

40019

90

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

*

Wheat (Argentina) Wheat (United States) Maize (Argentina)Maize (United States) Rice (Thailand)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

25Food availability

The intra-annual volatility was particularly high in 2007–2008, namely the 2008 food crisis. However, put in historical con-text, the volatility of wheat prices remained significant in 2010 and 2011 for wheat from Argentina and the United States.

Figure 18b. Intra-annual volatility of United States wheat price indices, 1990–2011 (base 2000 = 100)

Source: UNCTAD, UNCTADstat.Notes: Wheat, United States, No. 2 Hard Red Winter (ordinary), FOB Gulf Figures 18a to 18e show minimum (lowest point of the black line), maximum (highest point of the black line) and average (pink


Figure 18c. Intra-annual volatility of Argentine maize price indices, 1990–2011 (base 2000 = 100)

Source: UNCTAD, UNCTADstat.Notes: Maize, Argentina, Rosario, FOB. Figures 18a to 18e show minimum (lowest point of the black line), maximum (highest point of the black line) and average (pink


Maize prices rose sharply in 2008. After a moderate decline in 2009, prices of maize from Argentina and the United States returned to the historical highs of 2008 in 2010 and 2011, and volatility increased.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011


Figure 18d. Intra-annual volatility of United States maize price indices, 1990–2011 (base 2000 = 100)

Source: UNCTAD, UNCTADstat.Notes: Maize, United States, yellow No. 3, FOB Gulf. Figures 18a to 18e show minimum (lowest point of the black line), maximum (highest point of the black line) and average (pink


Figure 18e. Intra-annual volatility of Thai rice price indices, 1990–2011 (base 2000 = 100)

Source: UNCTAD, UNCTADstatNotes: Rice, Thailand, white milled, 5 per cent broken, nominal price quotes, FOB Bangkok Figures 18a to 18e show minimum (lowest point of the black line), maximum (highest point of the black line) and average (pink


Rice prices dramatically increased in 2008. Rice prices remain at historical price highs since then.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

40019

90

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

27Food availability

Figure 19. Annual percentage change in wheat, maize and rice, world closing stocks, 1990/91–2011/12


In terms of number of weeks of consumption, closing stocks have largely contracted since the beginning of the 2000s, whatever the grain under review. Maize and rice stocks have been divided by 2, and respectively accounted for 7 and 11 weeks of consumption in 2011/12. In regard to wheat, the contraction has been more limited (divided by 1.2 to reach 13 weeks of consumption in 2011/12, compared with 18 in 2000/01).

Figure 20. Annual percentage change in food aid shipments, 1995/96–2010/11

Source: IGC.

After a period of large increases in food shipments, notably during a period of low commodity prices at the end of the 1990s, food aid shipments have largely contracted worldwide since then, except during the food crisis (2008/09) when shipments recorded an 11 per cent increase, compared with 2007/08.

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

4019

90/9

1

1991

/92

1992

/93

1993

/94

1994

/95

1995

/96

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

Wheat Maize Rice

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

2010

/11


Figure 21a. Number of disasters (drought) by region during the 2000s

Source: EM-DAT, Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, Université catholique de Louvain.

Net food-importing developing countries, LDCs and sub-Saharan African countries are the regions that have been most affected by droughts since 2000.

Figure 21b. Number of disasters (extreme temperature) by region during the 2000s

Source: EM-DAT, Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, Université Catholique de Louvain.

Developing countries in Africa and Oceania appear to be less frequently affected by extreme temperatures than Asian countries.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

World NFIDC LDCs SubSaharanAfrica

NorthernAfrica

DevelopingAsia

LatinAmerica

Oceania

Num

ber o

f dro

ught

s

0

50

100

150

200

250


NorthernAfrica

DevelopingAsia

LatinAmerica

Oceania

Num

ber o

f eve

nts

29Food availability

Figure 21c. Number of disasters (flood) by region during the 2000s

Source: EM-DAT, Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, Université catholique de Louvain.

