Part II – Some limitations of the food security equation
Even though it is visible that within the food security ‘equation’ greater emphasis is put on the area of cereal trade, thereby going beyond merely its production and consumption dimensions, in its own right it is still a methodologically constrained equation and does not capture in full the rather multidimensional problem of food (in)security.
In my opinion this is because:
1) It does not consider fairly enough the role of non-cereal foods in balancing that equation whereby too big a focus is put on rice and coarse grains for enhancing people’s socio-economic well-being in general and food security in particular.
2) The understanding of ‘reducing hunger’ is too heavily based on the premise that more food must be produced to ensure that sufficient levels of worldwide consumption are met.
As a consequence, I think that our general understanding of the food security equation is rather limited and therefore a more holistic approach to food security is necessary, taking more into account 1) other non-cereal food items and 2) the many different ways in which these can impact the socio-economic and food security status of vulnerable populations, other than solely increasing their production for the sole purpose of their consumption.
What I am arguing for does not imply that WFP should now include smoked fish in its future food distributions, even though fish should be definitely taken more seriously into account at the policy level as an important source of protein rich food within the overall food security equation*. Nor am I trying to say that The Gambians should produce more fruits and vegetables to diversify their diet, even though the former seem to be abundant in this country and of the latter there indeed seems to be a greater need for local production.
What I actually mean is that even though we now try to include (cereal) traders/importers into The Gambia’s food security equation, our understanding of food security will still remain stubbornly skewed towards merely enhancing the food (particularly cereals) supply side. Once again, this was made plain on the highest level during the recent food security summit in Rome and the same approach is taken officially in The Gambia with a drive to intensify agricultural production.
However, in the case of The Gambia, is a ‘back to the land’ policy really the only major way to enhance food security in the country? What about the demand side, the farmers’ incomes and purchasing power? What about the philosophy behind Ricardo’s comparative advantage? What about trade of food other than cereals?
To be continued…