The G20 and Food Security: a Mismatch in Global Governance?
| Published date | 01 May 2013 |
| Author | Jennifer Clapp,Sophia Murphy |
| Date | 01 May 2013 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12039 |
The G20 and Food Security: a Mismatch in
Global Governance?
Jennifer Clapp
University of Waterloo
Sophia Murphy
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis
Abstract
When the G20 took up food security in 2010, many were optimistic that it could bring about positive change by
addressing structural problems in commodity markets that were contributing to high and volatile food prices and exac-
erbating hunger. Its members could tighten the regulation of agricultural commodity futures markets, support multilat-
eral trade rules that would better reflect both importer and exporter needs, end renewable fuel targets that diverted
land to biofuels production, and coordinate food reserves. In this article, we argue that although the G20 took on food
security as a focus area, it missed an important opportunity and has shown that it is not the most appropriate forum
for food security policy. Instead of tackling the structural economic dimensions of food security, the G20 chose to pro-
mote smoothing and coping measures within the current global economic framework. By shifting the focus away from
structural issues, the G20 has had a chilling effect on policy debates in other global food security forums, especially
the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS). In addition, the G20 excludes the voices of the least developed coun-
tries and civil society, and lacks the expertise and capacity to implement its recommendations.
Policy Implications
•The G20 has failed to tackle the structural economic dimensions of food insecurity and is therefore not the most
appropriate governance body for developing food security policy.
•Other forums, such as the UN Committee on World Food Security, have the mandate to coordinate global food
security policy and should be supported to fulfill that mandate.
•The G20 should limit its role in the food security arena to supporting organizations that are specifically focused on
food security, particularly where it is asked to undertake regulatory reforms in the areas of agricultural trade, biofu-
els and financial speculation.
When the G20 took up food security as a major cause in
2011, many were optimistic that it could bring about
positive change on this important policy issue. The G20
comprises the world’s 20 leading economies and includes
the world’s biggest agricultural producers and exporters.
This suggested to observers that it could provide a
unique forum in which to address the various economic
dimensions of the food crisis, which had sparked food
price volatility and increased the already significant dis-
parities among people dependent on international mar-
kets for their access to food. The G20 could shape
financial policy in the world’s major countries and better
regulate agricultural commodity speculation. It could
adopt trade policies that recognized the vulnerability of
poor net-food-importing countries, and support multilat-
eral trade rules that would stop trade-distorting subsidies
and renewable fuel targets, which have been associated
with the shift in certain crops from food to fuel uses. As
major agricultural exporters, the G20 could also consider
how to coordinate food held in exporting countries to
help smooth prices and lessen risks for low-income food-
deficit countries, which are especially vulnerable to high
and volatile grain prices.
Economic policy reforms along the lines outlined
above –reforms that aim to reshape the structural and
regulatory framework within which global food and agri-
culture markets operate –could make a substantial con-
tribution in addressing the distributional aspects of the
food crisis. Indeed, because world food production did
not drop dramatically in the period of turmoil on world
food markets that occurred after 2007, supply issues can-
not credibly be seen as an important driver of volatility
Global Policy (2013) 4:2 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12039 ©2013 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 4 . Issue 2 . May 2013 129
Research Article
To continue reading
Request your trial