Except for Northern Africa and Oceania, which seem to be less affected by flood, these events are recurrent in other developing countries.

Figure 22a. United States: Distribution of agricultural domestic support (percentage)

Source: South Centre, based on WTO notifications.Notes: The current bound level of overall trade-distorting domestic support (OTDS) in the United States is $48.3 billion. The 60 per cent

cut it is asked to undertake (para. 3b, Rev.4) will bring the bound OTDS level to $14.5 billion. However, the applied OTDS was only $9.78 billion in 2010. In the meantime, total domestic support soared from $60.9 billion to $130.3 billion between 1995 and 2010. See also South Centre Analytical Note, Present Situation of the WTO Doha Talks and Comments on the 21 April Documents, April 2011.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total Green Box Total Blue Box Total Amber Box Total de minimis

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

1 600

1 800

2 000


NorthernAfrica

DevelopingAsia

LatinAmerica

Oceania

Num

ber o

f floo

ds


Figure 22b. European Union: Distribution of agricultural domestic support (percentage)

Source: South Centre, based on WTO notifications.Notes: The bound OTDS level of the EU is €110.3 billion. The OTDS cut to be undertaken is 80 per cent (Rev.4, para. 3a) and thus

the bound level will be €22 billion. However, in the EU marketing year 2008/2009, the actual or applied OTDS of the EU was €15.5 billion, which was below the

bound level. Thus, the EU need not cut its actual OTDS under the new rules. See also South Centre Analytical Note, Present Situation of the WTO Doha Talks and Comments on the 21 April Documents,

April 2011

Domestic supports in agriculture notified to the WTO by both the European Union and the United States in the last 15 years indicate that both have gradually shifted their supports into the green box – that is greening their domestic supports over the period.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Total Green Box Total Blue Box Total Amber Box Total de minimis

FOOD ACCESSII.


As mentioned in the definition of food security, access is not only physical but economic as well. As stated earlier, the 2007–2008 food crisis had damaging effects on food security, in particular by eroding its access. In terms of physical access, we have already mentioned the skewness of food availability and the depletion of stocks. As for economic access, the fact that the last food price hikes were compounded by financial crisis gives an idea of their combined disastrous effects. Although FAO revised its malnutrition figures downwards, it was estimated in the aftermath of the food and financial crises that together, these crises brought an additional 115 million people into hunger.8 Indeed, food prices have been high and volatile since the food crisis due to a number of other factors including the financialization of commodity markets, whereby food commodities (as well as others) are treated as an asset class by financial investors.

Initially, marketing mechanisms such as commodity exchanges were designed to link buyers and sellers for price discovery, enhance access to commodity finance and serve as a hedging tool. However, they are now flooded with investors that are profit-motivated and which use commodities as a new asset class in their portfolio diversification strategy. Citing a Commodities Future Trading Commission report, Tang and Xiong (2011)9 noted that the total value of various commodity index-related instruments purchased by institutional investors grew from an estimated amount of $15 billion in 2003 to a minimum of $200 billion in the midst of the food crisis of 2008. They also explained that the growth observed, coincides with the introduction of new types of instruments such as exchange traded funds designed to reflect the value of a specified commodity index. While volumes and prices of futures contracts have increased, this new type of investor sometimes uses these financial instruments to speculate on commodity prices without having any interest in the underlying commodities. Financial markets are thus believed to have exacerbated or amplified price movements by distorting the link between

8 Responding to the Food Crisis: Synthesis of Medium-term Measures Proposed in Inter-agency Assessments (FAO, 2009).

9 Tang and Xiong, Index Investment and Financialization of Commodities, Working Paper (2011).

market fundamentals and price formation.10 This situation endangers food security in its access dimension by making food items more expensive and therefore less affordable.

