“Malnutrition costs Pakistan three percent ($7.6 billion) in GDP”, SBP quotes UN-FAO, in its quarterly report on the State of the Economy, published this week. That the central bank has devoted a special section to food security is a laudable development, especially at a time of austerity and cutbacks in fiscal footprint, underscoring the importance food security may play in sustainable economic development.
The crux of the report revolves around how Pakistan faces a “serious level of hunger”, ranking 106th out of 119 countries in Global Hunger Index. While not explicitly highlighted, Pakistan’s most critical food security indicator appears to be prevalence of anaemia in over 52 percent of women (aged 15+), coupled with 45 percent children under 5 years of age who are stunted. That, in effect, is over 40 percent of country’s population, suffering from undernourishment of one kind or another.
The report then goes on to layout the causes and fallout of food insecurity: from quarter of total population living under the poverty line, leading to three-fifths of households spending half of their incomes on food related expenditure. The section lays special emphasis on fiscal implications of food insecurity, from increasing need for transfer payments to growing segment of society, to the balance of payment costs of steady rise in food related import bill that now stands at over 10 percent of total imports.
Here on, the report steps into the realm of analysis and correctly concludes that since conversion of additional acres to cultivated area may no longer be an option (read ‘Explaining Falling Farming Growth’, and ‘Agri-Plotistan’; published in this section on July 15, 2019; and April 24, 2019 respectively); the country needs to look towards creative ways of meeting its food security challenge.
The solution, in SBP’s books, appears to be taken urgent measures to arrest population growth, which is expected to double within quarter-century at current growth rate of 2.4 percent. There is certainly no doubt that Pakistan’s social infrastructure – from education, to health and nutrition, is ill-equipped to handle the steady rise in population. But without more equitable distribution of resources, even the most substantive state-led interventions to control population will only go so far as limiting the relative percentage growth of the malnourished, without uplifting the living standards of the absolute scores who shall continue to subsist below poverty line.
Yes, population control may be need of the hour; as is ensuring reproductive rights of women, majority of whom still struggle with basic health due to insufficient food availability going by indicators in the same report. And yet, that is as much a function of society’s perverse behaviours rooted in misplaced cultural values, as it may be of food insecurity. Is the authors’ solution to reduce ‘high percentage of anaemic women’ being produced fewer girls?
While the diagnosis and solution of gender discrimination in Pakistan is a debate best left to social scientists, the report seems to miss the plot on addressing food security. First, it mostly rules out yield improvement of basic farm commodities given water shortages and changing climate basing its case on sugarcane and wheat. Second, while it alludes to ‘limited attention’ paid to productivity of minor crops, vegetables, fruits and livestock; it whole scale ignores their prospective role in addressing nutritional security with few basic but concerted interventions.
Let’s take the two problems apart piecemeal. Not only is report’s identification and use of sugarcane as a proxy of major food crops entirely off the mark, substantive improvements can be had in bridging yield gap for other major food crops such as rice, maize, and even wheat. Despite weather predictability being a major factor, Pakistan’s farming challenge is not of water shortage, but of inequity in its distribution and inefficient application.
By introducing such basic agronomic practices as drip irrigation; System of Rice Intensification; high yielding seed varieties; promoting investment in farming practices by ensuring small growers’ financial security through correcting distortion in produce markets; Pakistan can see major leaps in yields through an increase in efficient application of high quality farming inputs.
While cereal crops such as rice, wheat and maize provide much needed carbohydrates, the other half of ensuring nutritional security is practically synonymous with increasing consumption of macronutrients such as protein and essential fats, and micronutrients such as calcium and vitamins.
This is where minor crops such as pulses, vegetables, and fruits come in; the solution to which also lies in bridging yield gap of major crops so that crucial farming acres may be freed for cultivation of pulses and fruits. Not only do they offer better per acre returns, their greater cultivation will also help correct the imbalance in food imports.
The second and much more significant source of protein and micronutrients is the livestock sector through meet and dairy products. While the report correctly points out that the sector has suffered from government’s indifference, it fails to question how could large sections of both rural and urban population be ‘meat & dairy-insecure’ when the sector has enjoyed steady growth over two decades. Based on official numbers, Pakistan’s milk production places it anywhere among top three world producers, with per capita consumption at 222 litres – again, among the top 30 countries in the world.
The fact of the matter is, while both SBP and PBS have failed to question official livestock estimates, Pakistan is facing a stunting and wasting crisis because the livestock growth trend is anything but accurate. The growth relies on statistical trickery (read “Falling Livestock GDP’, published on June 17, 2019); allowing policymakers to ignore the crucial missing link in nutritional deficiency of several vitamins and minerals.
There are always two ways to meet demand-supply gap: increase output or restrict demand. SBP’s way-of-doing-business may appear to work for monetary and fiscal indicators; but when it comes to food security, restricting demand is certainly no way of doing business.
Comments
Comments are closed.