Statement by Dr Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher on Ethiopiašs predicated food
crisis and his article on Ethiopiašs capacity to feed itself. 9/12/02

In June 2002, The Environment Protection Authority of Ethiopia (EPA)
described how Ethiopia was capable of feeding itself. In 2001 food
production was at a surplus, as had been the case for several summers
running. Now in the face of the pending famine that has been widely reported
in the media, this claim seems impossible to believe. However, he explains
below how two successive droughts this year have critically reduced crop
production in some areas. Poor infrastructure, inappropriate food aid policy
and biased international trade rules exacerbates the situation. The country
has the ability to feed all its population without a net import of
commodities at the moment. There is not reliable data on whether all the
countryšs needs could be satisfied until the next harvest.

Rainfall regimes are such that in el Ninio or la Ninia years one or another
part of the country is hit by draught. These cyclical patterns were normally
separated by five or six years. Recently the draughts have become more
frequent, most probably as a result of climate destabilisation caused by
global warming. In 2002 these weather occurrences were back to back. This
freak occurrence will lead to crop shortfalls that could lead to 14 million
people being without adequate food supplies. This figure is spread over the
next year and will peak just before harvest during the months of August to
October 2003.

There is food in the country from the previous bumper harvests. However,
there are various reasons why this will not get to the hungry. Those people
who lost their harvest in 2002 have no economic means to buy from the market
until the next harvest (October 2003). Poor infrastructure means that it is
extremely costly and difficult to store or move foods from areas of surplus
to those of need. The government lacks the necessary funds to pay for this
internal redistribution.

The OECD, EU and international aid agencies all recommend that aid should be
given in cash, allowing food to be purchased locally. This would support and
stimulate local markets and therefore production. The US has a policy of
donating ŗaid˛ purchased off its own farmers. This reduces prices in
recipient nations and further harms their farmers. The US now threatens to
donate GE maize, which will not only disrupt local agricultural systems but
could have unpredictable effects on both the environment and human health.

Solutions to prevent the situation recurring
1. Improve infrastructure to provide effective storage and transport of food
products. This means investment in roads and silos. Food and seed storage
should be decentralised and locally managed.
2. Diversification of farmeršs income. By exploiting alternative ways of
raising money farmers can have the means to buy food at times of draught
from the areas of the country that have a surplus. Total economic dependence
on farming leaves farmers vulnerable to effects of cyclical weather systems.
3. Improved financial resources of the government allowing them to allocate
resources effectively to move food at times of famine.
4. If food is needed, provide cash to stimulate production and the market
(in areas of surplus). This will boost the local economy.