These higher prices appeared to have changed the food preferences and to have slightly modified dietary habits in some regions of the developing world. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, consumers increased the proportion of vegetables in their diet between 2000–2002 and 2005–2007. They also increased their energy intake from sugars and sweeteners as well as the contribution of meat to total dietary energy consumption during the same period. While these developments are somewhat difficult to explain because of the number of complex changes taking place in the region in the period under review, two major factors offer a plausible explanation. First, sub-Saharan Africa enjoyed steady economic growth during the last decade, which, according to the estimates of the African Development Bank, led to an increase in the size of its middle class, from 27 per cent in 2000 to 34 per cent of the African population currently.11 Second, although sub-Saharan Africa was considered insulated from the financial crisis that hit the world economy due to its limited integration in the global financial sector, the food crisis did not spare the region. Therefore, while adjustments in diet may be expected, which of these factors impacted more on the above-mentioned dietary changes is difficult to tell. Moreover, there may be a lag in the impact of the food crisis on dietary habits, which would require more recent data for a more robust analysis.

Beyond the 2007–2008 food crisis, stability in food access is likely to be more and more compromised due to demographic and economic factors. Population growth and rapid urbanization will increase demand for food items and if the supply does not respond, food prices will maintain their upward trends. An early sign of this possible trend is that some countries are strategically investing in land and food production in locations where arable land is available and underutilized. This so-called “land grab” exposes many complex and difficult socioeconomic issues. However, the fact that

10 This report does not discuss the issue of the financialization of commodity markets, which can be found in UNCTAD (2011): Price Formation in Financialized Commodity Markets: The Role of Information.

11 Figures cited by The Economist,18 August 2012.

33Food access

arable lands are underutilized is also a positive sign that there is room for food production to expand to match the increasing trend in food demand due to demographic and economic developments given the right policy environment. This balance may be

reflected in stable prices. Moreover, the existing potential for irrigation, especially in Africa where only 6 per cent of cultivated land is irrigated, also constitutes a legitimate reason for positive food supply response to increasing demand.12

12 Figure cited by Liangzhi et al (2011) with reference to Svendsen (2009).

34 Commodities at a glanCeM

ap 4

. De

pth

of h

unge

r, av

erag

e fo

od d

efici

t of u

nder

nour

ishe

d po

pula

tion

in k

iloca

lorie

s pe

r per

son

per d

ay, 2

006–

2008

ave

rage

Sou

rce:

FA

O, F

ood

secu

rity

data

.

Angu

illa,

Aru

ba, B

ritis

h Vi

rgin

Isl.,

Ca

yman

Isl.,

Mon

tser

rat,

Neth

erla

nds

Antil

les,

Tur

ks a

nd C

aico

s Is

l.

Gren

ada,

Ant

igua

& B

arbu

daDo

min

ican

Rep

., St

Kitt

s &

Nev

is,

Trin

idad

& T

obag

oBa

ham

as, B

arba

dos,

Dom

inic

a,St

Luc

ia,

St V

ince

nt &

the

Gren

adin

es

Falk

land

Isl.

(Mal

vina

s)Ca

pe V

erde

, Mau

ritiu

s,Sa

o To

me

& P

rinci

pe, S

eych

elle

sM

ayot

te

Bahr

ain

Tim

or L

este

Brun

ei D

arus

sala

m,

Mal

dive

s

Amer

ican

Sam

oa, C

ook

Isla

nds,

Guam

, Mar

shal

l Isl

., M

icro

nesi

a(F

ed. S

tate

s of

), Na

uru,

Niu

e, N

orth

ern

Mar

iana

Isl.,

Pal

au, T

okel

au, T

onga

,Tu

valu

, Wal

lis a

nd F

utun

a Is

l.

Fiji,

Fre

nch

Poly

nesi

a, K

iriba

ti,Sa

moa

, Sol

omon

Isl.,

Van

uatu

N.C.

N.C.

N.C.

N.C.

N.C.

N.C.

N.C.

N.C.

N.C.

