Helping Asia achieve food security

Increases in import restrictions reduce real GDP, but an increase in ag productivity would raise it

THERE is a famous saying attributed to the nineteenth century French economist Frederic Bastiat, “When goods don't cross borders, armies will.” What it means is that the best way to avoid conflict is through trade. Trade leads to prosperity and, as war is profoundly disruptive of trade, nations are rarely keen to harm their own interests.

A good illustration of the truth of this is Japan’s invasion of south-east Asia in 1941, which was largely prompted by a shortage of oil due to an embargo imposed in response to its invasion of China and Indo-China. While the embargo may have been justified on other grounds, it meant there was no trade to be harmed.

The saying came to mind in the context of a recent report from the Economic Intelligence Unit of the Economist, entitled Feeding Asia Pacific: Australia’s role in regional food security, sponsored by Du Pont. It makes the point that Asian countries seeking food security will not pursue self-sufficiency as their first choice. Food security through trade is what they prefer. But if that proves difficult, they will attempt to achieve it through self-sufficiency. And even if they fail, trade will be substantially reduced by their efforts.

A good illustration of this in practice can be seen in Indonesia’s response to Australia’s ban on the export of live cattle by the previous government. Up until the ban, Indonesia had regarded Australia as a close, reliable supplier of beef and therefore integral to its food security. The ban undermined that confidence and prompted the Indonesian government to limit imports and support local producers in an effort to achieve self-sufficiency. These efforts continued even after our government had allowed exports to recommence.

Indonesia has a population of 250 million people, overwhelmingly Muslim. On simple fundamentals, it is very much in our national interest to trade with it. Not only does it contribute to prosperity in both countries, but goods need to cross borders.

But this is also true of China, India and a host of other countries in our region, most of which are either not currently self-sufficient in food or are facing a loss of self-sufficiency. They are therefore considering how to guarantee their people have enough to eat, asking themselves whether they need to produce it ourselves or rely on countries, like Australia, that have a surplus.

The report suggests that food self-sufficiency is forecast to fall considerably by 2030 in China (from 97 per cent to 87pc) and South Asia (from 100pc to 95pc). Contributing to that, real per capita food consumption is forecast to increase by 79pc between 2007 and 2030 for developing countries as a group, and to more than double in China and South Asia.

Thus the priority for Australia must be to ensure we are seen as such a reliable supplier of food that there is no need for their governments to engage in protection of domestic producers and subsidies to stimulate local output.

Signs to date are not encouraging. Nominal rates of government assistance to farmers via trade barriers and input subsidies in China, India and Indonesia have risen from around zero in the later 1990s to more than the average for high-income countries currently, the report notes.

Such measures cause various problems. Apart from their price-distorting impact, they reduce national income and hence the capacity to import food.

A far more positive outcome would be seen if these countries invested the same funds in research and development aimed at lifting agricultural productivity. With the exception of Thailand and Malaysia, all of them are investing at well below international standards.

Increases in productivity offer the opportunity to not only increase agricultural self-sufficiency, but to also raise overall levels of both farm production and national economic welfare. That is, increases in import restrictions reduce real GDP, but an increase in agricultural productivity would raise it.

Australia’s capacity to respond to growing demand in Asia is considerable, but there is no guarantee we will benefit even if Asian countries opt for trade. In addition to droughts and floods, we are subject to variables such as a currency driven by other sectors of the economy (especially minerals) and the diversion of food into biofuels.

We are also subject to a declining rate of growth in agricultural productivity, which some attribute to a lack of R&D of our own. Consistent with that, for various reasons our agriculture sector has been slow to embrace productivity-enhancing technology, preferring to focus more on issues affecting “sustainability”.

Governments can be of assistance, the report argues, by helping gain access to export markets, if necessary by opening our markets to foreign manufactures, by encouraging foreign investment in Australian farms and agribusinesses so food-importing countries feel it is unnecessary to pursue food self-sufficiency policies, by encouraging infrastructure investment (eg storage and transport) to lower trade costs along the food-value chain, and of course by encouraging more investment in agricultural and food processing R&D.

