Latin America and the Caribbean Maximo Torero L


atin America and the Caribbean (LAC) are home to one third of the world’s fresh water, the most of any


developing region when measured on a per capita basis, and to more than one quarter of the world’s medium- to high-potential farmland.1 Litle won- der that the LAC region as a whole is the largest net food-exporting region in the world. As shown in Fig- ure 1, the region’s total share of exports has increased more than 7.5 times since 1991, while imports mea- sured in calories have increased by 3.5 times in the same period. In 2013 and 2014, these trends were reflected in the roles that Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay played in increasing the world’s supply of wheat, corn, and soybeans. Given the important role LAC plays in global


food production, this essay explores developments in the region’s food policy in 2014 and then suggests policy directions for 2015 and beyond.


MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS IN 2014


In recent years, several countries in the LAC region—and notably Brazil’s Fome Zero2 and Brasil sem Miséria3 programs in particular—have excelled in the implementation of policies to reduce food insecurity and malnutrition. Tis has led to several South–South learning initiatives, such as the World Food Programme’s Purchase for Progress program or the Zero Hunger Challenge, launched by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, which led to the second International Conference on Nutrition. Te conference took place in November 2014 and put nutrition and sustainable food systems at the fore- front of the international development agenda.4 Despite the aforementioned successes, and as


shown in Figure 2, agricultural productivity is still behind in the region.5 Tree major shocks in 2013


and 2014 served to illustrate just how vulnerable Central America still is within the LAC region:6 a coffee rust epidemic, a significant drought, and the child migration crisis. Te third shock, in part a product of the first two, was also a consequence of significant deficiencies faced by El Salvador, Guate- mala, and Honduras, which include a lack of access to infrastructure, health services, and security as well as severe malnutrition and stunting.


Extreme Vulnerability within the LAC Region Coffee rust was not the first serious epidemic ever to hit the region, as previously severe cases were observed in Costa Rica (1989/1990), El Salvador (2002/2003), and Nicaragua (1995/1996). It was, however, the first to strike hard and wide in several agricultural-producing countries simultaneously. Some climatic factors could explain this unusual behavior, especially higher temperatures or increases in rainfall.7 Te resurgence of the disease was also associated with a 30 percent reduction in coffee prices during 2012,8 and when prices could not cover production costs, producers stopped investing in preventive or palliative treatments. On average, 80.4 percent of the coffee planta-


tions in the region are susceptible to rust varieties, which have caused large losses in coffee produc- tion. As reported by PROMECAFE,9 estimated harvest losses for Central America for 2012/2013 were approximately 20 percent—the equivalent of 2.8 million bags of coffee lost to the disease. Te most affected countries were El Salvador, Guate- mala, and Honduras, having faced production cuts of 15–31 percent during the 2012/2013 harvest. Tis epidemic heavily defoliated and destroyed enough branches that nearly 30 percent of the area that produces Central American coffee had to undergo severe pruning or be put directly in renewal,


Maximo Torero is director, Markets, Trade, and Institutions Division, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. 91


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139