Note

: Dep

th o

f hun

ger o

r the

inte

nsity

of f

ood

depr

ivat

ion,

indi

cate

s ho

w m

uch

food

-dep

rived

peo

ple

fall

shor

t of m

inim

um fo

od n

eeds

in te

rms

of d

ieta

ry e

nerg

y.Th

e fo

od d

e�ci

t, in

kilo

calo

ries

per p

erso

n pe

r day

, is

mea

sure

d by

com

parin

g th

e av

erag

e am

ount

of d

ieta

ry e

nerg

y th

at u

nder

nour

ishe

d pe

ople

get

from

the

food

s th

ey e

at w

ith th

e m

inim

um a

mou

nt o

f die

tary

ene

rgy

they

nee

d to

mai

ntai

n bo

dy w

eigh

t and

und

erta

ke li

ght a

ctiv

ity.

The

dept

h of

hun

ger i

s lo

w: w

hen

it is

less

than

200

kilo

calo

ries

per p

erso

n pe

r day

, and

hig

hw

hen

it is

abo

ve 3

00 k

iloca

lorie

s pe

r per

son

per d

ay.

N.C.

N.C.

N.C.

N.C.

N.C.

High

er th

an 4

00 k

iloca

lorie

s pe

r per

son

per d

ayBe

twee

n 30

0 an

d 40

0 ki

loca

lorie

s pe

r per

son

per d

ayBe

twee

n 20

0 an

d 30

0 ki

loca

lorie

s pe

r per

son

per d

ayBe

twee

n 10

0 an

d 20

0 ki

loca

lorie

s pe

r per

son

per d

ayLo

wer

than

100

kilo

calo

ries

per p

erso

n pe

r day

N.C.

sta

nds

for n

o co

untr

y w

ithin

the

cate

gory

35Food access

Figure 23a. Share of the main food groups in total dietary energy consumption, 2005–2007 average: Net food-importing developing countries and least developed countries (percentage)

Source: FAO, Food security data.

In the net food-importing developing countries, LDCs and sub-Saharan Africa (see below), the food diet is mainly based on the consumption of cereals, starchy roots, sugar and sweeteners as well as vegetable oils.

Figure 23b. Share of the main food groups in total dietary energy consumption, 2005–2007 average: Sub-Saharan African countries and North African countries (percentage)


In North Africa, the consumption of starchy roots is largely replaced by the consumption of cereals.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Alcoholic beverages

Animal fats

Cereals - Excluding Beer

Fish, Seafood

Fruits - Excluding Wine

Meat

Milk - Excluding Butter

Oil crops

Pulses

Starchy Roots

Sugar & Sweeteners

Vegetable Oils

Vegetables Net Food-Importing Developing Countries

Least Developed Countries

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Sub Saharan AfricaNorth Africa

Alcoholic beverages

Animal fats


Fish, Seafood


Meat


Oil crops

Pulses

Starchy Roots

Sugar & Sweeteners

Vegetable Oils

Vegetables


Figure 23c. Share of the main food groups in total dietary energy consumption, 2005–2007 average: Developing Asia, Latin America and Oceania (percentage)


In developing Asia, Latin America and Oceania, cereals remain the mainstay of dietary energy consumption, with the high-est share observed for developing Asia. The main differences may be observed for sugar and sweeteners, which are more commonly consumed in Latin America as well as oil crops and starchy roots, which largely contribute to the diet in Oceania.

Figure 23d. Share of the main food groups in total dietary energy consumption, 2005–2007 average: Selected developed economies (percentage)


In developed countries, cereals are also the main contributor to the food diet. However, except for Japan, where the share exceeds 40 per cent, other developed countries recorded a share below 30 per cent in 2005–2007. In developed countries, the consumption of meat and milk is more widespread (except in Japan), as well as the one of vegetable oils and sugar and sweeteners.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Developing AsiaLatin AmericaOceania

Alcoholic beverages

Animal fats


Fish, Seafood


Meat


Oil crops

Pulses

Starchy Roots

Sugar & Sweeteners

Vegetable Oils

Vegetables

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

FranceJapanCanadaUnited States

Alcoholic beverages

Animal fats


Fish, Seafood


Meat


Oil crops

Pulses

Starchy Roots

Sugar & Sweeteners

Vegetable Oils

Vegetables

37Food access

Figure 24. Evolution of the diet diversification index in selected country groupings, 1990–1992 and 2005–2007 averages

Source: FAO, Food security data.Note: The diet diversification index is the share of non-starchy foods (all but cereals, roots and tubers) in total dietary energy

consumption in selected country groupings.