The opportunity to contribute to a peaceful future based by trade, at the same time boosting prosperity for ourselves and our neighbours, should not be underestimated. Let’s hope we don’t miss it.

David Leyonhjelm

David Leyonhjelm

has worked in agribusiness for 30 years and is a Senator for NSW representing the Liberal Democrats.
Date: Newest first | Oldest first


24/03/2014 5:55:29 AM

Well that was a refreshing article David. However don't try and convince me that GM will solve the problem--------it won't. Actually it will make it worse.
24/03/2014 6:35:49 AM

How do you think we'll increase productivity without it, Mug? Bet you've got no clue.
24/03/2014 7:45:30 AM

Dickytiger It is time for a wake up call. A study of world grain production will show that with not much more than the stroke of a pen that the Ukraine can INCREASE it's production buy Australia's TOTAL output. That is leaving out Canada / USA. In spite of what you are told , the world is awash with food-----------for those who have the means to pay. The idea of us deliberately polluting our food with GM is shear lunacy. We have a fantastic market at our back door that we must meet by lowering of costs / standards to meet our competitors. I am not a Greeny or Vegan !
24/03/2014 7:46:19 AM

David; I presume you are then against stopping trade like Joe Ludwig did? Seems like you may have something to add to government once you finally get to sit (if they do not call a double dissolusion first). We are probably very lucky that Indonesia did not come and take their own food requirements because an empty belly does not make for a contented population - something very few Australians have experienced.
tim from oakey
24/03/2014 7:48:22 AM

The same way productivity has increased many fold over the last 100 years without GM Dickytiger. Support our very clever local plant breeders.
24/03/2014 8:46:31 AM

What a good idea....lets stop pumping money into war in unrelated countries and subsidise Australian farmers with the saved money. I look across the country side and see so many once highly productive paddocks now grassed over and destocked. If the farm gate returns were above cost there would be plenty to share with neighbours and solve our employment problem at the same time. It seems that Australia is one of the few countries who haven't realised this inevitable truth in the need for a fair farmer support. Much better than being invaded and starving anyway.
24/03/2014 9:11:18 AM

Productivity increases without profit will only leave Australia with one option...Let foreigners with lower cost structure farm our land. Is this really in the national interest?
24/03/2014 12:24:39 PM

As most of our overseas markets don't want GM products don't you think it's time to stop flogging this dead horse. Instead of being a mouthpiece for this multinational disaster agenda why not promote the thousands of clever farmers out there who farm sustainably and continue to look to a safe future with guaranteed food security. The corporations only interested in their own profits and endangering the future of global agriculture are the ones you should not be promoting for all our sakes. With sustainable farming we can produce for ourselves and for export for generations to come. Be safe.
Farmer Joe
24/03/2014 12:46:25 PM

At last an article that grasps the fundamentals. It is interesting that the author notes the importance of ag to a peaceful future for agriculture. It is a shame that most of his other rants completely undermine this message to politicians. His libertarian views are generally short sighted and generally selfish.
Pete Mailler
24/03/2014 12:55:49 PM

It has been obvious for a long time that regional political stability will be dependent on Australia being perceived as a fully utilised, efficient and consistent agricultural supplier. It is a relief that someone else has woken up to this also. The question is, if ag is going to be so important as the global/regional food challenge bites, why does Govt and people like Leyonhjelm keep saying there is no justification to support agriculture? If what we do is going to be increasingly important to national security it is a good investment if taxpayer dollars to support ag productivity.
1 | 2  |  next >
Agribuzz with David LeyonhjelmCommentary, news and analysis with agribusiness consultant David Leyonhjelm. Email David at


light grey arrow
I'm one of the people who want marijuana to be legalized, some city have been approved it but
light grey arrow
#blueysmegacarshowandcruise2019 10 years on Daniels Ute will be apart of another massive cause.
light grey arrow
Australia's live animal trade is nothing but a blood stained industry that suits those who