In addition the promised funds slow to be released

Prices are oriented on the rise. Is there a risk of food crisis, as in 2008

Stocks of food, of course, replenished in 2008 and 2009. But the gap between the reality of these stocks and the evolution of prices on the markets is sometimes considerable. In this sense, we are now in the beginning of a food crisis similar to that of 2008. Eighty countries are about food deficit. A continued increase in the price can be very dangerous for these countries. This is why it should not repeat the mistakes made three years ago.

In 2008, we were quite transparent on stocks and the possibility to cover deficits with surpluses from other one. A reaction of panic swept the markets. It was because of the traders and Governments which have imposed restrictions on exports, which has accelerated the movement. In April 2008, the price per ton of rice had reached 600 dollars, against $ 150 at the beginning of the year. Major importers such as the Philippines could no longer buy rice markets, while major exporters such as the Thailand had suspended their exports. The problem was not lack of rice, but the fact that those stocks did not want past them. It is that should be avoided today.

Today as in 2008, there is no shortage. But when information on fires in Russia, a heat wave in Ukraine, too strong to the Canada or other rains, some market operators prefer not to sell immediately, while buyers are looking to buy as much as possible. If everyone does this, prices rise. This phenomenon must be added the increase in biofuel production. In the United States, the share of the production of corn for ethanol will be this year of 38.3 compared to 30.7 in 2008. In the current context, it is completely irresponsible to continue so! World cereals - all combined grain stocks - will be in 2011 of 427 million tonnes, against 489,8 in 2009. This loss of almost $ 63 million tonnes is due for more than two thirds in the United States and the European Union. This is that stocks are more restricted. And this is particularly due to the diversification of the production of cereals to agrofuels...

First, the countries of the Sahel. They are usually in food deficit situation, because they often produce for export and depends on including rice and wheat to feed. The increase in the price of agricultural raw materials also undermines poor countries like Mozambique, which have little currency reserves. The countries of Central Asia - the Afghanistan, the Mongolia - are also in a very fragile situation. Like the Korea North - where the situation is dramatic, but primarily for political reasons.

After the shock of the food crisis of 2008, many countries mobilized. Agriculture - which was hitherto rather neglected - is again a major concern. But the investments have not yet produced their effects. In addition, the promised funds slow to be released. On the $ 20 billion that had been promised in the L'Aquila G8 in April 2009, only 20 have been disbursed. It is very disappointing.

Only a handful of countries have indeed held this commitment to the Summit of the African Union in Maputo in 2003. But money is not everything. If a country invests 10 of its budget in agriculture, but for crops destined for export, the situation will remain very vulnerable to the volatility of prices. It therefore really give priority to food agriculture and meet local consumption needs. Unfortunately, number of investments since 2008 are farming large plantations to meet the needs of international markets and increase the revenues of developing countries. For small farmers, these investments represent a new threat or even a disaster: to be expropriated of their land. We must invest in agriculture, but it should be to support the small family agriculture, for example by supporting cooperatives, by improving the channels of communication, infrastructure, allowing the farmers to have access to better ways of storage, giving them better information on prices, etc.

The population doubles in each generation and the plots are more and more small. Private investors must be welcome because the States often do not have the means to invest enough, but these investments can translate into something other than the development of large agro-industrial plantations. Buyers of agricultural raw materials can, for example, support farmers by giving them technical assistance, facilitating access to credit, seeds, ensuring them opportunities for their production...

The problem is the speculation on derivatives markets. Initially, it allowed the producer to sell his crop in advance to ensure against a risk of price too low and the purchaser to buy in advance to ensure against a price risk too high. But, since 2005-2006 and the liberalisation of markets for derivatives in the US, investors have changed in nature. Investment funds, pension funds and other hedge funds, which have a considerable financial strike force, are not specialists in agricultural markets. It then developed a kind of economy casino with a purely speculative logic. Raw materials index funds that invest in agriculture do to height of 5 to 10 of their portfolio. They are also buying oil, ores, gold and agricultural raw materials without interest in the quality of the crop in Australia or Argentina. This bubble that derivative markets tend to form product of the harmful effects for the operators in the physical markets.

The first track is to encourage countries to replenish food stocks for smooth price. The management of such stocks is delicate, but the problem is not insurmountable. If the reserves are managed with peasant organizations, this will protect producers and consumers against very volatile prices. These stocks could be managed regionally with several countries to ensure each other against the risk of a sudden bad harvest. The idea emerged in Central America, but also in South Asia - where there is a Central Bank of the rice. The idea is to cut the grass under the foot of speculators, who, by nature, are fleeing the certainty. There is a second track that the United States begin to implement and which is to limit the number of positions in the term that an institutional investor can hold on a single raw. Clair, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank may hold, alone, a number of positions on corn or wheat, so that their purchasing orders do not, alone, influence the price of materials first upward as downward. The third track, is to impose greater transparency on the operations of over-the-counter derivatives markets, as means to do the European internal market Commissioner, Michel Barnier. Today, 92 of operations in the derivative markets are conducted in the most complete opacity.

The so-called decision of Marrakech that accompanied the creation of the world Organization of the WTO agreements provides that when the balance of payments of a State is in deficit due to a sharp increase in food prices, this State has temporary assistance. This action was never taken, as between 1995 and 2005, the prices of agricultural raw materials have continued their structural decline began in the early 1980s. But the situation has changed and this decision should be implemented.