According to the diet diversification index, net food-importing developing countries appear to have a more diversified food diet than LDCs.

Figure 25. Share of food consumption expenditure in total consumption expenditure in selected countries and country groupings, latest available year (percentage)

Source: FAO, Food security data.Notes: World: simple average over the 2000s.

Food contributes to 50 per cent to 55 per cent of total consumption expenditures in net food-importing developing countries, LDCs and sub-Saharan Africa. In developed countries, the average share is 18 per cent, with the smallest share recorded by the United States (14 per cent).

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990

-92,

NFI

DC

2005

-07,

NFI

DC

1990

-92,

LDC

s

2005

-07,

LDC

s

1990

-92,

Sub

-Sah

aran

Afric

a

2005

-07,

Sub

-Sah

aran

Afric

a

1990

-92,

Nor

th A

frica

2005

-07,

Nor

th A

frica

1990

-92,

Dev

elop

ing

Asia

2005

-07,

Dev

elop

ing

Asia

1990

-92,

Lat

in A

mer

ica

2005

-07,

Lat

in A

mer

ica

1990

-92,

Oce

ania

2005

-07,

Oce

ania

0

48

5550

3842

31

38

1418 20 22

40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

NFID

C

LDCs

Sub-

Saha

ran

Afric

a

North

Afri

ca

Deve

lopi

ng A

sia

Latin

Am

eric

a

Ocea

nia

Unite

d St

ates

Cana

da

Japa

n

Fran

ce

Wor

ld*


Figure 26a. Consumer price index, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010: Net food-importing developing countries (base 2005 = 100)

Source: IMF, International Financial Statistics.Notes: The coefficient of variation appears in red (coefficient of variation of the data series is the ratio of the standard deviation of the

data series compared with its simple average). Figures 26a to 26g show minimum (lowest point of the black line), maximum (highest point of the black line) and average (pink

arrow) consumer price index.

In net food-importing developing countries, LDCs and sub-Saharan Africa (see figures below for the latter two regions), the food price index increased sharply between the 1980s and the 2000s, but prices seem to have harmonized among countries of the same country grouping.

Figure 26b. Consumer price index, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010: Least developed countries (base 2005 = 100)




103 103

146

237

2 12

83

111

29

51

101

150

0

50

100

150

200

250

1980

s

1990

s

2000

s

2010

NFIDC

103 103

146

237

2 12

83

111

30

53

101

146

0

50

100

150

200

250

1980

s

1990

s

2000

s

2010

LDCs

39Food access

Figure 26c. Consumer price index, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010: Sub-Saharan African countries (base 2005 = 100)




Figure 26d. Consumer price index, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010: North African countries (base 2005 = 100)




In North Africa, individual consumer price indices tended to trend towards the higher price levels recorded during the 1990s and 2000s.

103 103

146

237

1 12

83

113

32

55

101

146

0

50

100

150

200

250

1980

s

1990

s

2000

s

2010

SSA

53

104

109

173

12

55

100

111

34

74

103

131

0

50

100

150

200

250

1980

s

1990

s

2000

s

2010

North Africa


Figure 26e. Consumer price index, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010: Developing Asia (base 2005 = 100)




In developing Asia, Latin America and Oceania (see figures below), the ceiling consumer price index increased drastically between the 1990s and the 2000s (+20 per cent for Asia, +16 per cent for Latin America, +31 per cent for Oceania), but appears to be more homogeneous within each region.

