<<Print>>

Policy instruments such as subsidies to farmers and import duties and taxes on foodstuff have been part of a heated debate over many years. As far back as 2003 the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) noted that subsidies to farmers in the developed world have negative ramifications for agriculture in the developing world in a number of ways. According to the FAO enabling farmers and agro-companies to sell on the international market at prices far below production value leave growers in the developing world unable to compete. This also encourages excess supply which further lowers world agricultural prices that has the effect of reducing the money that poor farmers make, or pushing them out of the business entirely. FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf stated that "Farm subsidies in rich countries distort the global marketplace, making it in many cases almost impossible for farmers in developing countries to compete internationally." On the other hand the FAO noted that high duties continue to be placed on certain select products by wealthy nations in order to protect domestic producers. Such "tariff peaks" - sometimes running as high as 350 percent - are often concentrated in products that are of export interest to developing countries. These include major agricultural staple food products, such as sugar, cereals, fish, fruits and vegetables. Both the above policy decisions, high subsidies to farmers combined with high import duties and taxes, place producers in developing countries at a distinct disadvantage. Where the application of the above policies has mostly led to a debate on the impact that they have on the farmers or production side, there are many case studies where governments have used these policies to protect an assist its citizens. Import duties and levies is a policy tool that must be used in the best interest of both consumers and producers. When a country is 100% self sufficient high import duties of up to 70% as in India can easily be justified. This, however, does not hold for a country such as Ghana that is 70% dependent on imports. At a stage when the Indian government realised that local production was going to result in a shortfall it scrapped its 70% import duties in order to protect its consumers from inflated import prices of rice. Botswana�s viewpoint on food security is summed up by their food ministry as, �Government has since moved from promoting food self-sufficiency to driving access to food at affordable prices, irrespective of the source of such food.� Botswana has Africa�s most robust food security status after South Africa, the country from which it imports more than 80 percent of its food bill. Whereas Botswana is rated 47th on the Global Food Security Index, Ghana is rated in position 68. As part of this �food security� rather than �food self-sufficiency� focus the government of Botswana makes sure it protects its citizens from external price pressures, �For example, tariffs on cereals range from zero on products such as rye, barley, oats, maize and rice�� Concerns about Ghana�s food security policy started emerging when the government re-introduced a 20% import levy on rice and other basic foodstuffs in 2009 after the previous government abolished the levy amidst the 2007 � 2008 food crisis to support consumers. The re-introduction was motivated based on the grounds that the food crisis was over and because it was necessary to protect local production in Ghana�s quest to become self sufficient. Both these arguments were shown as unsubstantiated and indeed somewhat deceitful. In the same month that the import levies were re-introduced the World Bank warned the world that a new food crisis was emerging, an announcement that rubbished the budget speech statement that the food crisis was over.