Figure 26f. Consumer price index, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010: Latin America (base 2005 = 100)




91 98

117

225

2 4

92 105

36

59

102

142

0

50

100

150

200

250

1980

s

1990

s

2000

s

2010

Developing Asia

81 89

103

179

3 8

88

113

32

56

99

133

0

50

100

150

200

250

1980

s

1990

s

2000

s

2010

Latin America

41Food access

Figure 26g. Consumer price index, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010: Oceania (base 2005 = 100)




46

78

102

152

14

39

95

119

31

58

99

132

0

50

100

150

200

250

1980

s

1990

s

2000

s

2010

Oceania

FOOD UTILIzATIONIII.


Food utilization is usually defined as the way our body uses the food energy intake. This encompasses a number of non-food factors such as cultural practices in food preparation, feeding practices as well as intra-household allocation of food. One of the detrimental effects of the 2007–2008 food crisis is the increase in the number of undernourished people, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.13 Even the latest FAO publication on the State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012 noted the stark contrast between Africa (including North Africa) and other developing regions. According to that report, some parts of Asia and Latin America have seen their number of undernourished people decline between 1990–92 and 2010–12. But sub-Saharan Africa registered an increase in the percentage of undernourished people from 17 to 27 per cent of the total undernourished people in the world.

As usual, the increase of the proportion of undernourished people does not result in uniform consequences for age groups in the population. One of the most vulnerable groups is children under 5: for this group, malnutrition prevalence is higher for males than females (see figure 30) which maybe due to cultural practices such as breastfeeding as corroborated by a study in Ghana by Van de Poel et al (2007)14. On the

13 This appears surprising, given that consumers increased the proportion of vegetables in their diet. They also increased their energy intake from sugars and sweeteners as well as the contribution of meat to total dietary energy consumption. Moreover, sub-Saharan Africa enjoyed steady economic growth during the last decade, which led to an increase in the size of its middle class. FAO explained this apparent contradiction by the fact that high food prices might have resulted in an adverse impact on access to health and education. It also acknowledged the weakness of undernourishment as an indicator of food security, as it does not take into account other dimensions of food insecurity, such as the quality of food, especially micronutrients and food utilization, and is taking measures to address this.

14 Van de Poel et al., Malnutrition and the disproportional burden on the poor: the case of Ghana International Journal for Equity in Health, 6:21; 2007.

other hand, FAO (2001) acknowledges unequal attention and care between the two sexes; however, its research suggests that the general tendency is to favour boy-children.15

In summary, food utilization depends not only on food but on a number of external factors such as access to clean water and hygiene conditions. On both of these indicators, LDCs, and sub-Saharan Africa rank low. It is thus no wonder that in 2008 about 60 per cent of deaths in sub-Saharan Africa were attributed to communicable diseases (figure 31). One policy implication is that despite good progress on food availability and food access, non-food factors could impair food utilization. Unlike developed countries where food security is more of a mismatch between demand and supply, developing countries face a more complex situation that goes beyond a mere balance sheet and entails the critical issue of entitlements. Therefore, policies to ensure food security in developing countries need to adopt a more holistic approach that takes into account its multifaceted dimensions, including social protection, the right to food, and human rights, as well as broader developmental concerns such as the role that smallholders can play in agricultural development and their access to international markets.

15 Agricultural Censuses and Gender Considerations, chapter 2 on gender perspective (FAO, 2001).

45Food utilization

Figure 27. Number of undernourished people in selected country groupings, percentage change between 1990/92–2000/02 and 2000/02–2006/08 (percentage)

Source: FAO, Food security data.Note: Given that data statistics regarding North Africa and Oceania were not significant in statistical terms and presented a large

number of gaps, these country groupings could not be presented in this figure.

The number of undernourished people increased in net food-importing developing countries, LDCs and sub-Saharan Africa between the beginning of the 1990s and 2006/08, while it fell sharply in Latin America.

Figure 28. Malnutrition prevalence in children under 5, weight for age

Source: World Bank, Databank.Notes: Size of bubbles: share of malnourished population aged 0–4 to the respective group population. These computations are based on latest available data for each country; this information must be considered as a proxy, as

the last year available (census) may be different between countries of the same region. Malnutrition prevalence is the percentage of children under 5 whose weight for age is more than two standard deviations

below the median for the international reference population ages 0–59 months. The data are based on the new child growth standards released in 2006 by WHO.

10 8 8

-8 -10

3 1

-2

2

-9

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Net Food-Importing

DevelopingCountries

Least DevelopedCountries

Sub SaharanAfrica

Developing Asia Latin America

1990/92-2000/02 2000/02-2006/08

0

5

10

15

20

25

100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Shar

e of

pop

ulat

ion

aged

0-4

in to

tal

popu

latio

n

Size of population, aged 0–4 (in million)

Sub SaharanAfrica

NFIDC

LDCsNorth Africa

Latin America

Developing Asia

Developingcountries

Oceania


The group of children under 5 is the largest in developing Asia, especially due to the key role played by India. However, their share in the entire regional population is higher in sub-Saharan Africa. Net food-importing developing countries, LDCs and developing Asia are the regional groupings that display the highest share of children under 5 that are malnourished in com-parison with their respective group population. This is confirmed by the figure below.

Figure 29. Malnutrition prevalence of children under 5, underweight (percentage)

Source: World Bank, Databank.

Figure 30. Malnutrition prevalence of children under 5, by gender and region, as a share of total under 5 malnourished


Whatever the region or the economic grouping, malnutrition prevalence of children under 5 in developing countries is higher for males than for females.

2629

24

7

26

4

18

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

NFIDC LDCS Sub SaharanAfrica

North Africa DevelopingAsia

Latin America Oceania

48 47 47 46 42 48 45 39

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Developingcountries

NFIDC LDCS SubSaharanAfrica


LatinAmerica

Oceania

Malnutrition prevalence, female under 5 (as a share of total malnutrition prevalence)Malnutrition prevalence, male under 5 (as a share of total malnutrition prevalence)

47Food utilization

Figure 31. Cause of death as a share of total number of deaths, by communicable diseases and maternal, prenatal and nutrition conditions, 2008 (percentage)


In 2008, the share of the number of deaths by communicable diseases and maternal, prenatal and nutrition conditions was more than two times higher in LDC countries and sub-Saharan African countries than in other world regions.

Figure 32. Birth rate, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010 (1,000 people)

Source: World Bank, DatabankNotes: For some countries within country groupings, data were not available for 2010. As a consequence, we decided to consider

the last available year.

Whatever the region or the economic grouping, the birth rate in developing countries followed a downward trend between 1980s and 2000s.

37

56 60

19 24

18

26

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

NFIDC LDCs Sub SaharanAfrica


LatinAmerica

Oceania

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

NFIDC LDCs Sub SaharanAfrica


Latin America Oceania

1980s 1990s

2000s 2010


Figure 33. Low-birthweight babies as a share of births, last available year (percentage)

Source: World Bank, Databank.Note: Given the lack of coherence in years available from one country to another, we decided to propose the computation of a proxy

for country groupings based on the last available year for each country part of the grouping (after 2000).

The share of babies born with low weight was higher in LDCs and sub-Saharan Africa during the 2000s than in other developing regions or economic groupings in developing countries. As a reference, this share was 7–8 per cent in the United States, the European Union, Japan and Australia over the same period.

12

14 14

10

11

10 10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20NF

IDC

LDCs

Sub

Saha

ran

Afric

a

North

Afri

ca

Deve

lopi

ngAs

ia

Latin

Am

eric

a

Ocea

nia

U n i t e d n at i o n s C o n f e r e n C e o n t r a d e a n d d e v e l o p m e n t

N°4 - July 2012

Special issue on food securityCOMMODITIES AT A GLANCE

Pho

to c

redi

t: ©

Ele

na S

chw

eitz

er -

Fot

olia

.com

Printed at United Nations, Geneva – GE.13-50252 – March 2013 – 881 – UNCTAD/SUC/2012/3

Commodities at a glance - UNCTAD | Homeunctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/suc2012d3_en.pdf · ·...

Documents

Transcript of Commodities at a glance - UNCTAD | Homeunctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/suc2012d3_en.pdf · ·...